Dont you hate when you smash your PB and the photographer misses you ...

61 to 80 of 237 messages
30/04/2013 at 08:40
Dave The Ex- Spartan wrote (see)

Can we go back to getting laid ?

Seconded.

30/04/2013 at 08:40
Absolutely not Screampillar because they would be prejudicing the outcome of this inquiry. An open title and presenting the facts fairly allows people to make their own minds up.
Pudge    pirate
30/04/2013 at 08:40
Dave The Ex- Spartan wrote (see)

Can we go back to getting laid ?

I think all the talk of IT has killed the mood...

30/04/2013 at 08:41
Dave The Ex- Spartan wrote (see)

Can we go back to getting laid ?

 

Sussex Runner (NLR) wrote (see)
Absolutely not Screampillar because they would be prejudicing the outcome of this inquiry. An open title and presenting the facts fairly allows people to make their own minds up.

Why am I hearing Tony Blair's voice in my head?

kittenkat    pirate
30/04/2013 at 08:42

Keys in the fruit bowl, laptops away. You know the drill (literally)

kittenkat    pirate
30/04/2013 at 08:43
Screamapillar wrote (see)
Dave The Ex- Spartan wrote (see)

Can we go back to getting laid ?

 

Sussex Runner (NLR) wrote (see)
Absolutely not Screampillar because they would be prejudicing the outcome of this inquiry. An open title and presenting the facts fairly allows people to make their own minds up.

Why am I hearing Tony Blair's voice in my head?

Ok, now THIS has killed the mood.

30/04/2013 at 08:51

I know someone on this thread who claimed they ran Reading HM, yet there was not one photo from the official photographer. How did that work out DF3. Oh I remember now, you were wearing your woolly cardy over your race number.   So there are many genuine reasons for the official photographer to miss your day out on the course.

That better not be repeated this weekend, otherwise it will look a little suspect.

Carry on Philip Marlowe.

30/04/2013 at 08:55

Manchester timings are a complete F*** up and I doubt it can be corrected, too much to do, and who would trust the outcome, also it was an easy race for people to cheat, being an out and back

30/04/2013 at 08:58
Also-ran wrote (see)

I know someone on this thread who claimed they ran Reading HM, yet there was not one photo from the official photographer. How did that work out DF3. Oh I remember now, you were wearing your woolly cardy over your race number.   So there are many genuine reasons for the official photographer to miss your day out on the course.

That better not be repeated this weekend, otherwise it will look a little suspect.

Carry on Philip Marlowe.

Haha! thats a good point ........  but that was because I wore more  jacket over my number because its a daft system where you cant put the number over your jacket because then if you want to take it off midway through the race you have to faff around taking your number off, taking your jacket off, putting your number back on .......... so whenever I came up to a drinks station or somewhere officials would be I would just unzip my jacket so my number was visible, pass the drinks station, zip back up.

Also the difference being is that her splits had her by her husbands side the whole time, yet in 23 photos, not a trace of her (in fact there was not a shot of any woman in any of the shots of this guy).

30/04/2013 at 08:59
EKGO wrote (see)

Manchester timings are a complete F*** up and I doubt it can be corrected, too much to do, and who would trust the outcome, also it was an easy race for people to cheat, being an out and back

There wont be any cheating available for us though in 5 days time!

(well there is a slight dog leg near the end which I guess opens up a possibility- but Im sure on the Salisbury plains it would be very obvious to see a lone runner cutting across) 

seren nos    pirate
30/04/2013 at 09:08
David Falconer 3 wrote (see)

Also the difference being is that her splits had her by her husbands side the whole time, yet in 23 photos, not a trace of her (in fact there was not a shot of any woman in any of the shots of this guy).

the difference is that she was one of hundreds who were allocated the time and splits of someone who had the adjoining number to theirs..Not a one off .

but you ain't big enough to admit that you failed to notice it are you.......Funny that it was a woman you picked on again David.....scared that if you had picked on one of the hundreds of blokes affected by this thye might have landed you one.

30/04/2013 at 09:08
Once again it seems that one or even two strange occurrences can be put down to an anomaly but being missed 23 times, the same person in the photo, the same person out,both with identical splits. That's more difficult to swallow.
30/04/2013 at 09:10
I think there was a pair involved in this controversy. He is as much in the spotlight, if not more than her.
seren nos    pirate
30/04/2013 at 09:11

sussex...maybe they didn't run....the chip is giving times for people who didn't run.usually just the time of the person next to you....have you actually going to look at the results or just be the faithful sidekick and stick by your man whatever the evidence says

30/04/2013 at 09:11
seren nos wrote (see)

but you ain't big enough to admit that you failed to notice it are you.......Funny that it was a woman you picked on again David.....scared that if you had picked on one of the hundreds of blokes affected by this thye might have landed you one.

Not at all, in both cases I have pointed out, you have a look at the Top 50 mens result in Brighton, and no discrepencies there at all ......... and for this, I can see the hubbie running along clear as day.

So nothing to do with the sex involved, just so happens that the discrepencies all seem to centre around the women ....... coincidences Im sure

Also I do believe only a couple of days ago I strongly implied Phil Pub wouldnt make a good model to which he replied (still cannot believe he actually did some modelling, what are the chances of that??), so I have a go at the men just as much as the women.

 

30/04/2013 at 09:16
So if he didn't run. Who is the guy in the photo with his number on and why is a time recorded under his name. A time and a photo? How much gravy did they spill on those chips to make them do that?
30/04/2013 at 09:21
Sussex Runner (NLR) wrote (see)
So if he didn't run. Who is the guy in the photo with his number on and why is a time recorded under his name. A time and a photo? How much gravy did they spill on those chips to make them do that?

Seren only wants to see the bits that prove her point ........... there is none so blind as those who don't want to see.

 

30/04/2013 at 09:21

On the PhilPub modeling front DF3,  make sure you don't get a call up to model XEMPO's new T-Shirt colour. They are bringing out a DNF one and will be looking for a model from this weekends races. Down to you now Sir.

30/04/2013 at 09:32

The problem now is that although there is an almighty f-up (for that is what I think it was), the results will , in all probability, not be corrected on power of 10, run britain etc. Which goes to show that those sites are , at best, just a reasonable level of ranking, but by no means any way definitive.
I'll repeat the point, anything that stress tests timings, rankings, and (if proven) manipulators, then so much the better.

30/04/2013 at 09:39

It would be funny though if the VLM get a whole bunch of GFA entries in from the Manchester marathon on the back of this. What a mess.

 

61 to 80 of 237 messages
Previously bookmarked threads are now visible in "Followed Threads". You can also manage notifications on these threads from the "Forum Settings" section of your profile settings page to prevent being sent an email when a reply is made.
Forum Jump  

RW Forums