3 ms·
> 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 s
by 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 agoShe 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 agoThe podium is all about attention. She put her face and name out into the public before the blogger did.
- flocial 10y agoYes 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 agoI'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".