I'm Done. The Mezra death brought home how cycincal and damaging this website it to real people

Everydog wrote:[/

My guess is that you don’t know squat about law. Specific to being picked on about marathon cheating he had previously gone public. I don’t know either , that’s why I posted it. However, I do know law on any issue has almost infinite nuances.

Most of the people discussing legal options on these threads know little or even nothing about the law...but that would not even stop them from chiming in with an opinion or two or three.

A lawsuit would mean that each side agrees to a discovery phase...not sure anyone who believes that Meza truly ran the races in question would want that to happen. But who knows.

Loyola... wrote:

...if your longtime, respected assistant cross country coach retires because of health reasons, what kind of send off do you give him? A glowing tribute thanking him for his years of service and wishing him the best, or a thorough scrubbing of anything mentioning him from your website and a "no comment" on the cheating allegations? There has to be a story there but I doubt it will ever see the light of day.

SInce it seems to matter to you:

Here are the list of agencies with accreditation roles at Loyola>

Please consider taking time to put your thoughts and concerns down and send them to each agency. Email is a good start. Please also consider the LA police. I am thinking to find other watchdog groups.

Accreditation and MembershipsWestern Association of Schools and Colleges,

Western Catholic Educational Association, Jesuit Schools Network,

National Catholic Education Association, the College Board,

NACAC and WACAC.

MikeMach1977 wrote:

This is a good idea for longer races especially. Maybe also have mandatory 2 timing chips to help make sure they get picked up and also have to be in all the pictures for the race. It would be really easy to install a couple of cameras that get wide angles of who is passing at more points on the course. Technology is now cheaper and better. A lot of the evidence against FM was camera focused as he thought he outsmarted the timing mats. With more of them it would be obvious he wasn't on the course the entire time.

Why...this wasn't about missed timing mats, it was about cheating between them. One chip already works perfectly fine.

If you do want to catch people you would have random mat placement.

cheers

Derek Murphy's Lawyer wrote:

Are You Sure? wrote:

If reporting, blogging about, publicizing factual negative information about a person is considered bullying (other than information covered by privacy laws), how would journalists ever have the freedom to do their jobs?

LA Times reporters didn't make memes or hilarious videos trying to shame this guy.

They also didn't call his employers, write fake reviews, call the medical board, etc. which definitely did go on in that original thread and nothing was done to mitigate it. Now, of course, I am Derek Murphy's lawyer, but I would hate to try to defend the case against LRC.

That would be Good Morning America, laughing at his cheating age group record marathon time.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Jane Seo suffered a similar humiliation and she didn't set a record or go public about her race. In spite of her ridiculous split times the race director decided not to disqualify her. MI zoomed in on her watch, wrote an article about her cheating and the story took off.

She didn't commit suicide, but it had to be devastating for her.

Jane Seo deserves every bit of opprobrium she got for her meticulously planned and calculated cheating, and her subsequent double-downed lying and ham-fisted attempts to cover that cheating, which included cycling over the half-marathon course later in the day and posting the information to Strava as if it were her race data.

She finished second overall in that half marathon, brazenly accepted the award for second place, and insisted to her competition and the race director that she had run the entire course.

She did all this to "earn" her way into the elite group of her running club. She was given chances to come clean early on, but continued to connive and only admitted guilt and apologized when the evidence against her became overwhelming.

Any "humiliation" she suffered was of her own making, and richly deserved. I have no sympathy at all for cheaters who steal places and recognition from actual athletes.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Everydog wrote:

My guess is that you don't know squat about law. Specific to being picked on about marathon cheating he had previously gone public. I don't know either , that's why I posted it. However, I do know law on any issue has almost infinite nuances.

Jane Seo suffered a similar humiliation and she didn't set a record or go public about her race. In spite of her ridiculous split times the race director decided not to disqualify her. MI zoomed in on her watch, wrote an article about her cheating and the story took off.

She didn't commit suicide, but it had to be devastating for her.

This is why it is head scratching. Live in humiliation for about a month, then it is over. Who is Jane Seo?

Seems like the doctor might have something more to hide by committing suicide over cheating at a marathon., albeit cheating for 10 years.

If the posters on this site are guilty of anything it is taking themselves too seriously. No you/they are not responsible for Frank Meza’s death or even his “outing”. This is a man who cheated for years, got caught, cheated again, got caught then DOUBLED DOWN to start posting even faster times, world records. If he had not been caught at LA Marathon does anyone think he would have stopped.? Even with his heart condition he would have been miraculous open heart patient runs 2:50 marathon. If his light or drug or sun was adulation and praise from faking marathon times he was going to fly too high too close to the sun and crash and burn like Icarus. No the only thing the posters changed was the timing of the crash.

Who Knows Whats Next wrote:

Everydog wrote:[/

My guess is that you don’t know squat about law. Specific to being picked on about marathon cheating he had previously gone public. I don’t know either , that’s why I posted it. However, I do know law on any issue has almost infinite nuances.

Most of the people discussing legal options on these threads know little or even nothing about the law...but that would not even stop them from chiming in with an opinion or two or three.

