Marlon Bascombe Coach of Lean.Strong.Fast Suspected of Cheating for BQ

Training Advice/Discussion

Report Thread

You are reporting this thread to the moderators for review and possible removal from the forum.
Optional
Reply
  • Mister T
    4 years ago 05/05/2016 4:34pm CDT
    re: wrecktangle
    Forum Index
    wrecktangle wrote:

    To the 'doubler' detractors. wrote:
    Yeah, he's doing something a few people think he shouldn't, so friggin what, they should get over it and move on otherwise they come across as the same as the person they're having a go at. Incidentally, there seem to be more in favor than against.
    .

    I think there is a real possibility the few people who don't like what he's doing are the cheaters or the cheaters friends. So many people have already pointed out the obvious - there is a reason people cheat at marathons and it's not to keep their time a secret. They want the public attention. Well, that cuts both ways. The real simple solution is to simply not cheat. If you do cheat, those that are forgotten quickly are the ones that apologize. So, apologize if you get caught.

    Personally - much like true crime - I find the marathon cheating stories interesting. I don't think it's public shaming at all, I think it's public interest. It's just so crazy the lengths people go to and crazy people are interesting.


    First of all it's very clear this is public shaming came in I think Derek would admit to that

    Secondly it to be us are going to say anyone who disagrees with derricks methods must be a cheater. It's like you idiots live in a binary world

    You could dislike the cheaters and dislike Derek's method. The two ideas aren't mutually exclusive.
    Of all my running friends that I know more people than not think Derek is questionable person. And these are people who would never cheat.

    I think some of the losers here love to celebrate other people's failures. There's a lot of good things and running but people like Derek and people cheer him on only highlight the negative. It's kind of sad
  • Cheating on elephants
    4 years ago 05/05/2016 4:39pm CDT
    re: Mister T
    Forum Index

    Meanwhile on Slowtwitch, Tom D is back.
  • Precious Roy
    registered
    4 years ago 05/05/2016 4:50pm CDT
    re: Kind of a Toity
    Forum Index

    I know a few former pros who run training/coaching programs. These are real pros who competed internationally, some are Olympians, but not medalists who could have gotten independently wealthy off endorsements. They gave their lives to the sport and worked very hard to establish their training programs so they could continue to be in the sport and help runners be their best. Rightfully so, they see it as a kick in the pants when some yahoo with no real running background puts up a website and holds themselves out as a running coach.

    I have no problem putting a self-proclaimed running coach through the wringer for having a suspicious BQ if that person is using the BQ accomplishment as part of their business. For the couch to marathon participant, a coach espousing a BQ has more credibility and may even sway them from joining a training group run by a former pro. I have seen this happen (minus the suspicious BQ). It is hard enough to stomach seeing very good self-promoters, but otherwise unimpressive runners take coaching/training business from pros just because they have shiny website and lots of pics on Instagram, but it is inexcusable to be doing that with a fake BQ (assuming the allegations are true).
  • I don't believe a word of this
    4 years ago 05/05/2016 4:54pm CDT
    re: Mister T
    Forum Index
    Mister T wrote:
    Of all my running friends that I know more people than not think Derek is questionable person.

    I don't believe you.

    Also, in English please. You posts read like the spam that comes on here overnight. Nothing wrong with English not being your main language, but use a better translator or something.
  • A running coach
    4 years ago 05/05/2016 4:58pm CDT
    re: Precious Roy
    Forum Index
    Precious Roy wrote:

    I know a few former pros who run training/coaching programs. These are real pros who competed internationally, some are Olympians, but not medalists who could have gotten independently wealthy off endorsements. They gave their lives to the sport and worked very hard to establish their training programs so they could continue to be in the sport and help runners be their best. Rightfully so, they see it as a kick in the pants when some yahoo with no real running background puts up a website and holds themselves out as a running coach.

    I have no problem putting a self-proclaimed running coach through the wringer for having a suspicious BQ if that person is using the BQ accomplishment as part of their business. For the couch to marathon participant, a coach espousing a BQ has more credibility and may even sway them from joining a training group run by a former pro. I have seen this happen (minus the suspicious BQ). It is hard enough to stomach seeing very good self-promoters, but otherwise unimpressive runners take coaching/training business from pros just because they have shiny website and lots of pics on Instagram, but it is inexcusable to be doing that with a fake BQ (assuming the allegations are true).


