Potentially Suspicious Runner To Run 836 Miles in 9 Days for "Charity"

TomTom is shit wrote:

He's got a cadence of 178 spm in the TomTom data.

That's considered close to optimum for an athlete running long distance at their best. I'm a 3:15 marathon guy and run consistent splits at a similar average cadence. I run 5k around 19 minutes with a cadence of 190 ish. When I run recovery pace (9+/mile) I can log as low as 165 spm.

So, a slower runner who fades significantly after the half way point of a marathon is achieving optimum average cadence over the whole distance. Does that sound right? I really don't know but I certainly wouldn't manage that so would be interested to hear how other non-cheats compare.

When running and racing my normal cadence is around 188 for slower runs up to 198 for races. At the weekend I ran a local 10k with my wife who has just come back from a foot operation. We went real slow and steady, around 09:49/mi av. and I averaged a cadence of 174 so based on that I would say the cadence *could* be accurate.

Truthisoutthere wrote:

I feel it's time we drew a line in the sand on this whole debacle .... so we can all move on to a happier place.

Yes, it's time to drop this and take a long hard look at the performance of the world class multi-day runner Amy Hughes.

YorkieCoach wrote:

Time has come again wrote:

Really glad you harassed the London marathon for not disqualifying him when it ended up being legitimate.

Who harassed London Marathon? Can you provide evidence of harassment? From what I've seen London Marathon have only been asked to reanalyse the data and publish their findings. To date, as far as I am aware, they have never stated their investigation was over however, subject to the release of the TomTom data I am sure they'll soon conclude their investigation.

Andy badgered them frequently from some emails I saw him post.

Robert Young II wrote:

Truthisoutthere wrote:

I feel it's time we drew a line in the sand on this whole debacle .... so we can all move on to a happier place.

Yes, it's time to drop this and take a long hard look at the performance of the world class multi-day runner Amy Hughes.

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&thread=8338355&id=8342175#8342175

She's not the WR holder I beat it last week...I ran 865 miles in seven days on my treadmill at home. If you don't believe me just ask my girlfriend, she'll verify I did it...

Andy badgered them frequently from some emails I saw him post.

Not sure that actually constitutes harassment.

"Harassment - (either harris-meant or huh-rass-meant) n. the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands. The purposes may vary, including racial prejudice, personal malice, an attempt to force someone to quit a job or grant sexual favors, apply illegal pressure to collect a bill, or merely gain sadistic pleasure from making someone fearful or anxious. Such activities may be the basis for a lawsuit if due to discrimination based on race or sex, a violation on the statutory limitations on collection agencies, involve revenge by an ex-spouse, or be shown to be a form of blackmail ("I'll stop bothering you, if you'll go to bed with me"). The victim may file a petition for a "stay away" (restraining) order, intended to prevent contact by the offensive party. A systematic pattern of harassment by an employee against another worker may subject the employer to a lawsuit for failure to protect the worker.

Time has come again wrote:

Really glad you harassed the London marathon for not disqualifying him when it ended up being legitimate.

"Legitimate"? How many stories with the chip is it now?

Seemed to me to be pretty repeated, unwanted, and annoying. And that's just as a passing observer, can only imagine how annoying they found it.

Time has come again wrote:

YorkieCoach wrote:

Who harassed London Marathon? Can you provide evidence of harassment? From what I've seen London Marathon have only been asked to reanalyse the data and publish their findings. To date, as far as I am aware, they have never stated their investigation was over however, subject to the release of the TomTom data I am sure they'll soon conclude their investigation.

Andy badgered them frequently from some emails I saw him post.

I think there is a bit more to the London Marathon story than we have seen. With Dave & Terrie Reading being so adamant about Dave's sub 3:30 marathon everywhere and wearing no-timing chip at all, it is only logical to think that they did initially claim a sub 3:30 time. Which is still cheating. I wonder if Hugh at London Marathon has the initial time claim from Dave Reading. That would shed light on this attempted cheating.

