Running Mania

To lose your chip once - possible, but twice ?

http://triathlonmagazine.ca/news/canadi ... an-canada/

You start scouring her social media postings, I'll get the pitchforks.

ETA: as an aside, when I read this I got "Ironman Canada" and "Challenge Penticton" mixed up in my head and wondered why she was disqualified five days before the race.

maybe i'm having a soft day, but i feel like giving her the benefit of the doubt.

that said, she had a "support julie miller, world champion" facebook page that has since been removed, along with the associated website (http://www.millerjulie.com), as well as her linkedin page. so turd might have to wait a while for the social media dirt.

Whether or not she actually ran the course is not really the issue, IMO. I don't think she should get a Kona spot if she wasn't wearing a timing chip.

Here you go Mike...

Already completely "investigated" by someone with one hell of a lot of time on their hands.

https://www.evernote.com/shard/s257/sh/ ... dda244f9a3

MINITEE wrote:Here you go Mike...

Already completely "investigated" by someone with one hell of a lot of time on their hands.

https://www.evernote.com/shard/s257/sh/ ... dda244f9a3

Its too late for pitchforks. Straight to torches.

Its too late for pitchforks. Straight to torches.

She's a witch - burn her !

Just spent an hour reading the thread at slowtwitch. There have been a couple of results I have seen in the past from strangers that makes you wonder... and now I think maybe there ws something to my wondering.

Annelizabeth wrote:Just spent an hour reading the thread at slowtwitch. There have been a couple of results I have seen in the past from strangers that makes you wonder... and now I think maybe there ws something to my wondering.

the whole thing is pretty nuts! the amount of self promotion she has done makes this even more ridiculous.

scrumhalfgirl wrote:

Annelizabeth wrote:Just spent an hour reading the thread at slowtwitch. There have been a couple of results I have seen in the past from strangers that makes you wonder... and now I think maybe there ws something to my wondering.

the whole thing is pretty nuts! the amount of self promotion she has done makes this even more ridiculous.

That's a common theme between the two most recent suspected cheaters (i.e., the Boston cheater).

La wrote:

scrumhalfgirl wrote:

Annelizabeth wrote:Just spent an hour reading the thread at slowtwitch. There have been a couple of results I have seen in the past from strangers that makes you wonder... and now I think maybe there ws something to my wondering.

the whole thing is pretty nuts! the amount of self promotion she has done makes this even more ridiculous.

That's a common theme between the two most recent suspected cheaters (i.e., the Boston cheater).

If you're going to make a spectacle of your successes, expect to become a spectacle in failure...

jono

In this case it clearly wasn't a witch-hunt.
To the naysayers that will say that no good comes out of outing cheaters... What's the alternative?

http://www.slowtwitch.com/News/Ironman_ ... _5326.html

Jwolf wrote:In this case it clearly wasn't a witch-hunt.
To the naysayers that will say that no good comes out of outing cheaters... What's the alternative?

http://www.slowtwitch.com/News/Ironman_ ... _5326.html

Interesting that they did not mention Sportstats as being the ones who initiated this to the Race Organizers to investigate further ??

Jwolf wrote:In this case it clearly wasn't a witch-hunt.
To the naysayers that will say that no good comes out of outing cheaters... What's the alternative?

http://www.slowtwitch.com/News/Ironman_ ... _5326.html

I don't think anyone has said that no good comes from outing cheaters. I do think its legitimate to question the priorities of some of the posters on letsrun who pursue cheaters with the intensity of a deranged 9/11 truther on a meth bender.

turd ferguson wrote:

Jwolf wrote:In this case it clearly wasn't a witch-hunt.
To the naysayers that will say that no good comes out of outing cheaters... What's the alternative?

http://www.slowtwitch.com/News/Ironman_ ... _5326.html

I don't think anyone has said that no good comes from outing cheaters.

Someone has said it here before-- actually called it a "zero-sum game."

Jwolf wrote:

turd ferguson wrote:

Jwolf wrote:In this case it clearly wasn't a witch-hunt.
To the naysayers that will say that no good comes out of outing cheaters... What's the alternative?

http://www.slowtwitch.com/News/Ironman_ ... _5326.html

I don't think anyone has said that no good comes from outing cheaters.

Someone has said it here before-- actually called it a "zero-sum game."

I used the phrase "zero-sum game" but you have completely misstated my position.
(1) In fact, I think that catching cheaters is not a "zero-sum game" in the sense that just because you're identifying someone doing something bad doesn't automatically mean that you're doing a corresponding amount of good. It's possible (though not always the case) for both sides of the witch hunt to be demeaning themselves.
(2) In certain contexts, I believe that trying to catch cheaters is worthy of a high priority for time and resources. Big competitions involving cash prizes or qualifications to other competitions (Kona, Boston, the Olympics, ...) are places where more vigilance is justified. If we're talking about age group trinkets in a local race then the priorities should be different, even if that provides a better opportunity for someone to cheat.

