Oh sh**!! 6 people including Jonathan Gault have perfect scores in $20,018 Prediction Contest after day 1

Are you kidding me? Legitimate organizations (media and otherwise) often have explicit rules about employees participating in contests sponsored by the organization.

It open up the organization to charges of fraud, insider information and outright cheating.

But this is LR. I hope someone makes an FTC complaint

Hhgggghgh wrote:

Are you kidding me? Legitimate organizations (media and otherwise) often have explicit rules about employees participating in contests sponsored by the organization.

It open up the organization to charges of fraud, insider information and outright cheating.

But this is LR. I hope someone makes an FTC complaint

Ditto. Clean up your act BrosJo.

Yeah, this site would be so much more fun if LetsRun was a legitimate organization.

Hhgggghgh wrote:

Are you kidding me? Legitimate organizations (media and otherwise) often have explicit rules about employees participating in contests sponsored by the organization.

It open up the organization to charges of fraud, insider information and outright cheating.

But this is LR. I hope someone makes an FTC complaint

Can letsrun rig the USA champs? If so, I would be impressed.

Hhgggghgh wrote:

Are you kidding me? Legitimate organizations (media and otherwise) often have explicit rules about employees participating in contests sponsored by the organization.

It is not the first time a LRC "employee" has managed to win a contest.

When else has this happened?

vivalarepublica wrote:

Hhgggghgh wrote:

Are you kidding me? Legitimate organizations (media and otherwise) often have explicit rules about employees participating in contests sponsored by the organization.

It open up the organization to charges of fraud, insider information and outright cheating.

But this is LR. I hope someone makes an FTC complaint

Can letsrun rig the USA champs? If so, I would be impressed.

I think the implication is more that an employee might be able to manipulate picks after seeing the results.

I don't have a problem with this though. It's LR that would be paying up, so if they trust their employees enough, that's their call. Plus, I didn't bother to enter this time.

Ok.

No the implication is that Jon might have access to inside information and not share it

Say he knew a runner had an issue but promised a source not to disclose it prior to a race. Jon doesn’t want to burn a source. But he uses the info to not pick the runner in the contest.

That’s cheating. And unethical.

Most journalists I know try to upload certain standards. Unfortunately Jon has proven he has none.

Since the predictions are made in public and ahead of time, and employees have no advance knowledge of the results, there is no reason to exclude employees from the competition.

I was surprised when I saw the very low number of events - combined with the fact that many events also have small fields and an even smaller number of contenders, getting a perfect score was not completely unrealistic, and the chance that at least one participant might get lucky was actually reasonably high. On the other hand, as you'd have to be crazy to insure a competition with these odds, now we know that LRC actually intend to pay for these contests from their own pockets. I think that's pretty cool.

Ggghgghhhh wrote:

No the implication is that Jon might have access to inside information and not share it

Say he knew a runner had an issue but promised a source not to disclose it prior to a race. Jon doesn’t want to burn a source. But he uses the info to not pick the runner in the contest.

That’s cheating. And unethical.

Most journalists I know try to upload certain standards. Unfortunately Jon has proven he has none.

OK, there's that too. I'm not that bothered though. It's LR, and I know what standards they have.

Ggghgghhhh wrote:

Say he knew a runner had an issue but promised a source not to disclose it prior to a race. Jon doesn’t want to burn a source. But he uses the info to not pick the runner in the contest.

Common sense and some basic probability theory says that that's an extremely far-fetched scenario. Accusing Jon of "having no standards" because of it is, frankly, ridiculous.

We love playing our own contests and Jon has won one before.

We explicitly make it clear in the rules we can play. From the contest page:

"And yes, we can win our own contest. If we beat you, you’ll hear about it for sure. The $20,018 prize is the sole responsibility of LetsRun.com."

wejo wrote:

We love playing our own contests and Jon has won one before.

We explicitly make it clear in the rules we can play. From the contest page:

"And yes, we can win our own contest. If we beat you, you’ll hear about it for sure. The $20,018 prize is the sole responsibility of LetsRun.com."

We all know you have little integrity when it comes to these things. I think it’s worthy of a complaint. I hope you keep all records.

Can Running Warehouse employeess play?

Querfeldein wrote:

Since the predictions are made in public and ahead of time, and employees have no advance knowledge of the results, there is no reason to exclude employees from the competition.

I was surprised when I saw the very low number of events - combined with the fact that many events also have small fields and an even smaller number of contenders, getting a perfect score was not completely unrealistic, and the chance that at least one participant might get lucky was actually reasonably high. On the other hand, as you'd have to be crazy to insure a competition with these odds, now we know that LRC actually intend to pay for these contests from their own pockets. I think that's pretty cool.

They certainly have advanced access to information that could affect the outcome. It’s like insider trading.

How come 99.9% of the companies/organizations disallow their employees from participating in contests?

Querfeldein wrote:

Since the predictions are made in public and ahead of time, and employees have no advance knowledge of the results, there is no reason to exclude employees from the competition.

I was surprised when I saw the very low number of events - combined with the fact that many events also have small fields and an even smaller number of contenders, getting a perfect score was not completely unrealistic, and the chance that at least one participant might get lucky was actually reasonably high. On the other hand, as you'd have to be crazy to insure a competition with these odds, now we know that LRC actually intend to pay for these contests from their own pockets. I think that's pretty cool.

The better odds of this one are probably why the theoretically prize money is much smaller than usual. If I recall, they usually give out 6 figures or so.

Hhhgggh wrote:

wejo wrote:

We love playing our own contests and Jon has won one before.

We explicitly make it clear in the rules we can play. From the contest page:

"And yes, we can win our own contest. If we beat you, you’ll hear about it for sure. The $20,018 prize is the sole responsibility of LetsRun.com."

We all know you have little integrity when it comes to these things. I think it’s worthy of a complaint. I hope you keep all records.

Can Running Warehouse employeess play?

I bet you are a hit at parties.

spornay wrote:

Hhhgggh wrote:

We all know you have little integrity when it comes to these things. I think it’s worthy of a complaint. I hope you keep all records.

Can Running Warehouse employeess play?

I bet you are a hit at parties.

I looked it up. Same guy has posted under 4 different names in this thread.