3 ms·
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 sponsorshi
by 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 agoYes I agree. It went beyond proving the simple facts of the case, into attempts discredit the runner's character in other ways.
- aioprisan 10y agoYou 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 agoYes, 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.