So I found a pair of bib-swappers, the aftermath has been interesting.

Once and Future wrote:

I really liked the blog, read through from the start after finding it from this post. Not sure what's wrong with the writing style either, seems fine to me. Maybe I just don't get trolling?

The blog was fine. But her target audience is the average Australian runner, who doesn't know who Mike Rossi or Rob Young are. Those parts were a bit boring, because the LRC user know more about these cheaters than Mike/Rob's mom does.

What we got is two guys who swapped bibs for no apparent reason

This must be the key to the whole mystery.

Just like with Watergate, people are too busy with WHAT happened, to consider WHY it took place. No one is going to convince me that the "plumbers" busted in to steal some campaign plan and bug the joint, doing so completely amateurishly. If that was the motive, there were pros for hire to do the job instead. No, it was something deeper (maybe JFK-related?) for which even "pros" couldn't be trusted not to squawk. But the W&B journo-"investigation" found a sufficiently convenient story and scapegoat, so they became "heroes".

The same is true here. There's just too many loose ends with these so-called "pair of bib-swappers" to close the case at this point.

rozzi wrote:

The blog was fine. But her target audience is the average Australian runner, who doesn't know who Mike Rossi or Rob Young are. Those parts were a bit boring, because the LRC user know more about these cheaters than Mike/Rob's mom does.

My sympathies to Aussie runners if they are being targeted as potential readers of the OP blog.

Net is wider than you think wrote:

Simple. The mega-scale Aussie marathon-cheating cartel is bleeding out two loons who got "caught" by the OP (or so she thinks), while protecting their principals and racket. Maybe Doyle and Munro were skimming off the top, and this was their "reward"...?

Hard to imagine the Australian marathon-mafia being that cruel to inflict the OP on them. Must have been really heinous what they did.

Another alternative wrote:

What we got is two guys who swapped bibs for no apparent reason

This must be the key to the whole mystery.

Just like with Watergate, people are too busy with WHAT happened, to consider WHY it took place. No one is going to convince me that the "plumbers" busted in to steal some campaign plan and bug the joint, doing so completely amateurishly. If that was the motive, there were pros for hire to do the job instead. No, it was something deeper (maybe JFK-related?) for which even "pros" couldn't be trusted not to squawk. But the W&B journo-"investigation" found a sufficiently convenient story and scapegoat, so they became "heroes".

The same is true here. There's just too many loose ends with these so-called "pair of bib-swappers" to close the case at this point.

I agree that the case needs to remain open. At least until Rob Young is cleared by Jaimie's report or marathoninvestigation finds anither celebrity course cutter.

But concurrently couldn't we also solve the "plumber" Watergate conspiracy theory?

Is the sky really that sky-lightblue in Australia? I mean in the outback, where there's no light pollution.

Runner blues wrote:

Look At Me I Have A Blog wrote:

This first paragraph and pictures on the first screen drained any possible energy I might have used to read further.

Not to mention the sky-lightblue background colour is drabbing.

Two questions. The original pic seems to come from the OP's mates ("Prue and the Wagga cheer squad"), who previously snapped her when running near "Troy" (purportedly a fellow Wagga runner). So it's not a professional job. But WHY did they choose THAT moment to snap it? Is it "coincidence" it was just when half of the so-called pair of bib-swappers was around?

Secondly, in the last pic from the race part of that blogpost, why is the guy (#50) wearing a bib that says "MONA"?

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-UTg7vyjP_9o/V3zyBu140HI/AAAAAAAAEUE/TdRwQa6EiAsB-8pCghBvu6rYFBNyFIcTACLcB/s640/IMG_6580.jpg

(Caption: Running Legends, photo by Dave Robertson, some guy named "Steve Moneghetti" referred above in the text.)

OK, so he's some sort of famous Aussie marathoner (4-time Olympian), and his nickname is indeed "MONA", but doesn't that defeat the purpose of having REAL names on bibs? Maybe the so-called bib-swappers just happen to have NICKNAMES that match each others!!

Did money change hands? wrote:

Secondly, in the last pic from the race part of that blogpost, why is the guy (#50) wearing a bib that says "MONA"?

Brilliant! Someone was actually able to read some more of the OP's blog, and instantly hit gold mine!

Well, this year at Gold Coast everybody had their name printed on their bib. If you zoom in close to 6020 (John)'s bib, it says "Richard"! right above the number. So, not a simple mix-up. These dudes did this on purpose.