    Cheating BQ aside. If I have more training knowledge and am a better motivator, why should some schmoe who is a lesser coach, but ran in the Olympics be a thought of as a coach. Sorry, Being an Olympian does not make someone qualified to be a coach.
  • HobbyJ
    registered
    4 years ago 05/05/2016 4:58pm CDT
    re: Mister T
    Forum Index
    Mister T wrote:
    Of all my running friends that I know more people than not think Derek is questionable person. And these are people who would never cheat.

    Are they all lean, strong and fast?
  • doubler
    registered
    4 years ago 05/05/2016 5:00pm CDT
    re: Math major
    Forum Index
    Math major wrote:

    doubler wrote:

    Math major wrote:

    Peter bloke wrote:

    Derek,

    Your math is wrong


    Boston has 30,000 entries - The actual number is always more than 30,000 by a couple of hundred.

    You said 54 were deemed invalid for 2015 and you claim (without any documentation other than a hunch) that as many as 200 may have been ineligible to run.

    200/30000 = Less than 1%

    even the outside estimate of 400/30000 = Less than 1.5%

    So it is a small problem that you are trying to make seem worse. I suspect that your "number" of cheaters will go up as you attempt to validate your efforts.

    It's also conceivable that there are more people who get entries from other ways - not charity, not qualification - than who cheat.


    But he only names like 3-4 people that he thinks cheated on ghe blog. Who are the other 396 or even 196? Seems like he is making up numbers on pure speculation.


    Found 53 from 2015 with 100% certainty. I estimated the % of cheating in the rest of the field. This year, we will review groupings outside of the flagged runners to get a better estimate.


    Can you post the names of the 53 that you found cheating with 100% certainty? Thanks.


    No. But feel free to email the RW reporter. They researched the list to confirm the conclusion (through the first 47) that they cheated.
  • No Shortcuts
    registered
    4 years ago 05/05/2016 5:01pm CDT
    re: Mister T
    Forum Index
    Mister T wrote:
    First of all it's very clear this is public shaming came in I think Derek would admit to that

    Secondly it to be us are going to say anyone who disagrees with derricks methods must be a cheater. It's like you idiots live in a binary world

    You could dislike the cheaters and dislike Derek's method. The two ideas aren't mutually exclusive.
    Of all my running friends that I know more people than not think Derek is questionable person. And these are people who would never cheat.

    I think some of the losers here love to celebrate other people's failures. There's a lot of good things and running but people like Derek and people cheer him on only highlight the negative. It's kind of sad

    This isn't a "failure," in the same sense as shooting for a fast time and blowing up at the end of a marathon. This is a deliberate act, requiring forethought and deception. Well, I guess it is a failure... in personal character.

    One reaps what they sow.
  • long time listener
    4 years ago 05/05/2016 5:02pm CDT
    re: Mister T
    Forum Index

    I think most people agree with the idea of outing cheaters. However, it is the method this guy uses that is questionable.
  • dirkdoubler
    4 years ago 05/05/2016 5:04pm CDT
    re: wrecktangle
    Forum Index

    I'm completely fascinated with this story because it really takes you into a person's physique, see how far they will go to dupe others for their own personal interests. This story demands attention because he is more of a public/social media figure. Actually, i think this is the first case where someone has gone this far with financial compensation as a motivating factor. Litton and Rossi didn't have much to gain but ego and some pats on the back, Marlon could gain reputation, clients, students and sponsors if he could show he was talented enough to gain entry to the Boston Marathon.

    I think Derek is doing a great service for the running community. I don't understand the "who cares, so what" argument. At the end of the day Marlon stole an entry to the Boston Marathon, stole from another person. You cannot repay that experience back, an experience that would have come from a lot of effort and hard work, that would have meant something to someone. I hope one day their will be 0% cheaters in the Boston Marathon, that would be the ultimate goal. Everyone who earned the right to be there would be able to enjoy the experience together.

    To support Derek again, he did make an effort to contact Marlon before the blog. Marlon had an opportunity to come clean and possibly avoid any public scrutiny, he instead chose to continue the lie with falsified run data.
  • elephino
    registered
    4 years ago 05/05/2016 5:04pm CDT
    re: long time listener
    Forum Index
    long time listener wrote:

    I think most people agree with the idea of outing cheaters. However, it is the method this guy uses that is questionable.