I'm sorry that I misstated your position and misquoted the expression. But I thought in the past you had criticized others for outing cheaters when qualifying spots were on the line, as in the recent cases where Boston qualifiers were outed.

Jwolf wrote:I'm sorry that I misstated your position and misquoted the expression. But I thought in the past you had criticized others for outing cheaters when qualifying spots were on the line, as in the recent cases where Boston qualifiers were outed.

It's a matter of methods (of investigation) and context.
(1) This ironman investigation seems to have been done quite respectfully (I've seen the phrase "twitchhunt"), there's a lot at stake, and there's enough information available to reach a convincing conclusion without having to drastically overhaul the way all future events are held.
(2) The Boston investigation (Mike Rossi) was much less respectful (e.g., Mike's "deranged 9/11 truther on a meth bender") and could well lead to much more expensive race fees for future races that wish to maintain BQ eligibility. On the other hand, there are some modest stakes involved so that I'm not necessarily advocating doing nothing.
(3) The 2013 Vancouver Sun Run investigation was also kind of slimy and the stakes (two age group winners) were tiny.

There are a lot of analogies between the faction asserting that "cheating is wrong and must be stamped out at all costs" and the right-wing political ideology that "staying safe from terrorists is paramount and thus any infringement on civil liberties is a fair price to pay". My position is that it is possible to decide that there are limits to the extent to which we should try to safeguard ourselves from wrongdoers and that doesn't mean I'm condoning the wrongdoing.

Jwolf wrote:
To the naysayers that will say that no good comes out of outing cheaters... What's the alternative?

Maybe a better alternative is to say its not necessary or desirable to prevent and detect every possible instance of cheating at every race.

Well, this about sums it all up....

http://triathlonmagazine.ca/news/miller ... an-racing/

turd ferguson wrote:

Jwolf wrote:
To the naysayers that will say that no good comes out of outing cheaters... What's the alternative?

Maybe a better alternative is to say its not necessary or desirable to prevent and detect every possible instance of cheating at every race.

Or a proportional amount of time and resources based upon the offense with an eye on the consequences to the race and future participants. Especially if as Ian suggested, the "investigation" and submission of the findings are done in a respective and factual manner. For the vast majority of people, this is a fun hobby and could not care less unless of course it starts to cost them more to participate. But on the other hand, there should be some level of vigilance to ensure the integrity of the results for although it is a hobby, timing chips, medals, prizes do dictate at least some minimal standards are required.

I agree with your thoughts about the extremes some people have gone. In the subject of this thread, the person has been publicly shamed, her spot and results taken away and so time to move on. Where in contrast, the Boston Qualifier where the Lets Run people were treating that case as if the guy had gotten away with murder and they were seeking justice for the victim's family. I have no problem calling a cheater out, publicly shaming them but then move on.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/28/sport ... rsm=Reddit

I've forgotten whether I hate cheaters with the fire of 1000 suns or whether I don't care because it doesn't affect me. I apologize in advance if I'm inconsistent.

turd ferguson wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/28/sports/julie-miller-ironman-video-offers-proof-that-disqualified-triathlete-cut-course.html?mwrsm=Reddit

I've forgotten whether I hate cheaters with the fire of 1000 suns or whether I don't care because it doesn't affect me. I apologize in advance if I'm inconsistent.

I'd say a bit of both. In the big scheme of things I don't care - and I don't think I'd put this much effort into outing and shaming cheaters. But it's a fun spectator sport!

La wrote:

turd ferguson wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/28/sports/julie-miller-ironman-video-offers-proof-that-disqualified-triathlete-cut-course.html?mwrsm=Reddit

I've forgotten whether I hate cheaters with the fire of 1000 suns or whether I don't care because it doesn't affect me. I apologize in advance if I'm inconsistent.

I'd say a bit of both. In the big scheme of things I don't care - and I don't think I'd put this much effort into outing and shaming cheaters. But it's a fun spectator sport!

Indeed. I'd probably be more fire of 1000 suns if I were at the front being beat by cheaters, rather than in the middle being beat by cheaters.

jono

turd ferguson wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/28/sports/julie-miller-ironman-video-offers-proof-that-disqualified-triathlete-cut-course.html?mwrsm=Reddit

I've forgotten whether I hate cheaters with the fire of 1000 suns or whether I don't care because it doesn't affect me. I apologize in advance if I'm inconsistent.

Cheaters (doping, course cutting, etc.) = care
Fakers (pretending to have run Boston, claiming faster times than actual, etc.) = don't care