5 ms·

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 cour

by 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.
    - Bartweiss 10y ago
      Not just that - race records like this are public. Even a piece which said only "second place runner in this marathon cheated" would be easy to connect to her name.
      - cr0sh 10y ago
        > would be easy to connect to her name. It would be - if people actually cared to check. Most don't, though. We know this.
- fpig 10y ago
  > I agree that now she's come clean any identifying information should be removed. The media is running this story with full personal information included, this stuff is the first google hit for her name and several more on the first page of results. Google's "summary" of her on the right side when you google her name describes this event and contains nothing else. The point at which she could have prevented this is when she was caught the first time, now it's too late. It is not possible to prove a person who got second place in a public event was a cheater and prevent their identity from coming out. Even if the blogger hadn't posted her pictures, she would have been identified quickly.
Inconel 10y ago
>tad dishonest I agree that the internet mob can be unduly cruel, and as a larger issue I'm uncomfortable with the notion than a single mistake a person makes is now often immortalized on the internet for eternity, but does what this runner did really count merely as a tad dishonest? Honest navigational errors can indeed occur. I made one such mistake in high school during a cross country race that took place in an unfamiliar wooded course. I didn't even realize I had made a mistake until I reached the finish line. The giveaway for me was that I finished in front of a number of runners whom I knew throughout the season to be faster than me, and I didn't remember passing them. It was a pretty simple mistake to rectify, I told my couch and teammates and we retraced the course to the place I went off course, no big deal. I particularly enjoyed the part of this story where the runner retraced the course later that day, on bicycle and despite feeling ill earlier, so she could spoof the GPS data. I hope that labeling something like this as being only a tad dishonest isn't emblematic of the way SV and HN in generally view the topic of honesty.
- odabaxok 10y ago
  This.. Reading the parent comments felt like they are making cheating acceptable. This did not seem like a little mistake, it seemed more like systematic cheating. She had multiple chances to apologize, but she went on until she was faced with the facts.
roadnottaken 10y ago
No way. I've missed turnarounds in races multiple times (although this usually results in running farther than intended) and it would NEVER occur to me to just go with it and grab a podium spot. This goes way beyond "a tad dishonest".
- Bartweiss 10y ago
  Tangential question: do runners get disqualified for overruns? I can't imagine many people running too far reach the podium, but I'm curious whether accidentally adding a half mile is still a disqualifying error.
fpig 10y ago
"A tad" dishonest? 1) She was disqualified immediately, but she complained to the person in charge and actually convinced them that they made a mistake and that she didn't cheat. If she had accepted being disqualified, this wouldn't have ended up on the internet. 2) She biked the course later in the day in an attempt to fake the data, but failed because the data is timestamped. I am not sure how she could have possibly been more dishonest than that.

by fergie 10y ago

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.
  - Bartweiss 10y ago
    Not just that - race records like this are public. Even a piece which said only "second place runner in this marathon cheated" would be easy to connect to her name.
    - cr0sh 10y ago
      > would be easy to connect to her name. It would be - if people actually cared to check. Most don't, though. We know this.
fpig 10y ago
> I agree that now she's come clean any identifying information should be removed. The media is running this story with full personal information included, this stuff is the first google hit for her name and several more on the first page of results. Google's "summary" of her on the right side when you google her name describes this event and contains nothing else. The point at which she could have prevented this is when she was caught the first time, now it's too late. It is not possible to prove a person who got second place in a public event was a cheater and prevent their identity from coming out. Even if the blogger hadn't posted her pictures, she would have been identified quickly.

Inconel 10y ago

>tad dishonest I agree that the internet mob can be unduly cruel, and as a larger issue I'm uncomfortable with the notion than a single mistake a person makes is now often immortalized on the internet for eternity, but does what this runner did really count merely as a tad dishonest? Honest navigational errors can indeed occur. I made one such mistake in high school during a cross country race that took place in an unfamiliar wooded course. I didn't even realize I had made a mistake until I reached the finish line. The giveaway for me was that I finished in front of a number of runners whom I knew throughout the season to be faster than me, and I didn't remember passing them. It was a pretty simple mistake to rectify, I told my couch and teammates and we retraced the course to the place I went off course, no big deal. I particularly enjoyed the part of this story where the runner retraced the course later that day, on bicycle and despite feeling ill earlier, so she could spoof the GPS data. I hope that labeling something like this as being only a tad dishonest isn't emblematic of the way SV and HN in generally view the topic of honesty.

odabaxok 10y ago
This.. Reading the parent comments felt like they are making cheating acceptable. This did not seem like a little mistake, it seemed more like systematic cheating. She had multiple chances to apologize, but she went on until she was faced with the facts.

roadnottaken 10y ago

No way. I've missed turnarounds in races multiple times (although this usually results in running farther than intended) and it would NEVER occur to me to just go with it and grab a podium spot. This goes way beyond "a tad dishonest".

Bartweiss 10y ago
Tangential question: do runners get disqualified for overruns? I can't imagine many people running too far reach the podium, but I'm curious whether accidentally adding a half mile is still a disqualifying error.

fpig 10y ago

"A tad" dishonest? 1) She was disqualified immediately, but she complained to the person in charge and actually convinced them that they made a mistake and that she didn't cheat. If she had accepted being disqualified, this wouldn't have ended up on the internet. 2) She biked the course later in the day in an attempt to fake the data, but failed because the data is timestamped. I am not sure how she could have possibly been more dishonest than that.