And no, I don't believe I harassed London Marathon. With Dave not wearing a timing chip despite his lie to have done so, he is still guilty of attempted cheating. London Marathon claimed to have checked everything and I gave Scott Overall many, many chances to provide an explanation but never did so, choosing only to be evasive until I raised the issue to Hugh. Even now they have not revealed what time was initially claimed by Dave Reading. With that total lack of communication, it is seriously wrong.

So you'll continue to harass them despite the gps findings. Got it. Totally reasonable.

That's good info, thanks. I must have longer legs than you. Or maybe you're a less shit runner than me (irrespective of pace, shitness should be measured in form and economy).I still wonder if it is possible for a more shit runner than me to maintain that sort of cadence through a difficult marathon fade, which this clearly was given the pace he set out at.Nice running, Dave, if it's legit.

I think the shoes worn at London were Hoka Cliftons. If they are, then they do have a loop at the heel. So they may be telling the truth about the chip.

They could have stated this before but I guess they just enjoy being awkward.

what an amazing article from doubler.

from it i learned that Dave and Terrie like to lie...a lot.

i also learned that they like to obscure information in order to enable their lying.

what a revelation.

without Dereks in-depth analysis i would have been none the wiser.

Raddison wrote:

They could have stated this before but I guess they just enjoy being awkward.

I think it's called obfuscation with the intention of muddying the waters and detracting from the more obvious lying, scamming and cheating, politicians use it a lot when they don't want you to know the truth about something.

I miss Terrie's old abusive troll/hater persona:

Time has come again wrote:

So you'll continue to harass them despite the gps findings. Got it. Totally reasonable.

Truthful people tell the truth at the earliest opportunity, the only shot we don't have of the shoes in London is from the rear so he becomes the only runner to ever attach the chip to the rear of the shoes. Do you find this remotely believable?

Bournemouth Marathon DQ, what is the innocent reason here?

TomTom is shit wrote wrote:

That's good info, thanks. I must have longer legs than you. Or maybe you're a less shit runner than me (irrespective of pace, shitness should be measured in form and economy).

I still wonder if it is possible for a more shit runner than me to maintain that sort of cadence through a difficult marathon fade, which this clearly was given the pace he set out at.

Nice running, Dave, if it's legit.

YorkieCoach wrote:

When running and racing my normal cadence is around 188 for slower runs up to 198 for races. At the weekend I ran a local 10k with my wife who has just come back from a foot operation. We went real slow and steady, around 09:49/mi av. and I averaged a cadence of 174 so based on that I would say the cadence *could* be accurate.

Dave Reading vindicated. May be he could have run 836 miles in 9 days after all.

Dave Reading vindicated. May be he could have run 836 miles in 9 days after all.

I wouldn't call this a vindication...sure we *finally* have some evidence that he ran the 2016 London Marathon more than an hour slower than his original claim of 3.12.

The article also shows that the Reading's are in the habit of making unfounded claims of Dave's "athletic ability" and that there are several dubious race results surrounding previous results (Norwich Half, Bournemouth Marathon etc.).

I am glad that they finally published their TomTom data from London, it's just a shame that it took them so long to do so. The Readings could of easily put an end to 2016 London Marathon debacle by simply sharing the data publicly (as they have done now). Some might say they shouldn't have to however, when you look at the past results and, the social media profile they were attempting to create for themselves, it would make sense to be as transparent as possible.

TomTom is shit wrote wrote:

That's good info, thanks. I must have longer legs than you. Or maybe you're a less shit runner than me (irrespective of pace, shitness should be measured in form and economy).

I still wonder if it is possible for a more shit runner than me to maintain that sort of cadence through a difficult marathon fade, which this clearly was given the pace he set out at.

Please note, that was my cadence...my wife is a little less efficient than me and has a much lower cadence than me. All I was demonstrating is that it is possible to run slow with a high cadence, you just need to shorten your stride and maintain the leg turnover. From the online photos of Dave it is hard to say what his cadence is.

Rapo. wrote:

Dave Reading vindicated. May be he could have run 836 miles in 9 days after all.

Maybe my grandmother could . . . and she's been dead 20 years.