5 ms·

Is he a record-setting marathon runner, or a cheater?

30 points by ilamont 7y ago

neonate 7y ago
http://archive.is/8KuiD http://archive.is/8KuiD
human20190310 7y ago
I wonder if the neurotransmitter "kick" one gets out of pulling off a successful cheat is equal to or greater than that of legitimately winning.
- rdiddly 7y ago
  The only way we could know would be to ask someone who had done both. But of course it's very unlikely there's any such person. If you can win, you probably wouldn't cheat, and if you have to cheat, it's probably because you can't win.
  - viraptor 7y ago
    There are a few cases of well known esports teams caught cheating, who were really good on their own / likely won smaller contests without cheats. Although after the fact becomes known, the opinions / memories may change a lot.
  - tapland 7y ago
    I think plenty of people have done both. Winners can't be cheaters and vice versa is a nice saying but I don't think it holds.
  - braythwayt 7y ago
    Back when I played contract bridge semi-seriously, there were lots and lots of known cheats, all of whom were already world-class players when playing under stringent conditions to prevent cheating. But the moment those conditions were relaxed, they cheated. I don't know why this is even a mystery: These people want to win, and they will do everything, including get as legitimately good as they can, AND cheat if they can get away with it. We see this is lots of other fields: Black hat hackers who clearly are talented enough to make money legitimately, politicians who rig elections (cough--votes suppression--cough) who are probably going to win in their strongholds anyways, unicorns that raise hundred of millions of dollars in funds but still break all sorts of ethical and legal rules... What about "deflate-gate?" Did the New England Patriots need to play fast and loose with footballs to win? Or did the just want to win so badly that they did everything legal, questionable, and illegal to win? Lots of big-name athletes have doped and dope today. Do they need to dope to win? Is it a red-queen's race against other dopers? Or are some of them so focused on winning that they see dope as just part of winning along with the best equipment and the right training and winning the VO2 Max lottery? Some people just want to win, and they want to win so badly they are prepared to get good AND cheat. They think that cheating is part of winning, just as being good is part of winning. I do not think that the only people who cheat are people who couldn't win without cheating.
    - braythwayt 7y ago
      p.s. For maximum fun, look into accusations that professional cyclists--including some very big names--are using hidden motors!
      - nradov 7y ago
        Race officials scan for hidden motors at all the major races now so it's impossible for high profile pro riders to get away with that any more.
        braythwayt 7y ago
        It's true that they scan, and perhaps its true that the current generation of scanners cannot be defeated, but I think we're in violent agreement that some world-class athletes are thought to cheat despite being world-class.
    - maxxxxx 7y ago
      "I don't know why this is even a mystery: These people want to win, and they will do everything, including get as legitimately good as they can, AND cheat if they can get away with it." That's a good point. Top athletes have a crazy drive to win in addition to being talented. Most of them will do whatever it takes, be it cheating or hurting themselves.
- randycupertino 7y ago
  Sometimes I wonder that about fraudsters, especially the successful ones who pull off lengthy cons. The amount of effort, work and diligence they put into cheating and ripping others off could have probably got them to where they wanted to be in the first place if they just applied it towards studying and working hard. For example, see this kid in Florida who kept repeatedly getting busted for being a fake doctor. He set up his own medical clinic and was seeing and billing patients. It takes a lot of work to run a medical clinic! He probably could have just applied himself and become a physician. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/florida-teen-arrested-performing-exam-fake-doctor-own-offices-authorities-n519676 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/florida-teen-arrested-p...
- conistonwater 7y ago
  The whole "dopamine hit" thing isn't real, mostly just bad science writing, https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn3817 https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn3817 (p.821).
hartator 7y ago
> officials lacked evidence to take action but requested he run with an observer the following year. Meza agreed but ended up skipping L.A. in 2016, entering the Oakland Marathon instead. I suppose that says it all.
- inopinatus 7y ago
  Inferentially speaking, this remark says more about you than the data point does about the accused.
  - viraptor 7y ago
    Not really. He was given a chance to prove them wrong. If it's true when he said "I’m kind of losing sleep over it", then he chose to continue being distressed like that over a chance to run in a different location with friends. Doesn't pass a smell test.
  - hsitz 7y ago
    How so? If you know anything about running, you know that it would be quite simple for the guy to go out and run another race to confirm the level of his fitness. He might be a few minutes off, but it's quite easy for a marathoner to go out an run another (observed) race five or ten minutes slower than a recent PR. Five or ten minutes slower would be fine, would confirm his level of fitness is close to what he claims. Very suspicious that this has not happened. The truth is probably that his actual fitness is half-an-hour or an hour or more slower, and that he's a cheat. Yes, this assertion could be wrong. But given that it would be so easy for the guy to disprove it (and confirm his previous race) it's very suspicious that he hasn't done it.
    - inopinatus 7y ago
      Irrespective of the other evidence, it’s the unwillingness to entertain alternative explanations and just label an absence of self-defence as “very suspicious” that I find to be the hallmark of a braying lynch mob. It’s a rejection of critical thinking. Which is why I specifically called that out and nothing more.
ghshephard 7y ago
Zero need for an observer here - just allocate the person a GPS watch with a tamper tag on it. Indeed, anyone who wants to post record times should probably be required to have one.
- michaelbuckbee 7y ago
  I was thinking it’s entirely possible for him to just live stream the whole run. Heck, he could run a marathon on his own this weekend and live stream it.
- runjake 7y ago
  They’ll want an observer because “GPS watch malfunction” will be the next excuse. It does happen.
  - kthejoker2 7y ago
    Great, then you don't get an official time. For noncheaters they can request a pacer as well.