    Propose a better method then.
  • Math major
    4 years ago 05/05/2016 5:09pm CDT
    re: Doubler
    Forum Index
    Doubler wrote:

    Math major wrote:

    doubler wrote:

    Math major wrote:

    Peter bloke wrote:

    Derek,

    Your math is wrong


    Boston has 30,000 entries - The actual number is always more than 30,000 by a couple of hundred.

    You said 54 were deemed invalid for 2015 and you claim (without any documentation other than a hunch) that as many as 200 may have been ineligible to run.

    200/30000 = Less than 1%

    even the outside estimate of 400/30000 = Less than 1.5%

    So it is a small problem that you are trying to make seem worse. I suspect that your "number" of cheaters will go up as you attempt to validate your efforts.

    It's also conceivable that there are more people who get entries from other ways - not charity, not qualification - than who cheat.


    But he only names like 3-4 people that he thinks cheated on ghe blog. Who are the other 396 or even 196? Seems like he is making up numbers on pure speculation.


    Found 53 from 2015 with 100% certainty. I estimated the % of cheating in the rest of the field. This year, we will review groupings outside of the flagged runners to get a better estimate.


    Can you post the names of the 53 that you found cheating with 100% certainty? Thanks.


    No. But feel free to email the RW reporter. They researched the list to confirm the conclusion (through the first 47) that they cheated.


    Why not?
  • long rime listener
    4 years ago 05/05/2016 5:13pm CDT
    re: elephino
    Forum Index
    elephino wrote:

    long time listener wrote:

    I think most people agree with the idea of outing cheaters. However, it is the method this guy uses that is questionable.

    Propose a better method then.


    Pay attention. Several have been given in this thread.
  • Smoove
    4 years ago 05/05/2016 5:17pm CDT
    re: Mr. T.
    Forum Index

    My impression was that he sent these folks emails before publishing. If that's not the case, he certainly loses the moral high ground.

    As I think it through though, it occurs to me that you really better have a squeaky clean record to do this kind of thing, especially for profit. You better not have cheated on your taxes, driven drunk, flirted with someone other than your spouse, etc. because if you have, you have no room to complain if someone finds out and publicly outs you.

    Personally, I've done enough dumb stuff not to invite karma to come bite me on the ass.
  • doubler
    registered
    4 years ago 05/05/2016 5:19pm CDT
    re: Math major
    Forum Index
    Math major wrote:

    Doubler wrote:

    Math major wrote:

    doubler wrote:

    Math major wrote:

    Peter bloke wrote:

    Derek,

    Your math is wrong


    Boston has 30,000 entries - The actual number is always more than 30,000 by a couple of hundred.

    You said 54 were deemed invalid for 2015 and you claim (without any documentation other than a hunch) that as many as 200 may have been ineligible to run.

    200/30000 = Less than 1%

    even the outside estimate of 400/30000 = Less than 1.5%

    So it is a small problem that you are trying to make seem worse. I suspect that your "number" of cheaters will go up as you attempt to validate your efforts.

    It's also conceivable that there are more people who get entries from other ways - not charity, not qualification - than who cheat.


    But he only names like 3-4 people that he thinks cheated on ghe blog. Who are the other 396 or even 196? Seems like he is making up numbers on pure speculation.


    Found 53 from 2015 with 100% certainty. I estimated the % of cheating in the rest of the field. This year, we will review groupings outside of the flagged runners to get a better estimate.


    Can you post the names of the 53 that you found cheating with 100% certainty? Thanks.


    No. But feel free to email the RW reporter. They researched the list to confirm the conclusion (through the first 47) that they cheated.


    Why not?


    Damned if I do, damned if I don't.

    You can confirm that the # is real, why do you need names of every bib swapper?
  • Not A Lawyer
    4 years ago 05/05/2016 5:19pm CDT
    re: Mr. T.
    Forum Index
    Mr. T. wrote:

    I don't think Derek is a legally sound as he seems to think. someone will find a creative way to use the courts. You can't use the internet to harass people under federal law.


