"Chickamauga Marathon Winner Disqualified..."

[Jwolf]

Chickamauga Marathon Winner Disqualified for Impossible Splits

"Race officials timed Tabatha Hamilton's first half in 2:06:51, and her second half in 47:30...

....While the 2:54:21 finishing time (2:55:39 gun time) Hamilton recorded is a believable time for a female marathon winner, the splits she recorded alerted race officials to the fact that something was off. (Hamilton's supposed second half time is 11 minutes faster than the men's world record for the half marathon.) In addition, Hamilton’s past race times, including a 2:19:47 half marathon and 1:42:18 15K earlier this year, were not consistent with her finish time on Saturday."

She is standing by her result, claiming her husband spotted her at 1:36 for the half (which would still give her an amazing although doable negative split). I was trying to figure out-- could her husband have innocently messed up calculating her time, thinking the race started at 8:00 when it really started at 7:30? Still-- she would have had to knowingly cut the course short to make up the difference in the second half. The actual winner of the women's race commented that she certainly would have noticed her blowing by her in the second half with a split like that. The odd thing is it took the sleuthing of this second-place woman to figure out the first woman's cheating-- you'd think the race would have followed up on something like that.

[drghfx]

Well if the woman was a great marathon runner you would say there was a timing error at the half way mark but this woman is not a woman who runs 2:45 marathons, so...BUSTED!!!!!

[Dstew]

What strikes me is odd is that there was not someone on a bike "leading" the woman who was at the front of the race. I was in a very small 5 K race and a young guy beat me by about a kilometer and the bike leader came back and then escorted me to my second place finish.

Just curious, a double loop and so the second half was not any easier then the first loop so the increased speed cannot be accounted for due to the course. And nothing in her race history to suggest she could even run a half marathon alone as fast as she said she ran the second half of the marathon.

In running the Kelowna marathon and a double loop, they seemed to have a few extra timing mats and there was a volunteer to make sure you did not miss the mat and someone else checking off bib numbers so it clearly some races are taking extra precautions to prevent what happened in this story from happening at their marathon.

[Jwolf]

This was a pretty small race with less than 500 finishers; I'm not sure they always have bike leads for the lead female. Obviously they didn't here. It still strikes me as odd that they wouldn't figure it out until the next morning.

Other social media discussions have indicated that this loop course goes through some park lands, so someone could cut the course by cutting through the park (leaving the course and rejoininig later on the loop). It's possible that the woman did so not realizing she had a chance of winning by doing it-- and then when she was told she won, she just went with it. (Kind of like what happened to that woman in the Sun Run who cut the course and ended up in the top of her age group.)

[drghfx]

Well, at the finish she said she pb'ed by about 7-8 minutes but the reporter couldn't find any marathon that she ran in less than 4:00 hours so it sounds like she was lying about that too.

[turd ferguson]

What strikes me is odd is that there was not someone on a bike "leading" the woman who was at the front of the race.

This is how I caught a cheater at Calgary a few years back when I was a course marshall.

The woman I caught had the good sense not to win the race, though it did make for an interesting moment when the women's lead cyclist and the lead woman passed the cheater.

[ian]

Having run all sorts of low-key races around this size, I can totally see "how" this happens (i.e., no women's lead bike, multiple events, ambiguous signage, a skeleton timing crew that isn't scrutinizing results in detail prior to the awards ceremony). What I don't understand is the indignance of the woman that she had most definitely run a legitimate 2:54.

Meanwhile, if we could only find a way to award trinkets for tax returns, fraud would be wiped out by the self-interested vigilance of the masses.

[Jwolf]

Meanwhile, if we could only find a way to award trinkets for tax returns, fraud would be wiped out by the self-interested vigilance of the masses.

Not sure if that's really fair. The woman that figured it out initially came in second-place and was the rightful winner of the women's race. If you were beaten in a small race by an unknown (and someone you never saw on the course), wouldn't you later be curious and look up the person's splits and past results? She wasn't just doing it for the trinket.

Although there are people criticizing her for not sitting back and "minding her own business" and waiting for someone else to reveal the transgression.

[Jo-Jo]

Meanwhile, if we could only find a way to award trinkets for tax returns, fraud would be wiped out by the self-interested vigilance of the masses.