- dilyevsky 7y ago
  Observer is way cheaper.
- lazyant 7y ago
  He could also do the Yasso 800s for ex, no need to even run a full marathon to estimate pretty well somebody's time.
  - dh5 7y ago
    Yasso 800s are a good predictor but don't substitute for an actual time trial.
- Bedon292 7y ago
  All the serious runners I know have their own GPS watches already, and chest straps to monitor heart rate. I only know a couple though, so it could be a biased sample. Or perhaps it is an age group difference, but I would think a doctor who is serious about his training would be a prime candidate for buying one though.
ksherlock 7y ago
If you found that interesting, the story of Kip Litton (name dropped in the article) is a good read. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/08/06/marathon-man https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/08/06/marathon-man
mruts 7y ago
Why does anyone care? I don’t run matherons or exercise at all but why do people feel so strongly about this? No one is making money on running marathons and if people want to cheat, more power to them I suppose.
- Bedon292 7y ago
  Because it affect others. There are trophies and prizes, even if they aren't large. He isn't just coming in in the middle of the pack he is winning his age group. And you have to qualify for larger races, which have limited numbers of runners. If he cheats to qualify then he is taking a place that someone else should have gotten.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - runnr_az 7y ago
    Yeah... I think this is the key thing. For "normal" runners, if someone wants to cheat - no big deal, whatever. It's all supposed to be fun and there's no reason to be too anal about auditing results. It's lame if they cheat or whatever, but they're really only cheating themselves. For the age group record, it matters! It should be, like, a real thing... the people who get those records work really, really friggin' hard, so they deserve to be treated fairly.
- notacoward 7y ago
  > No one is making money on running marathons A few do. For example, the first-place prize for the Boston Marathon is US$150K. That's one race. Then there are endorsements etc. Running is big business. > if people want to cheat, more power to them That's just a crappy attitude in any context. Even if absolutely nobody is hurt in a particular instance, cheating should be discouraged to maintain the integrity of the system for when it does matter. Also, as it turns out, this is a race. People competing against one another is an essential part of the exercise, even if there's no money involved. That's why there are rules, and significant effort to enforce those rules, and everyone who participates pays willingly for that enforcement. Comparing their performance to others is an important part of how people motivate themselves to do better. Among people who run marathons more than once, it's why they put in those long hard hours training. It's also why cheaters cheat. They wouldn't risk disqualification and censure if they didn't believe that the competitive aspect matters very much. Apparently the people in these races, both honest and otherwise, believe in the benefits of competition. The implication that competition is meaningless sounds a bit like sour grapes TBH.
nradov 7y ago
100% cheater https://www.marathoninvestigation.com/2019/06/frank-meza-additional-evidence-la-marathon-course-cutting.html https://www.marathoninvestigation.com/2019/06/frank-meza-add...
JetezLeLogin 7y ago
"I took up running for fun. What I can tell you is that I did not cut. My last few marathons I have had to step off the course, looking for a place to pee. I didn’t know this was against the rules, I was not aware of that. I’ve done this several times. I’ve realized my problem is that I don’t hydrate properly. I have never cut the distance but I have stepped off of the course." Just analyzing the man's statements for basic "tells" of non-candor and non-forthrightness, like they do in law enforcement: 1) "What I can tell you is..." - That's a distancing, qualifying phrase - we might call it an abstraction layer. It's like there's an AnswerTheQuestion() method that instead of just returning an answer, has to first call the GetAThingToTellThem() method. Hmm interesting. Great separation of concerns if you're a computer program, but totally unnecessary if you're being concise and direct. 2) "What I can tell you is that I did not cut." - It's a non-denial denial. He doesn't actually say he didn't cut. He says he can tell you that he didn't cut. (OK go ahead and tell me then, whenever you're ready.) He can also tell me that he's a purple elephant that farts rainbows. 3) "...I did not cut" - Resorting to a formality by eschewing the contraction - using "did not" vs. "didn't." And I wouldn't make the usual allowance for Latin heritage, because he's a doctor and has been in the US for a long time, plus he uses contractions freely elsewhere (didn't, I've). 4) After starting two sentences with "I've", notice in the last sentence (the second it comes time for another direct denial), it goes back to formal language: "I have." 5) "I didn't know this was against the rules..." Getting defensive, trying to portray himself as a victim being persecuted unjustly (totally outside the normal purview of the usual rules which he thought he knew) and therefore deserving of sympathy. Also subtly attacking the interviewer for asking the question. Aggression is a big tell. 6) Overall does it seem to be just impartially reporting/presenting information or does it seem to be making a case or argument by "dressing up" the facts to favor himself? Notice the overall wordiness of the thing and the volunteering of superfluous information. I do this for fun. I don't hydrate properly (WTF does that mean, you tryin to say you drank too much water dawg?) None of these on their own would be inherently suspicious, and might have other explanations, but occurring all together like this, they're a billboard telling you "Take a closer look." Edit: Reply comments are starting to object along the lines that this doesn't prove anything. That is correct. The goal isn't to prove guilt; only evidence proves guilt. The goal is only to direct the course of the investigation. You're only looking for "warmer or colder." Keep going this direction or look somewhere else? That's why I conclude with "Take a closer look" and not "Please convict this person of a crime immediately." It's akin to a polygraph reading - fairly unscientific, generally inadmissible, but valuable in deciding what to do next in the investigation.
swimfar 7y ago
Similar story about a Canadian triathlete: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/10/sports/julie-miller-ironman-triathlon-cheat.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/10/sports/julie-miller-ironma... HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11459976 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11459976

30 points by ilamont 7y ago

http://archive.is/8KuiD http://archive.is/8KuiD

human20190310 7y ago

I wonder if the neurotransmitter "kick" one gets out of pulling off a successful cheat is equal to or greater than that of legitimately winning.

rdiddly 7y ago
The only way we could know would be to ask someone who had done both. But of course it's very unlikely there's any such person. If you can win, you probably wouldn't cheat, and if you have to cheat, it's probably because you can't win.
- viraptor 7y ago
  There are a few cases of well known esports teams caught cheating, who were really good on their own / likely won smaller contests without cheats. Although after the fact becomes known, the opinions / memories may change a lot.
- tapland 7y ago
  I think plenty of people have done both. Winners can't be cheaters and vice versa is a nice saying but I don't think it holds.
- braythwayt 7y ago
  Back when I played contract bridge semi-seriously, there were lots and lots of known cheats, all of whom were already world-class players when playing under stringent conditions to prevent cheating. But the moment those conditions were relaxed, they cheated. I don't know why this is even a mystery: These people want to win, and they will do everything, including get as legitimately good as they can, AND cheat if they can get away with it. We see this is lots of other fields: Black hat hackers who clearly are talented enough to make money legitimately, politicians who rig elections (cough--votes suppression--cough) who are probably going to win in their strongholds anyways, unicorns that raise hundred of millions of dollars in funds but still break all sorts of ethical and legal rules... What about "deflate-gate?" Did the New England Patriots need to play fast and loose with footballs to win? Or did the just want to win so badly that they did everything legal, questionable, and illegal to win? Lots of big-name athletes have doped and dope today. Do they need to dope to win? Is it a red-queen's race against other dopers? Or are some of them so focused on winning that they see dope as just part of winning along with the best equipment and the right training and winning the VO2 Max lottery? Some people just want to win, and they want to win so badly they are prepared to get good AND cheat. They think that cheating is part of winning, just as being good is part of winning. I do not think that the only people who cheat are people who couldn't win without cheating.
  - braythwayt 7y ago
    p.s. For maximum fun, look into accusations that professional cyclists--including some very big names--are using hidden motors!
    - nradov 7y ago
      Race officials scan for hidden motors at all the major races now so it's impossible for high profile pro riders to get away with that any more.
      - braythwayt 7y ago
        It's true that they scan, and perhaps its true that the current generation of scanners cannot be defeated, but I think we're in violent agreement that some world-class athletes are thought to cheat despite being world-class.
  - maxxxxx 7y ago
    "I don't know why this is even a mystery: These people want to win, and they will do everything, including get as legitimately good as they can, AND cheat if they can get away with it." That's a good point. Top athletes have a crazy drive to win in addition to being talented. Most of them will do whatever it takes, be it cheating or hurting themselves.
randycupertino 7y ago
Sometimes I wonder that about fraudsters, especially the successful ones who pull off lengthy cons. The amount of effort, work and diligence they put into cheating and ripping others off could have probably got them to where they wanted to be in the first place if they just applied it towards studying and working hard. For example, see this kid in Florida who kept repeatedly getting busted for being a fake doctor. He set up his own medical clinic and was seeing and billing patients. It takes a lot of work to run a medical clinic! He probably could have just applied himself and become a physician. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/florida-teen-arrested-performing-exam-fake-doctor-own-offices-authorities-n519676 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/florida-teen-arrested-p...
conistonwater 7y ago
The whole "dopamine hit" thing isn't real, mostly just bad science writing, https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn3817 https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn3817 (p.821).