    Derek's on pretty sound legal footing. There is precedent in Kimberlin v Walker that blogging about someone does not constitute harrassment.

    He also can't be found guilty for libel for stating an opinion based on disclosed facts.

    I'm not a lawyer, but I read a lot of Popehat.
  • NYC
    registered
    4 years ago 05/05/2016 5:22pm CDT
    re: somebloke
    Forum Index

    Agreed, keep up the good work, don't let idle threats stand in the way of calling out people who tarnish our sport. For those of you who think this is over the top, go find a sport where everyone is cool with cheating. I truly feel sorry for those who choose to turn a blind eye to this sort of behavior. Torture the cheater, not the messenger.
  • Math major
    4 years ago 05/05/2016 5:25pm CDT
    re: Doubler
    Forum Index
    Doubler wrote:

    Math major wrote:

    Doubler wrote:

    Math major wrote:

    doubler wrote:

    Math major wrote:

    Peter bloke wrote:

    Derek,

    Your math is wrong


    Boston has 30,000 entries - The actual number is always more than 30,000 by a couple of hundred.

    You said 54 were deemed invalid for 2015 and you claim (without any documentation other than a hunch) that as many as 200 may have been ineligible to run.

    200/30000 = Less than 1%

    even the outside estimate of 400/30000 = Less than 1.5%

    So it is a small problem that you are trying to make seem worse. I suspect that your "number" of cheaters will go up as you attempt to validate your efforts.

    It's also conceivable that there are more people who get entries from other ways - not charity, not qualification - than who cheat.


    But he only names like 3-4 people that he thinks cheated on ghe blog. Who are the other 396 or even 196? Seems like he is making up numbers on pure speculation.


    Found 53 from 2015 with 100% certainty. I estimated the % of cheating in the rest of the field. This year, we will review groupings outside of the flagged runners to get a better estimate.


    Can you post the names of the 53 that you found cheating with 100% certainty? Thanks.


    No. But feel free to email the RW reporter. They researched the list to confirm the conclusion (through the first 47) that they cheated.


    Why not?


    Damned if I do, damned if I don't.

    You can confirm that the # is real, why do you need names of every bib swapper?


    Why don't you just publish them? Are they not real? Are there really just three or four that you found and have put on your blog?
  • Uh oh
    4 years ago 05/05/2016 5:29pm CDT
    re: long rime listener
    Forum Index
    long rime listener wrote:

    elephino wrote:

    long time listener wrote:

    I think most people agree with the idea of outing cheaters. However, it is the method this guy uses that is questionable.

    Propose a better method then.


    Pay attention. Several have been given in this thread.


    No, not really. Sending a private email to the RD accomplishes next to nothing. Best case scenario, the RD issues a DQ to the runner and maybe bans them from that race in the future.
    The cheater may or may not even know they have been DQ'ed. They already ran Boston in most cases so that can't be taken away either.
    None of the cheater's friends or family is going to look back at the race results from last year so they will never know either. If they did, they'll just see a DQ (maybe) next to the person's name and the cheater will say, "Oh, my chip malfunctioned so they didn't count my time. But I did run that time and Boston accepted so it must be true."

    So why does anyone else need to know about the cheater being exposed? Because bragging about the race time, or the BQ, is pretty much the only reason that these people are cheating. These people aren't cheating to win any prize money, just for "likes" on FB or being able to get a "BQ" tattoo (I actually know someone who did this).
    Thus, the DQ after-the-fact that no one knows about does not serve as any kind of deterrent for the cheater.
    If people know that there is a good likelihood that there cheating will be exposed after the fact, many will not go through with it.

    So, I'm fine with the Blog posts. Weirdos who then harass the cheater on social media are going too far - Ken Stillman was obviously deranged on the whole Mike Rossi thing. Ken wasn't even a runner though, just some douche from Philly.
  • SmartRunnr
    registered
    4 years ago 05/05/2016 5:33pm CDT
    re: long time listener
    Forum Index
    long time listener wrote:

    However, it is the method this guy uses that is questionable.

    This guy Doubler is obviously a troll. At some point he even suspected Mike Rossi, although Mike didn't miss any mat whatsoever in his BQ mary, occurred in several photos including a selfie, and thankfully got cleared later. Even USATF couldn't find a reason to disqualify Mike.
Advertisement: