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

161 to 180 of 237 messages
30/04/2013 at 16:04

Run Wales. In this case, within a few hours of the thread being opened, the error has been corrected, so the runner has no need to defend herself.

In descending order of likelihood, it therefore must be one of: -

1.) It was corrected independently, the runner is none the wiser and her name is now clear anyway.

2.) The runner was contacted, she was mystified and explained she'd never run the race.

3.) The runner was contacted and admitted, er...it's a fair cop, guv.

 

I'm sorry, but I don't share your sensitivity over this stuff. Are you suggesting that DF3 is such an evil bogeyman that I should not have drawn his attention to data that was already in the public domain?

Inconsistencies were found, they were highlighted, and if, as seems probable, the runner here is an innocent victim of a technology cock-up, why do you feel their name been dragged through the mud?

Seems to me that it is only those who are finding themselves lost in their own moral outrage that have that perception.

30/04/2013 at 16:15
Big_Bad_Bob wrote (see)
Screamapillar wrote (see)

But you see Bob, if someone is presented with the "evidence" against them they can defend themselves, and none of the people referred to on either thread has been. 

Hardly an open debate, wouldn't you agree?

 

Really?

You think after what they were presented with, the Brighton/Paris runner's club wouldn't have actually raised the issue with her?

You're bonkers!

 

Clubs or organisers raising the issue with individuals is as it should be. But the issue being "raised" on here without the person/s present is not. If you can't see the difference I suggest it's you who's bonkers.
You seem not to have considered that it may well be that the query has been raised and discussed and an explanation given and accepted. If the organisers and the club are satisfied with it then I'm afraid what anybody else thinks is now irrelevent. 
David Falconer 3 wrote (see)

Screamapillar also posts on the Daily Mail site and signs off everything with 'Outraged, Tunbridge Wells'

 

You post on the Daily Mail site. I don't.

Edited: 30/04/2013 at 16:15
30/04/2013 at 16:21
kaffeeg wrote (see)

Jesus you lot are really stuck in the playground.

Screampillar - you are totally right. 

 

 

Maxpower North West wrote (see)

Anyway KK when are RW going to print another picture of you in the magazine. I have used that picture so many times over the years I can no longer open that page

I have a spot of mange at the moment.

30/04/2013 at 16:27

Let's put it another way for you people that seem to think this sort of stuff is all right:

I think a work colleague has been fiddling the books (got a dodgy time in a race). Do I raise the issue with his manager (his running club)? Do I contact higher management anonymously (the race organisers)? Do I confront him with it and hear what he has to say? Or do I post my "evidence" on a public forum and invite endless speculation?

Still think it's OK?

Edited: 30/04/2013 at 16:28
30/04/2013 at 16:34

Scream, I don't know what I think of the situation in general as I haven't read most of it, but there's a difference in doing something that could potentially get someone fired, to questioning running results.

Edited: 30/04/2013 at 16:34
seren nos    pirate
30/04/2013 at 16:36

Power of 10 have confirmed that none of the manchester marathon times have been officially accepted yet. they are giving the organisers a couple of days to correct all the results and finalise them.....

 so you don't need to worry about anyone getting a good for age that they are not worthy of 

the lady did not even know the guy who she was given the time for.........he is not from her club and is not her husband.....

 so in the great dective work was anything that was insinuated true.....no...

but don't let the truth get in the way of a good wind up.

 maybe tomoorow DF3 can accuse some random person of child abuse or abduction........but he won't use those words he will just insinuate that they did it.......no problem as its not liek the person will come on here and read it

30/04/2013 at 16:41

Reminds me a lot of the internet (armchair) sleuthing that took place in the days after the Boston Marathon bombing.

Obviously a lot less serious of an issue, but the same in principle.

30/04/2013 at 16:42

 

  

ghost of kittenkat wrote (see)

Scream, I don't know what I think of the situation in general as I haven't read most of it, but there's a difference in doing something that could potentially get someone fired, to questioning running results.


Is there though?

If both people are actually innocent and are having their integrity called into question by a bunch of strangers then it hardly matters what the issue is that's under discussion. 

Edited: 30/04/2013 at 16:44
30/04/2013 at 16:53

  

ghost of kittenkat wrote (see)

Scream, I don't know what I think of the situation in general as I haven't read most of it, but there's a difference in doing something that could potentially get someone fired, to questioning running results.


Is there though?

If both people are actually innocent and are having their integrity called into question by a bunch of strangers then it hardly matters what the issue is that's under discussion. 


Of course there is.  

30/04/2013 at 16:54
Screamapillar wrote (see)

 

  

ghost of kittenkat wrote (see)

Scream, I don't know what I think of the situation in general as I haven't read most of it, but there's a difference in doing something that could potentially get someone fired, to questioning running results.


