4 ms·

Did you read the article? There is some supporting evidence for the conclusion.. > Meza should have crossed in front of an official video camera (..) Meza “did

Did you read the article? There is some supporting evidence for the conclusion.. > Meza should have crossed in front of an official video camera (..) Meza “did not appear in the video. The only reasonable explanation is that he did not run this section of the course.” > wherever Meza shows up in photos or video, “his pace is significantly slower than his official splits.” > photographs that showed Meza emerging from the sidewalk to rejoin the pack along Hollywood Boulevard (..) Meza reiterates he did not cheat, saying he needed to use a restroom Sure there could be explanations for all of these.. but on top of it all he ducks out of a race where he was to be monitored, in favor of an alternative race? He could have cleared his name right then and there, but he didn't, so naturally this furthers suspicion.

inopinatus 7y ago
> Did you read the article I sure did. And I can distinguish which data points are suspicious or incriminatory, and which are empty of meaning. > naturally this furthers suspicion. No, it doesn’t. This is my point: claiming it is so only reveals the low standards of evidence of the claimant.
- koboll 7y ago
  Well, it's a lot of circumstantial evidence that he cut or disappeared during suspiciously fast splits. Meanwhile there is no definitive evidence that he's actually able to finish races as fast as he says he is -- not a single instance in which an observer or tamper-resistant GPS tracker can verify his splits. Until we have that evidence, the balance seems to tip toward him likely being a cheater.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - inopinatus 7y ago
    That’s true. What’s untrue is that being absent from one opportunity to build that counter-claim somehow, and I quote, “says it all”. It doesn’t. It doesn’t add to the weight of evidence one way or another. Believing otherwise demonstrates poor judgement. If there was an evidentiary record of the participant specifically avoiding that event to avoid being definitely found incapable, that would be a different data point.

inopinatus 7y ago

> Did you read the article I sure did. And I can distinguish which data points are suspicious or incriminatory, and which are empty of meaning. > naturally this furthers suspicion. No, it doesn’t. This is my point: claiming it is so only reveals the low standards of evidence of the claimant.

koboll 7y ago
Well, it's a lot of circumstantial evidence that he cut or disappeared during suspiciously fast splits. Meanwhile there is no definitive evidence that he's actually able to finish races as fast as he says he is -- not a single instance in which an observer or tamper-resistant GPS tracker can verify his splits. Until we have that evidence, the balance seems to tip toward him likely being a cheater.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- inopinatus 7y ago
  That’s true. What’s untrue is that being absent from one opportunity to build that counter-claim somehow, and I quote, “says it all”. It doesn’t. It doesn’t add to the weight of evidence one way or another. Believing otherwise demonstrates poor judgement. If there was an evidentiary record of the participant specifically avoiding that event to avoid being definitely found incapable, that would be a different data point.