Now we know that this whole "first names on bibs" theory of the OP is totally shot in the water. What would spectators think with a guy labelled 'MONA' running by? I wonder what will be the next domino to tumble. The pieces of this complex jig-saw are falling into place.

Now we know that this whole "first names on bibs" theory of the OP is totally shot in the water. What would spectators think with a guy labelled 'MONA' running by? I wonder what will be the next domino to tumble. The pieces of this complex jig-saw are falling into place.

Maybe Moneghetti swapped bibs with Mona Johannesson? "Mona" runs a BQ and "Steve" runs a PW.

So, John is the better runner? And he ran with Richards number? This made it appear as though Richard ran about 30 minutes faster than he actually did. Nobody won anything? And Richard has no plans to run Boston using that time. It was just a gag.

Why is anyone talking about this? Why did it take an endless rambling blog to tell a 6 sentence meaningless story? I like a good cheat story, this was terrible.

Marathon "cheat" investigators please find something actually interesting. Also, please be brief and coherent.

Maybe Moneghetti swapped bibs with Mona Johannesson? "Mona" runs a BQ and "Steve" runs a PW.

In theory, the swap could have been with ANYONE named Mona. Or alternatively with anyone who Mona had swapped with prior to the Steve swap. The possibilities quickly become exponential, particularly if nicknames are allowed.

Mona was a more popular newborn name back in the 50s/60s, so it could be an age-category too.

A million MONAs? wrote:

Maybe Moneghetti swapped bibs with Mona Johannesson? "Mona" runs a BQ and "Steve" runs a PW.

In theory, the swap could have been with ANYONE named Mona. Or alternatively with anyone who Mona had swapped with prior to the Steve swap. The possibilities quickly become exponential, particularly if nicknames are allowed.

Mona was a more popular newborn name back in the 50s/60s, so it could be an age-category too.

Next marathon I do I'm going to have my bib say 'Mona'. I like that. My real name is in the registration, but I usually have my bib say 'Dude' or something.

AFAICT nobody really knows. John might be nicknamed Richard, and run under that name, with his own bib (and number). So while appearing that Richard ran faster than he did, maybe in fact he ran as fast as did under his nickname of John. The OP didn't cover this, as she was too busy talking about the virality of Facebook (which later came to the rescue), giving her readers tips on pacing ("a delicate art"), talking about Rossi, then BQ ladies (who are more admirable than some chick known as "Marathon Barbie" it seems---and one of whom has written a book), how some 30-ish guy named Judy Bell won the Female 55-59 division (before "understandably" being DQd), what the possible John/Rich motives were (at least in her mind), how "bib mules" work, ... before we get to the big punchline...

But in fact, they did (it seems). Similarly, maybe it will turn out that the OP "did not intend" to write a novella blogpost with Seinfeld-level nothingness at the end of the day, but in fact, she did.

There's also an entitlement of hers that "getting yourself disqualified" is an "art" (which doesn't quite make it "actually interesting" to me), and perhaps that Facebook is initially involved in this. The incident is also referred to as "funny" (OP blogpost, first sentence, second word). It's hard to know how impartial she really is. OK, maybe this synopsis is running a bit long and incoherent, but (trust me) it's much superior than the original.

Similarly, maybe it will turn out that the OP "did not intend" to write a novella blogpost with Seinfeld-level nothingness at the end of the day, but in fact, she did.

+1

OK, maybe this synopsis is running a bit long and incoherent, but (trust me) it's much superior than the original.

Superior to me, but I was able to make sense of the OP's blog post.

Reading as a torture device wrote:

In conclusion

It turns out that John and Richard did not intend to cheat.

What?? So what's the whole point of this LRC thread then? Just to say that she was threatened in the aftermath (termed "interesting" therein)?

I don't much like being threatened, so I have made it my mission to make sure the blog post gets as much exposure as possible.

Hell hath no fury as a somnolence-inducing blogposter threatened by someone who did not intend to cheat.

That guy was great his whole life. I'd pay money to get a photo with him.

That guy was great his whole life. I'd [Bpay money to get a photo with him.

So OP's blog has a photo with him, while she claims

OP: I make no money from the blog so this is not self-promotion

Maybe a photography angle? Atfer all, it was a photo that nabbed the alleged bib-swapping pair in the first place.

That guy was great his whole life. I'd pay money to get a photo with him.

OP: I make no money from the blog so this is not self-promotion