hartator 7y ago

> officials lacked evidence to take action but requested he run with an observer the following year. Meza agreed but ended up skipping L.A. in 2016, entering the Oakland Marathon instead. I suppose that says it all.

inopinatus 7y ago
Inferentially speaking, this remark says more about you than the data point does about the accused.
- viraptor 7y ago
  Not really. He was given a chance to prove them wrong. If it's true when he said "I’m kind of losing sleep over it", then he chose to continue being distressed like that over a chance to run in a different location with friends. Doesn't pass a smell test.
- hsitz 7y ago
  How so? If you know anything about running, you know that it would be quite simple for the guy to go out and run another race to confirm the level of his fitness. He might be a few minutes off, but it's quite easy for a marathoner to go out an run another (observed) race five or ten minutes slower than a recent PR. Five or ten minutes slower would be fine, would confirm his level of fitness is close to what he claims. Very suspicious that this has not happened. The truth is probably that his actual fitness is half-an-hour or an hour or more slower, and that he's a cheat. Yes, this assertion could be wrong. But given that it would be so easy for the guy to disprove it (and confirm his previous race) it's very suspicious that he hasn't done it.
  - inopinatus 7y ago
    Irrespective of the other evidence, it’s the unwillingness to entertain alternative explanations and just label an absence of self-defence as “very suspicious” that I find to be the hallmark of a braying lynch mob. It’s a rejection of critical thinking. Which is why I specifically called that out and nothing more.

ghshephard 7y ago

Zero need for an observer here - just allocate the person a GPS watch with a tamper tag on it. Indeed, anyone who wants to post record times should probably be required to have one.

michaelbuckbee 7y ago
I was thinking it’s entirely possible for him to just live stream the whole run. Heck, he could run a marathon on his own this weekend and live stream it.
runjake 7y ago
They’ll want an observer because “GPS watch malfunction” will be the next excuse. It does happen.
- kthejoker2 7y ago
  Great, then you don't get an official time. For noncheaters they can request a pacer as well.
dilyevsky 7y ago
Observer is way cheaper.
lazyant 7y ago
He could also do the Yasso 800s for ex, no need to even run a full marathon to estimate pretty well somebody's time.
- dh5 7y ago
  Yasso 800s are a good predictor but don't substitute for an actual time trial.
Bedon292 7y ago
All the serious runners I know have their own GPS watches already, and chest straps to monitor heart rate. I only know a couple though, so it could be a biased sample. Or perhaps it is an age group difference, but I would think a doctor who is serious about his training would be a prime candidate for buying one though.

ksherlock 7y ago

If you found that interesting, the story of Kip Litton (name dropped in the article) is a good read. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/08/06/marathon-man https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/08/06/marathon-man

mruts 7y ago

Why does anyone care? I don’t run matherons or exercise at all but why do people feel so strongly about this? No one is making money on running marathons and if people want to cheat, more power to them I suppose.

