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

Meanwhile on Slowtwitch, Tom D is back.

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).

---

Mister T wrote:
Of all my running friends that I know more people than not think Derek is questionable person.

---

---

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).

---

---

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.

---

---

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.

---

---

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

---

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

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.

---

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.

---

---

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.

---

---

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.

---

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.

---

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?

---

---

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.

---

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.

---

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?

---

---

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.

---

---

long time listener wrote:

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

---