Not sure if that's really fair. The woman that figured it out initially came in second-place and was the rightful winner of the women's race. If you were beaten in a small race by an unknown (and someone you never saw on the course), wouldn't you later be curious and look up the person's splits and past results? She wasn't just doing it for the trinket.

Although there are people criticizing her for not sitting back and "minding her own business" and waiting for someone else to reveal the transgression.

I agree. I'm a stats junkie so I'd be totally curious.
It's how I "outed" someone I know who cheated on a race in the US...but that's a story for another day

[ian]

Meanwhile, if we could only find a way to award trinkets for tax returns, fraud would be wiped out by the self-interested vigilance of the masses.

Not sure if that's really fair. The woman that figured it out initially came in second-place and was the rightful winner of the women's race. If you were beaten in a small race by an unknown (and someone you never saw on the course), wouldn't you later be curious and look up the person's splits and past results? She wasn't just doing it for the trinket.

Although there are people criticizing her for not sitting back and "minding her own business" and waiting for someone else to reveal the transgression.

We've had this conversation before. I understand why people are curious about those who finished ahead of them and, if the results are important enough to them, it's their prerogative to do some sleuthing and report any inconsistencies they find. I'm in no way advocating for cheaters here. My previous comment was just facetiously making the point that we're really good at correcting very minor injustices when they affect us individually while we turn a blind eye to gigantic ones on a daily basis because they don't affect us directly.

[MichaelMc]

True Ian, but we're all human. We're far more likely to act on items that directly affect us or which we can closely relate to than things which we are at a distance from (emotionally). Having said that, SOMETIMES people do very selfless things too!

I don't have any sympathy for this cheater and feel the actual winner was fully justified in investigating how she'd managed to get ahead of her without passing her. Also think people (and companies) should pay their fair share of taxes. Now where are those timing mats and photos on the tax races...

[La]

I'd call her a "cheater" if she deliberately cut the course to come out on top and win the race. There's probably a different term I'd use for someone who cut the course and inadvertently won the race (and then just went with it). The word "stupid" comes to mind.

And I have no issue at all with someone who came 2nd or 3rd doing some number crunching on the person who beat them, and then reporting it if the stats didn't add up.

[turd ferguson]

I'd call her a "cheater" if she deliberately cut the course to come out on top and win the race. There's probably a different term I'd use for someone who cut the course and inadvertently won the race (and then just went with it). The word "stupid" comes to mind.

And I have no issue at all with someone who came 2nd or 3rd doing some number crunching on the person who beat them, and then reporting it if the stats didn't add up.

the "and just went with it" turns her from stupid into a cheater.

If I get a bunch of money in my bank account by mistake, I'm not a thief. If I go "woo hoo" and start spending it hoping nobody will notice I'm a criminal.

[Jwolf]

I'd call her a "cheater" if she deliberately cut the course to come out on top and win the race. There's probably a different term I'd use for someone who cut the course and inadvertently won the race (and then just went with it). The word "stupid" comes to mind.

Liar?

She didn't tell them right away it was a mistake = cheater.

She later told a reporter that she took it easy in the first half, "really put the hammer down in the second half", and PRed by 6-7 minutes = liar = cheater. (also a bad liar)

http://www.chattanoogan.com/2014/11/8/2 ... -Wins.aspx

[canalrunner]

You always hope that honesty prevails. The vague reference to a PB is disturbing. No one goes from a 4 hour plus marathon to a sbu 3 hour marathon on a hilly course. "Just going with it" is a BS rationale. Errors can happen in races for a variety of reasons. Pat and I ran in the Canada Day 10k race in Ottawa, and we were both certain he had won the race on a hot day, as it was a double loop course and he was running second until someone dropped out and I was running in 5th or 6th. Someone else was credited with the win, but never claimed first (or the prize). We did a quick check and previous results indicated it was unlikely the fellow could have won. He was contacted. There was no issues. Just honesty, and Pat was awarded first (and the prize). There was no deception by anyone, no false claims. A mistake happened. It was fixed. If she was awarded first and presented with the prize for first female with a time of sub 3, she should have said, "Sorry, that can't be me, and that can't be my time, you had better check before awarding me first". She didn't. She isn't owed any consideration. Can't be called anything other than a cheater.

Boy, that sounds grumpy. How about a to finish.