11 ms·

I commend your call to sympathy. I don't like taking a drive-by, salacious interest in a story that doesn't affect me in the least, but will probably have seri

I commend your call to sympathy. I don't like taking a drive-by, salacious interest in a story that doesn't affect me in the least, but will probably have serious, perhaps devastating consequences for the person involved for a long time professionally. I also think it's worth pointing out that the original article, while using photos of the person involved, never uses their full name, so is to some extent not google-able. However, the full name is used in the comments, and then extensively in other media coverage of this story, so this is a moot point. As with the parent, I'm not defending cheating in a competitive race, especially if sponsorship is involved. But ultimately, I can't take any pleasure in a worldwide glee-fuelled shame-fest over what is ultimately a relatively trivial, presumably non-criminal misdeed.

npunt 10y ago
The drive-by internet mob can be awful. A just & fair society is one where punishments fit the crime, and internet mobs deliver outsized punishment for all sorts of minor and often illusory things. I worry about how this woman is dealing with this situation, right now, in realtime - perhaps her past behaviors are a sign of some issues she's dealing with. I'm heartened by many of the comments in the blog who advocate for sympathy, as the punishment has already been meted.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- leereeves 10y ago
  I think people don't realize how the little things add up. Any one member of an Internet mob doesn't hurt an alleged wrongdoer much, but together they do deliver outsized punishment for all sorts of minor and often illusory things.
  - jerf 10y ago
    Social feedback mechanisms appropriate for small tribes of 100-150 people become overwhelming when used by 100,000-150,000 people, to say nothing of what happens if you add three more zeros. You can see modern celebrity as the flip side of this problem, too. 100,000,000 people giving just a bit of respect and thumbs up to someone becomes quite a torrent of social currency.
fergie 10y ago
Thirded. It can be really easy to make navigational errors in amateur races, especially with turnaround points. Usually there is no crowd lining the whole course, signage is bad, and the marshalling can be spotty. Yes, this person is a bit narcissistic and a tad dishonest, but it might just have been easier to go along with the misunderstanding rather than fess up to messing up. EDIT: OK, OK, "very dishonest" then. My point being that this stuff sometimes happens, people deal with it in different ways, and that witch-hunts can be just as damaging as the transgression itself. But yes, a lot of you (rightly) care about the integrity of amateur sportspeople who are also in the public sphere.
- DanBC 10y ago
  The author has another blog post to explain who s/he writes about: http://www.marathoninvestigation.com/2016/05/the-differerence-between-holding-people.html http://www.marathoninvestigation.com/2016/05/the-differerenc... > The overall feedback I have received from the public regarding my work on the blog and the Boston reviews has been positive. (At some point I will try to clarify the review and filtering process - but runners that just had a bad day in Boston, or paced a friend, or just took their time, are not going to be singled out. They have nothing to worry about). In this case she cut part of the course; she sought out officials to reassure them of her time; she accepted the medal; she faked data after the race; she only came clean after she was confronted with this information. I agree that now she's come clean any identifying information should be removed. And I hate some of the comments that are clearly piling on. And it should be obvious but any attacks on social media are unacceptable.
  - skrebbel 10y ago
    > I agree that now she's come clean any identifying information should be removed. How?
    - DanBC 10y ago
      Ah, yes, that's a good point. Once it's on the internet it's there forever.
timdaub 10y ago
> while using photos of the person involved, never uses their full name, so is to some extent not google-able Wat? Clearly her name is exposed in the Strava screenshot. Took me exactly 2mins to find significant details about her in the blog post (also: if not, you can easily reverse-image-search her runner photos). It's great to have her disqualified from the race, she clearly cheated. Putting the whole story on the internet without worrying about her identity being exposed. Why? Is this really what you deserve when you cheat at a half-marathon?
- kbart 10y ago
  She has cheated in public event and took 2nd place, so yes, due to respect for other participants, it's alright cheating fact to be made public.
- usrusr 10y ago
  The podium is all about attention. She put her face and name out into the public before the blogger did.
  - flocial 10y ago
    Yes but the comment's assertion is valid. Because the screenshots clearly reveal her name and social media handles even if the article refers to her as "the runner".
    - sixstringtheory 10y ago
      I'm not so sure I agree with this line of reasoning. I'm betting she'd have had no problem with her face/name being plastered up for all to see that she had won 2nd place in the race, and promoting that on social media. This outcome is the same magnitude, just with the sign bit flipped.
- mst 10y ago
  > Wat? I believe the idea is that, given the runner's name doesn't appear in the text, googling said name from cold should not produce that article. I think that counts as "to some extent not google-able".
kbart 10y ago
Maybe it's only me, but I don't see any "shame-fest" here. The article is facts based and points to concrete wrongdoings, not simply taking some moral stand. "what is ultimately a relatively trivial, presumably non-criminal misdeed." While it's not criminal behavior, it must be discouraged and punished as it does tremendous damage to competitive sports and other sportsmen by discouraging them ("What's the point? Everyone cheats anyway") or forcing them cutting corners themselves to stay competitive (see recent doping scandal).
- DanBC 10y ago
  > but I don't see any "shame-fest" here. Did you read all the comments? Did you see she's closed her social media accounts?
  - kbart 10y ago
    I was talking about the article itself. I don't usually read comments bar selected few sites (HN included), because there are always trolls and haters. It's not the article's fault that we have such dire situation on the whole Internet.
    - Belphemur 10y ago
      I think you're missing the big picture. As said in the parent, other news are covering also the story with her real name and pictures. It's a shame fest with media trying to give as much info on the woman they can. Not this article in particular, but the coverage of the story is borderline hateful. The Internet don't like cheater.
      - pc86 10y ago
        > other news are covering also the story with her real name and pictures Should they blur her face and not use her name?
        dmix 10y ago
jackmott 10y ago
don't have sympathy, these people are always awful.
mikestew 10y ago
I don't like taking a drive-by, salacious interest in a story that doesn't affect me in the least, but will probably have serious, perhaps devastating consequences for the person involved for a long time professionally. Long before the Internet showed up, what you describe was why you don't do such things. Is the punishment disproportionate to the crime? Yeah, could be. But whether it's pre-internet community gossip or the whole world knows, you don't such things because it could ruin your reputation if found out. Right or wrong, that's always been reality. "Devastating consequences...professionally", as it should be. If she'll cheat in a race to make herself look good, what will she do in your business when real money is on the line? Cook your books? Lie about results (already has a track record for that one)? As long as she comes out looking good. Its a common theme on HN to scoff at the trivial fines for companies caught cheating when the profits gained through cheating are much larger. In the case of this runner, I think a global calling-out is appropriate given that she'd sure accept the accolades were she not found out.
oska 10y ago
The problem with this argument in this case is that she put herself out in front of ‘the mob’. She actively promoted her ‘achievement’ to a public audience. Presumably she would have been happy for any level of adulation from the public. So when it turns around to public revulsion, that's just the other side of the sword, which she first actively employed. I would have more sympathy for your argument if this story was about some form of private cheating. But this was cheating on a public stage, one that she particularly sought out.