Is there though?

If both people are actually innocent and are having their integrity called into question by a bunch of strangers then it hardly matters what the issue is that's under discussion. 


Integrity is questioned every day on the Internet by strangers, I think it will always happen. I guess we have to filter out what's ok and what's not.

In this case I don't know what's right and what's not, as I haven't really been following it that closely. Was someone specifically personally identified?

30/04/2013 at 17:03

Screamapillar - There is no explanation for the Brighton/Paris runner. Those results are false. Why she continues to claim them and her club continue to accept them is a matter for their own conscience. Cheating is something I despise, is why I 'walk' when I know I'm out playing cricket, and get pretty damn angry at those who don't. At least she was exposed on here, and hopefully some of those she competes with and against are now aware of that and cringe when they see her taking credit for those performances.

Moreover, your work colleague analogy is bogus. There is nothing that has been discussed here that was not already in the public domain, and the Run Britain Rankings are there to stimulate competition and the monthly prizes to reward achievement. Those who appear at the top of those rankings will be scrutinised but nobody is forced to either claim their handicap nor to put their name forward for the monthly competition.

It has now been established in this case that the runner in question was probably innocent, and it has highlighted a technology failure from those who were engaged by the race organisers to provide it.

No harm done to the innocent but embarrassment where it is due.

Where's the harm and why do you find it so upsetting? Or is it actually more, as I suggested earlier, a case of you playing the man rather than the ball with DF3?

30/04/2013 at 17:12
Did I miss something? It what way is the people in question been cleared. How are all those chip splits accounted for?
30/04/2013 at 17:13
ghost of kittenkat wrote (see)
Screamapillar wrote (see)

 

  

ghost of kittenkat wrote (see)

 

In this case I don't know what's right and what's not, as I haven't really been following it that closely. Was someone specifically personally identified?

 

Yes, they were identified on the first page of this thread

 

30/04/2013 at 17:17
Seems like one name has been removed from the results. Did the authorities catch up with them?
30/04/2013 at 17:17
Big_Bad_Bob wrote (see)

Run Wales. In this case, within a few hours of the thread being opened, the error has been corrected, so the runner has no need to defend herself.

In descending order of likelihood, it therefore must be one of: -

1.) It was corrected independently, the runner is none the wiser and her name is now clear anyway.

2.) The runner was contacted, she was mystified and explained she'd never run the race.

3.) The runner was contacted and admitted, er...it's a fair cop, guv.

 

I'm sorry, but I don't share your sensitivity over this stuff. Are you suggesting that DF3 is such an evil bogeyman that I should not have drawn his attention to data that was already in the public domain?

Inconsistencies were found, they were highlighted, and if, as seems probable, the runner here is an innocent victim of a technology cock-up, why do you feel their name been dragged through the mud?

Seems to me that it is only those who are finding themselves lost in their own moral outrage that have that perception.

 

You (actually DF3) can't write something that is skirting with the libel laws, then a few hours later say... "oh, nothing to worry about, they weren't actually guilty.  No harm done"

That's not how society works for normal people.

 

seren nos    pirate
30/04/2013 at 17:17
Sussex Runner (NLR) wrote (see)
Did I miss something? It what way is the people in question been cleared. How are all those chip splits accounted for?

 

you keep on saying it and we keep on saying that the woman didn't actually run them.....the chip timing was just giving poeple the same time and splits as the person who had the same surname and had the number next to them..they did it muliple times.........

the splits are correct for a few people but then the chip duplicated these splits and final time for other people.....

go and have a look at the result page.they are working through them trying to rectify it but I'm sure they haven't all...

there were not hundreds of people running around with 2, 3, 4 or 5 chips on their legs......

30/04/2013 at 17:18

Big Bad Bob, I would say harm has been done, given how upset one of the people falsely accused of cheating is.

30/04/2013 at 17:21
Sussex Runner (NLR) wrote (see)
Did I miss something? It what way is the people in question been cleared. How are all those chip splits accounted for?

There are several other instances of those with the same surname, with sequential numbers and not having appeared in the race photographs together being credited with identical, or as near as dammit, finish and split times.

Seriously doubt whether they were all at it...seems more likely to be a widespread chip problem and one that has been acknowledged by the organisers!

Unlike the other case of course where it was just one person who suffered the chip failure...twice...when running highly unlikely PBs...that she continues to claim.

30/04/2013 at 17:21
But the splits are not identical. They had one to three seconds difference in them. How could it replicate itself in an almost way.
cougie    pirate
30/04/2013 at 17:23
If the splits arent identical then one person couldnt have carried two chips ?
It seems the results for Manchester are verrry dodgy. I hope they can fix it or there will be a lot of unhappy runners around.
How hard can it be to time a race ?
161 to 180 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