4 ms·

Why should someone who cheated at a PUBLIC event and very publicly claimed the prize and actively misled other runners and the judging committee not be exposed

Why should someone who cheated at a PUBLIC event and very publicly claimed the prize and actively misled other runners and the judging committee not be exposed publicly? Is it not in the public interest to punish these peoples? Or should we never report on such misdeeds for fear of any personal and professional retribution? Isn't that part of being a responsible adult in a civil society? She's a sponsored running/lifestyle blogger, for God's sake! The social contract works for a reason.

Bartweiss 10y ago
I don't think there's any reason this post shouldn't have happened, or the cheating shouldn't have been given a public, lasting record. And yeah, the sponsorship and team membership raise this from "costing someone else a medal" to "serious manipulation". But I share the sense that something is weird here. Maybe it's just the section trying to cast doubt on the claim that she was feeling nauseous - there's a sentiment here that I find strange regardless of the bare facts.
- aioprisan 10y ago
  >> Maybe it's just the section trying to cast doubt on the claim that she was feeling nauseous She was feeling so nauseous that she couldn't finish the extra 1.5 miles all by herself but could bike the entire course to falsify data on Strava to double down on her cheating? Give me a break. The fact that she only recanted after all the evidence was presented to her about the depths of her cheating tells us all we need to know about her character in this instance. Positions of public trust bring with them public responsibility, and this is what it looks like, for better or for worse.
- nicky0 10y ago
  Yes I agree. It went beyond proving the simple facts of the case, into attempts discredit the runner's character in other ways.
  - aioprisan 10y ago
    You mean by pointing out another race a few months ago where she ran another half-marathon but pictures show that someone else finished the race with her bib?
    - nicky0 10y ago
      Yes, partly that. But more the part where he dredged through her Strava and found a random entry where the cadence and heart rate data looked odd compared to her description of the activity. That wasn't even for a race, just her training log.
sah2ed 10y ago
I think you are missing his point. There is nothing wrong with the methodology (using her own Garmin watch as conclusive evidence) but there is something to be said about the medium through which she was exposed (the Internet). The problem is the Internet never forgets so even if she learns a hard lesson from her actions and chooses to become a changed person (ala becoming a coach/public speaker/etc), her name will still rank high on search engines for her cheating 10/30/X years from now. EDIT: Not trying to excuse the terrible act of cheating she engaged in, but I think it is important to realize the role of the internet as a permanent record of everyone's (mis)deeds, regardless of whether it was a crime or not.
- aioprisan 10y ago
  I think you missed the point as well. The newspaper coverage of her public deception and lying is on par with the benefits that she would otherwise try to benefit from by building up her image on fake wins and defrauding people who have trained harder to get those same results - and somehow we're supposed to give her a pass because she might want to have another public trust position in the future? She should work and convince those in the public space like another person committing other public trust breaches and taking fraudulent actions. Are you saying the Internet should forget, especially inconvenient/correct but damaging stories? Public records also never forget.
  - sah2ed 10y ago
    For the record, I absolutely do not condone what she did. What she did was very dishonest and she has paid the price. Merely pointing out what has already been said elsewhere in the thread that the internet, as a medium of communication, can deliver outsized punishments long after any "crime" has been committed.
    - aioprisan 10y ago
      Outing any wrongdoing in a position of public trust can deliver punishment, whether that's outsized or not depends on the context and what they were trying to gain from it. If she weren't a sponsored lifestyle blogger, then I would agree that this was an exaggeration, but given the fact that the then conspired to cover her tracks is damning enough to get labeled as a cheater in the race's public records. She had to know that it would be possible to permanently damage her image but judged the risks lower than the benefits, and that's on her, not the public that she tried to mislead.

Bartweiss 10y ago

I don't think there's any reason this post shouldn't have happened, or the cheating shouldn't have been given a public, lasting record. And yeah, the sponsorship and team membership raise this from "costing someone else a medal" to "serious manipulation". But I share the sense that something is weird here. Maybe it's just the section trying to cast doubt on the claim that she was feeling nauseous - there's a sentiment here that I find strange regardless of the bare facts.

aioprisan 10y ago
>> Maybe it's just the section trying to cast doubt on the claim that she was feeling nauseous She was feeling so nauseous that she couldn't finish the extra 1.5 miles all by herself but could bike the entire course to falsify data on Strava to double down on her cheating? Give me a break. The fact that she only recanted after all the evidence was presented to her about the depths of her cheating tells us all we need to know about her character in this instance. Positions of public trust bring with them public responsibility, and this is what it looks like, for better or for worse.
nicky0 10y ago
Yes I agree. It went beyond proving the simple facts of the case, into attempts discredit the runner's character in other ways.
- aioprisan 10y ago
  You mean by pointing out another race a few months ago where she ran another half-marathon but pictures show that someone else finished the race with her bib?
  - nicky0 10y ago
    Yes, partly that. But more the part where he dredged through her Strava and found a random entry where the cadence and heart rate data looked odd compared to her description of the activity. That wasn't even for a race, just her training log.

sah2ed 10y ago

I think you are missing his point. There is nothing wrong with the methodology (using her own Garmin watch as conclusive evidence) but there is something to be said about the medium through which she was exposed (the Internet). The problem is the Internet never forgets so even if she learns a hard lesson from her actions and chooses to become a changed person (ala becoming a coach/public speaker/etc), her name will still rank high on search engines for her cheating 10/30/X years from now. EDIT: Not trying to excuse the terrible act of cheating she engaged in, but I think it is important to realize the role of the internet as a permanent record of everyone's (mis)deeds, regardless of whether it was a crime or not.

aioprisan 10y ago
I think you missed the point as well. The newspaper coverage of her public deception and lying is on par with the benefits that she would otherwise try to benefit from by building up her image on fake wins and defrauding people who have trained harder to get those same results - and somehow we're supposed to give her a pass because she might want to have another public trust position in the future? She should work and convince those in the public space like another person committing other public trust breaches and taking fraudulent actions. Are you saying the Internet should forget, especially inconvenient/correct but damaging stories? Public records also never forget.
- sah2ed 10y ago
  For the record, I absolutely do not condone what she did. What she did was very dishonest and she has paid the price. Merely pointing out what has already been said elsewhere in the thread that the internet, as a medium of communication, can deliver outsized punishments long after any "crime" has been committed.
  - aioprisan 10y ago
    Outing any wrongdoing in a position of public trust can deliver punishment, whether that's outsized or not depends on the context and what they were trying to gain from it. If she weren't a sponsored lifestyle blogger, then I would agree that this was an exaggeration, but given the fact that the then conspired to cover her tracks is damning enough to get labeled as a cheater in the race's public records. She had to know that it would be possible to permanently damage her image but judged the risks lower than the benefits, and that's on her, not the public that she tried to mislead.