npunt 10y ago

The drive-by internet mob can be awful. A just & fair society is one where punishments fit the crime, and internet mobs deliver outsized punishment for all sorts of minor and often illusory things. I worry about how this woman is dealing with this situation, right now, in realtime - perhaps her past behaviors are a sign of some issues she's dealing with. I'm heartened by many of the comments in the blog who advocate for sympathy, as the punishment has already been meted.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
leereeves 10y ago
I think people don't realize how the little things add up. Any one member of an Internet mob doesn't hurt an alleged wrongdoer much, but together they do deliver outsized punishment for all sorts of minor and often illusory things.
- jerf 10y ago
  Social feedback mechanisms appropriate for small tribes of 100-150 people become overwhelming when used by 100,000-150,000 people, to say nothing of what happens if you add three more zeros. You can see modern celebrity as the flip side of this problem, too. 100,000,000 people giving just a bit of respect and thumbs up to someone becomes quite a torrent of social currency.

fergie 10y ago

Thirded. It can be really easy to make navigational errors in amateur races, especially with turnaround points. Usually there is no crowd lining the whole course, signage is bad, and the marshalling can be spotty. Yes, this person is a bit narcissistic and a tad dishonest, but it might just have been easier to go along with the misunderstanding rather than fess up to messing up. EDIT: OK, OK, "very dishonest" then. My point being that this stuff sometimes happens, people deal with it in different ways, and that witch-hunts can be just as damaging as the transgression itself. But yes, a lot of you (rightly) care about the integrity of amateur sportspeople who are also in the public sphere.