A lawsuit would mean that each side agrees to a discovery phase...not sure anyone who believes that Meza truly ran the races in question would want that to happen. But who knows.

You can always tell people who haven’t been involved in a lawsuit, they’re the ones always gleeful about them. They are horrible for both sides. The discovery phase is a very difficult process. Also, family opinions and social media opinions have very little standing. In my opinion, what will have validity are the publicity of the multiple disqualifications in particular the last one, his public statements including any discussion showing the importance of running in the LA marathon. His mental state and any medical conditions he had. The coroner report finding of suicide. His family may not be getting any legal advice, the public claims go strongly toward the idea that Frank would not have wanted to lose their opinions of him. Probably will be lawsuits, but these never go to trial (also while attorneys typically get 33% of awards, they get 40% plus expenses for trial awards, but then there’s appeals, etc). Many polar opinions on this site, but you will have to convince a ‘reasonable person’. His outside of running achievements, while notable, will be a disadvantage, goes to ‘all he had to protect and unbearable loss of public respect’ which was also publicly stated in news reports before the suicide. Any public race performances, like the Phoenix marathon will be presented as demonstration of his actual ability. Evidence of probable cheating will be presented to dispute his performance, and go toward the case that the exposure of this would be the most likely driving force. Your opinion may differ from mine, be respectful, as I will be of yours.

Derek Murphy's Lawyer wrote:

Are You Sure? wrote:

If reporting, blogging about, publicizing factual negative information about a person is considered bullying (other than information covered by privacy laws), how would journalists ever have the freedom to do their jobs?

LA Times reporters didn't make memes or hilarious videos trying to shame this guy.

They also didn't call his employers, write fake reviews, call the medical board, etc. which definitely did go on in that original thread and nothing was done to mitigate it. Now, of course, I am Derek Murphy's lawyer, but I would hate to try to defend the case against LRC.

This is my first post on this thread. Ban me if I'm lying, my life will go on regardless.

My question is an easy one. Obviously this poster is NOT this guy's lawyer.

So, I thought the rule was that you couldn't impersonate people? Runners, anybody. So why wasn't his post deleted?

Rondozzo wrote:

My question is an easy one. Obviously this poster is NOT this guy's lawyer.

So, I thought the rule was that you couldn't impersonate people? Runners, anybody. So why wasn't his post deleted?

Can you prove that I do not represent a client named Derek Murphy?

Derek Murphy's Lawyer wrote:

Rondozzo wrote:

My question is an easy one. Obviously this poster is NOT this guy's lawyer.

So, I thought the rule was that you couldn't impersonate people? Runners, anybody. So why wasn't his post deleted?

Can you prove that I do not represent a client named Derek Murphy?

You don't even get the point here. The likely safety valve for you is that any reasonable person could tell from your first post that you are just some cranky person who doesn't like Derek Murphy.

On the other hand, unless that really is Scott Dominguez' dog posting , that pooch could be in big trouble because it's hard to tell.

Derek Murphy's Lawyer wrote:

Rondozzo wrote:

My question is an easy one. Obviously this poster is NOT this guy's lawyer.

So, I thought the rule was that you couldn't impersonate people? Runners, anybody. So why wasn't his post deleted?

Can you prove that I do not represent a client named Derek Murphy?

Wow. What a childish response, one without even a hint of intelligence. You just answered your own question.

Try taking off your boxing gloves before typing

So, he jumped of a bridge?

Back in the day when I could still hobby-jog, I might have met the Doc... I raced a couple of 5Ks in Elysian park, organized by Aztlan ... The guy resembled the Doc, but he had long hair... Very kind person... raffled left over Ts from previous races... I always came home with an extra one.

RIP Doc

Martymart wrote:

SDSU Aztec wrote:

Jane Seo suffered a similar humiliation and she didn't set a record or go public about her race. In spite of her ridiculous split times the race director decided not to disqualify her. MI zoomed in on her watch, wrote an article about her cheating and the story took off.

She didn't commit suicide, but it had to be devastating for her.

This is why it is head scratching. Live in humiliation for about a month, then it is over. Who is Jane Seo?

Seems like the doctor might have something more to hide by committing suicide over cheating at a marathon., albeit cheating for 10 years.

From our perspective, it lasted about a month, but for Seo the effects will last for the rest of her life. She no longer writes for the HuffPost. Running appeared to be a big part of her life, but now she is banned from her club. Anybody she meets, including possible employers, can Google her name and read about her sordid story. I doubt if everything is back to normal for her.

Tequila wrote:

Back in the day when I could still hobby-jog, I might have met the Doc... I raced a couple of 5Ks in Elysian park, organized by Aztlan ... The guy resembled the Doc, but he had long hair... Very kind person... raffled left over Ts from previous races... I always came home with an extra one.

RIP Doc

It's like that quote from "the dark knight": you either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become a villain

do you still need my address for the Hokas?

The only cynical people are the apologists/enablers for cheaters. But they’re not damaging, their day has passed, many are aware of them.