Bedon292 7y ago
Because it affect others. There are trophies and prizes, even if they aren't large. He isn't just coming in in the middle of the pack he is winning his age group. And you have to qualify for larger races, which have limited numbers of runners. If he cheats to qualify then he is taking a place that someone else should have gotten.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- runnr_az 7y ago
  Yeah... I think this is the key thing. For "normal" runners, if someone wants to cheat - no big deal, whatever. It's all supposed to be fun and there's no reason to be too anal about auditing results. It's lame if they cheat or whatever, but they're really only cheating themselves. For the age group record, it matters! It should be, like, a real thing... the people who get those records work really, really friggin' hard, so they deserve to be treated fairly.
notacoward 7y ago
> No one is making money on running marathons A few do. For example, the first-place prize for the Boston Marathon is US$150K. That's one race. Then there are endorsements etc. Running is big business. > if people want to cheat, more power to them That's just a crappy attitude in any context. Even if absolutely nobody is hurt in a particular instance, cheating should be discouraged to maintain the integrity of the system for when it does matter. Also, as it turns out, this is a race. People competing against one another is an essential part of the exercise, even if there's no money involved. That's why there are rules, and significant effort to enforce those rules, and everyone who participates pays willingly for that enforcement. Comparing their performance to others is an important part of how people motivate themselves to do better. Among people who run marathons more than once, it's why they put in those long hard hours training. It's also why cheaters cheat. They wouldn't risk disqualification and censure if they didn't believe that the competitive aspect matters very much. Apparently the people in these races, both honest and otherwise, believe in the benefits of competition. The implication that competition is meaningless sounds a bit like sour grapes TBH.

nradov 7y ago

100% cheater https://www.marathoninvestigation.com/2019/06/frank-meza-additional-evidence-la-marathon-course-cutting.html https://www.marathoninvestigation.com/2019/06/frank-meza-add...

JetezLeLogin 7y ago

"I took up running for fun. What I can tell you is that I did not cut. My last few marathons I have had to step off the course, looking for a place to pee. I didn’t know this was against the rules, I was not aware of that. I’ve done this several times. I’ve realized my problem is that I don’t hydrate properly. I have never cut the distance but I have stepped off of the course." Just analyzing the man's statements for basic "tells" of non-candor and non-forthrightness, like they do in law enforcement: 1) "What I can tell you is..." - That's a distancing, qualifying phrase - we might call it an abstraction layer. It's like there's an AnswerTheQuestion() method that instead of just returning an answer, has to first call the GetAThingToTellThem() method. Hmm interesting. Great separation of concerns if you're a computer program, but totally unnecessary if you're being concise and direct. 2) "What I can tell you is that I did not cut." - It's a non-denial denial. He doesn't actually say he didn't cut. He says he can tell you that he didn't cut. (OK go ahead and tell me then, whenever you're ready.) He can also tell me that he's a purple elephant that farts rainbows. 3) "...I did not cut" - Resorting to a formality by eschewing the contraction - using "did not" vs. "didn't." And I wouldn't make the usual allowance for Latin heritage, because he's a doctor and has been in the US for a long time, plus he uses contractions freely elsewhere (didn't, I've). 4) After starting two sentences with "I've", notice in the last sentence (the second it comes time for another direct denial), it goes back to formal language: "I have." 5) "I didn't know this was against the rules..." Getting defensive, trying to portray himself as a victim being persecuted unjustly (totally outside the normal purview of the usual rules which he thought he knew) and therefore deserving of sympathy. Also subtly attacking the interviewer for asking the question. Aggression is a big tell. 6) Overall does it seem to be just impartially reporting/presenting information or does it seem to be making a case or argument by "dressing up" the facts to favor himself? Notice the overall wordiness of the thing and the volunteering of superfluous information. I do this for fun. I don't hydrate properly (WTF does that mean, you tryin to say you drank too much water dawg?) None of these on their own would be inherently suspicious, and might have other explanations, but occurring all together like this, they're a billboard telling you "Take a closer look." Edit: Reply comments are starting to object along the lines that this doesn't prove anything. That is correct. The goal isn't to prove guilt; only evidence proves guilt. The goal is only to direct the course of the investigation. You're only looking for "warmer or colder." Keep going this direction or look somewhere else? That's why I conclude with "Take a closer look" and not "Please convict this person of a crime immediately." It's akin to a polygraph reading - fairly unscientific, generally inadmissible, but valuable in deciding what to do next in the investigation.

swimfar 7y ago

Similar story about a Canadian triathlete: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/10/sports/julie-miller-ironman-triathlon-cheat.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/10/sports/julie-miller-ironma... HN Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11459976 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11459976