4 ms·
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 fitne
by 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 agoIrrespective 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.
- jmull 7y agoIf you want to pursue critical thinking, what are the explanations for the various discrepancies in his races? I see on the marathoninvestigation site the Dr. has been given opportunities to explain these suspicious discrepancies and either hasn’t or provided explanations that are contradicted by hard facts.
- inopinatus 7y agoI have no comment on the incriminatory data points. My comment is on the incorrect inference being drawn for a specific non-incriminatory one.
- jmull 7y agoIt doesn’t make sense to take that comment out of context, though. I sounds like you are trying to do that, but it doesn’t make sense and that’s probably why many people don’t see your comment as valid.
- hitekker 7y agoThe GP saw a chance to denigrate someone, took it, and when others questioned the motivations behind the denigration, he or she retreated to some kind of weird psuedo-objectivity. >Inferentially speaking, this remark says more about you than the data point does about the accused Shortly after: >It's why I specifically called that out and nothing more Self-righteousness is a weird thing.
- inopinatus 7y agoNope. Happy to stand by the original claim that the specific data point quoted was meaningless and everything that flows from that about the quality of judgment for those believing it was, in contrast, definitive of guilt. “Nothing more” refers to consideration of any other evidence. As for “retreating into objectivity” I’d say I was far from it when subsequently upping the emotional ante with the descriptor of a “braying lynch mob”, which is how I really feel about the peanut gallery. Luke 6:37 applies recursively to all of us.
- hsitz 7y agoI can sort of understand someone having that opinion, but if you know running there's powerful evidence that it didn't happen (more than comes through in the linked article) and all of the alternative explanations sound very fishy. And I don't see how it's a lynch mob mentality at all if everyone is open to the guy going out and demonstrating conclusively that he has that level of fitness, which is quite easy for him to do if he wants to (if he really does have that level of fitness). It's a tired scenario that's been seen many times before. The accused cheater here, if he were a reasonable person, would say, "Yeah, I understand how it looks, it certainly doesn't seem like I could have actually run that race without cheating. So, here, let me go out and show you that I really am that fast." Why doesn't this happen?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]