DanBC 10y ago
The author has another blog post to explain who s/he writes about: http://www.marathoninvestigation.com/2016/05/the-differerence-between-holding-people.html http://www.marathoninvestigation.com/2016/05/the-differerenc... > The overall feedback I have received from the public regarding my work on the blog and the Boston reviews has been positive. (At some point I will try to clarify the review and filtering process - but runners that just had a bad day in Boston, or paced a friend, or just took their time, are not going to be singled out. They have nothing to worry about). In this case she cut part of the course; she sought out officials to reassure them of her time; she accepted the medal; she faked data after the race; she only came clean after she was confronted with this information. I agree that now she's come clean any identifying information should be removed. And I hate some of the comments that are clearly piling on. And it should be obvious but any attacks on social media are unacceptable.
- skrebbel 10y ago
  > I agree that now she's come clean any identifying information should be removed. How?
  - DanBC 10y ago
    Ah, yes, that's a good point. Once it's on the internet it's there forever.

timdaub 10y ago

> while using photos of the person involved, never uses their full name, so is to some extent not google-able Wat? Clearly her name is exposed in the Strava screenshot. Took me exactly 2mins to find significant details about her in the blog post (also: if not, you can easily reverse-image-search her runner photos). It's great to have her disqualified from the race, she clearly cheated. Putting the whole story on the internet without worrying about her identity being exposed. Why? Is this really what you deserve when you cheat at a half-marathon?

kbart 10y ago
She has cheated in public event and took 2nd place, so yes, due to respect for other participants, it's alright cheating fact to be made public.
usrusr 10y ago
The podium is all about attention. She put her face and name out into the public before the blogger did.
- flocial 10y ago
  Yes but the comment's assertion is valid. Because the screenshots clearly reveal her name and social media handles even if the article refers to her as "the runner".
  - sixstringtheory 10y ago
    I'm not so sure I agree with this line of reasoning. I'm betting she'd have had no problem with her face/name being plastered up for all to see that she had won 2nd place in the race, and promoting that on social media. This outcome is the same magnitude, just with the sign bit flipped.
mst 10y ago
> Wat? I believe the idea is that, given the runner's name doesn't appear in the text, googling said name from cold should not produce that article. I think that counts as "to some extent not google-able".

kbart 10y ago

Maybe it's only me, but I don't see any "shame-fest" here. The article is facts based and points to concrete wrongdoings, not simply taking some moral stand. "what is ultimately a relatively trivial, presumably non-criminal misdeed." While it's not criminal behavior, it must be discouraged and punished as it does tremendous damage to competitive sports and other sportsmen by discouraging them ("What's the point? Everyone cheats anyway") or forcing them cutting corners themselves to stay competitive (see recent doping scandal).

DanBC 10y ago
> but I don't see any "shame-fest" here. Did you read all the comments? Did you see she's closed her social media accounts?
- kbart 10y ago
  I was talking about the article itself. I don't usually read comments bar selected few sites (HN included), because there are always trolls and haters. It's not the article's fault that we have such dire situation on the whole Internet.
  - Belphemur 10y ago
    I think you're missing the big picture. As said in the parent, other news are covering also the story with her real name and pictures. It's a shame fest with media trying to give as much info on the woman they can. Not this article in particular, but the coverage of the story is borderline hateful. The Internet don't like cheater.
    - pc86 10y ago
      > other news are covering also the story with her real name and pictures Should they blur her face and not use her name?
      - dmix 10y ago

jackmott 10y ago

don't have sympathy, these people are always awful.

mikestew 10y ago

I don't like taking a drive-by, salacious interest in a story that doesn't affect me in the least, but will probably have serious, perhaps devastating consequences for the person involved for a long time professionally. Long before the Internet showed up, what you describe was why you don't do such things. Is the punishment disproportionate to the crime? Yeah, could be. But whether it's pre-internet community gossip or the whole world knows, you don't such things because it could ruin your reputation if found out. Right or wrong, that's always been reality. "Devastating consequences...professionally", as it should be. If she'll cheat in a race to make herself look good, what will she do in your business when real money is on the line? Cook your books? Lie about results (already has a track record for that one)? As long as she comes out looking good. Its a common theme on HN to scoff at the trivial fines for companies caught cheating when the profits gained through cheating are much larger. In the case of this runner, I think a global calling-out is appropriate given that she'd sure accept the accolades were she not found out.

oska 10y ago

The problem with this argument in this case is that she put herself out in front of ‘the mob’. She actively promoted her ‘achievement’ to a public audience. Presumably she would have been happy for any level of adulation from the public. So when it turns around to public revulsion, that's just the other side of the sword, which she first actively employed. I would have more sympathy for your argument if this story was about some form of private cheating. But this was cheating on a public stage, one that she particularly sought out.