You're not Scott Dominguez, I am Scott Dominguez wrote:
"I can guarantee you that these allegations that Dr. Meza would "cheat" on his times is FALSE!"
Umm... if this is the writing of an attorney, I will eat my Vaporflys. Law school grads in general have immaculate written English skills with impeccable grammar. It is an absolute requisite of their profession. This is more likely the writing of someone who studied pottery than studied law.
FOR ExpertKipWatcher wrote:
Enlighten me. I don't get it. I'm referring to the whole cutting the bottom of the bib, holding the timing chip on a lanyard, etc. I don't understand why he'd do it. Is it so that he can hand off the timing chip without anybody seeing a bib swap? If so, then there's an accomplice out there who knows that all fo this stuff was going on. Is that what you mean?
Is there a reasonable, innocent explanation for why someone would do this ? Most of the accomplice theories are based on "I don't see how he could blah blah blah" but this is the only reasonable explanation for separating the number from the timing chip.
Smart Runner wrote:
Any of those would and will do it. Calm down. Clearly he is capable of those times, judging by his athletic look and past.
My take is that this is a legit post by Scott. He must have been contacted by Wharton prior to the article being published and now he's posting expressing that he wishes more of his "character reference" of Frank had been included in the article. Obviously not the brightest attorney out there.
You would assume that the owners of Letsrun have been pressured too hence the well-advised nature of their keeping out of this, credit is due for them not shutting it down. People have been known to back up threads like this. . . .
Maybe. I messaged Wharton. I am not concerned in the least. I expect to write more about Frank. Lots of pressure being applied from all ends to try to shut down the stories and to suppress the evidence.
bored troller wrote:
EKW, you were posting on the comments, correct?
Not the LA Times, a lot of US media websites don't even let people from the EU even browse the site due to the hassle for them of having to comply with the latest data protection regs in EU countries so even though the LA Times doesn't block to that extent, I really can't see any comments or links to comments. I suppose if I was bothered I could pay for a VPN and set a US IP.
Greg Chrisman wrote:
The LA Times did enough to get the story out there. A friend of mine in LA said it was front page. I would bet he will be dqd shortly by LAM as they now likely need to do something.
If you go to the comment section, most of the public comments agreed he cheated. Some said who cares about a 70 yr old.
Also I don’t know if ever mentioned but imho high level college runners don’t get better with age. If anything they are broken down w age. 70 yr olds don’t run 100 mile weeks either. Running isn’t like swimming where you can maintain a high level for a long time.
It looks like LA has reached out to my buddy’s consulting service to work on ways to reduce the likelihood of cheating and find cheaters at future races.
Better late than never I guess.
Pass it on to him that he should advise them they should first DQ Meza (set the example that even if you cheat months/years later, you may get DQ'd for clear rule violations ) and then get to work on preventing future cheaters (or hire Meza like DeCaprio's character in Catch Me If You Can--half joking).
Stop suggesting that Frank can "take a little heat off" of himself by providing some acceptably strong performance at some distance or another. We all know that he won't do this, and there is no good reason to believe that he ever could. When the people behind the LA marathon said that the "best solution" to resolve this matter was to allow Frank to prove his ability by running another of their races with a monitor, and when Amby Burfoot said that the "best approach" for Frank to confirm his ability was by running another marathon or half-marathon with an observer, they weren't saying this because they actually believed that Frank would ever take them up on the idea or -- much more to the point -- because they actually believed that the proper way to determine whether someone should be disqualified for cheating in prior events is to allow that person the opportunity to approximate one or more of those performances at some unspecified time in the future. They were simply refusing to provide -- at least, publicly -- an honest opinion about what the evidence showed. That, in turn, simply allowed more delay and silliness to continue.
Meat Tornado wrote:
What performance would people accept to take a little heat off of the accused?
Equivalency charts indicate a 2:56 'thon is a:
Thanks, good info, I did that and now below the article I see a red/pink bar that initially said "Be first to comment" but on a refresh now says Comments (79)
VPN help wrote:
Opera browser (free) has a basic VPN available (free) if you open "New private window." You can choose virtual location (Europe, Americas, or Asia). This would probably get you around the EU reg's.
Heard back from Wharton. The commenter on the article was really Scott Dominguez the lawyer.
If he actually did post here, feel free to contact me at [email protected].
I’ll be happy to walk through the evidence in detail if he has any questions after reading my articles.
If he can explain it all, I will happily publish his explanations on my site.
This was the Rob Young defence and his supporters took forever to recant or shut up.
Strange Logic wrote:
That is just some really strange logic. "He is a really great guy, so that gigantic mountain of evidence is completely irrelevant."
But I'm not an attorney, so maybe someone in the legal field can explain it.