Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: IM Canada F40-44: new thread [Pantelones] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Interestingly the evidence falls into the following areas:

  • Chip malfunction/loss and or issues with timing non-reads.
  • Failure to display race number consistently throughout races
  • Eyewitness testimony from other racers
  • Race photos indicating positioning around racers with segment times much slower that Julies results
  • Inconsistent race results and performances over time.
  • Inability to provide direct evidence (GPS) of race performances when questioned
  • Segment times which are implausible when compared to competitors or elite athletes
  • Repeated instances of the above issues or combination of issues for discrete events over time

The following I think should be discarded as circumstantial evidence:

  • Claim of mental issues based on pattern of behavior
  • Body type
  • Vigorously defending her race results in site (doth protest too much arguement)
  • Twin conspirator claims
  • Switching/swapping of watches within a race///

It is actually quite easy to handicap this thing, and with pretty much 100% certainty. We are all athletes here, so what are the chances that someone that only can run around 8 minute miles, just magically runs low 6+ minute ones? It is absurd really, never happens, never has. This really is all the evidence that any athlete would need, because they know the impossibility of the task. Now if he or she goes out and runs a 1;18 open half marathon somewhere(right now), legit and witnessed, then I could believe she could maybe run low 6's, possibly in a ironman, but even that stretches creditability. Of course you can bamboozle lay people, but any athlete knows this kind of thing just does not happen, ever..

Last edited by: Slowman: Sep 3, 15 18:49
Quote Reply
Re: IM Canada F40-44: new thread [monty] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
guys, great theoretical discussion of what ought to be proof and standard of proof, etc. this is the kind of post that should be in this thread. let's just keep it to the issues, if you don't mind. just take it all over to that thread. this is the IM Canada F40-44 thread for any new facts, new facts, etc.


Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: IM Canada F40-44: new thread [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
a nice article in Vancouver Sun.

I believe this is a fair article that resumed the situation accurately

http://www.vancouversun.com/...html?__lsa=4fbc-edb7


Last edited by: playmobil31: Sep 3, 15 19:09
Quote Reply
Re: IM Canada F40-44: new thread [playmobil31] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
playmobil31 wrote:
a nice article in Vancouver Sun.

I believe this is a fair article that resumed the situation accurately

http://www.vancouversun.com/...html?__lsa=4fbc-edb7


They are downplaying how egregious her "lost timing chips" were, and how incredibly uncommon.
It's an incredible coincidence that her only truly outstanding results have all been in races where she lost her timing chip, or race number.
AND that also feature multiple laps of the various disciplines.
Fancy that.

Her friend seems to have softened her stance to "I don't think she knowingly cut the course".
Which means she now knows she cut the course(s), but still wants to be her friend.


float , hammer , and jog

Quote Reply
Re: IM Canada F40-44: new thread [Murphy'sLaw] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Based on the article in the Vancouver Sun, can we conclude that ITU Worlds in China will not be over-turning the result based on limited evidence? Had not heard anything that concrete before reading that specific article...
Quote Reply
Re: IM Canada F40-44: new thread [SasquatchRuns] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Not sure if this was posted? From Krista Guloien's blog:


It is not my intention to egg anyone on and or get involved in a whirlwind of drama by posting my previous post on Julie Miller, but I will always stand up for bullying and cyber terrorizing of others. I also strongly believe in fair play and I do not condone cheating in sport or anywhere in life.
If it were me in this circumstance, I would speak directly to the analysis of the course cutting in Whistler and clear it up one way or the other. It is now my impression that MOST of the key players in the community are not intending for the additional cyber terror that is coming with it, but it is and it is not ok.
I have read way too much of the information posted online and it does pose obvious and valid questions and I will clarify that I am not blind to that. As one of my critics commented,
"You can leave up your defense of an obvious cheater if you would like, but the longer it remains, the more foolish you will look."
I still stand by my belief (however foolish anyone might think it is) that it was not Julie's intention to cut the course. She deserves to have the time to sort through the emotions of this disaster and decide how she wants to move forward. This has put not only her personal credibility in jeopardy, but also her family and their home life in their community, so it would not be that easy to slap up a post. My hope is that she can clear up what went on from her side and that she will be able to move forward and the cyber terror will end.
Knowing someone going through something like this is a humbling experience. We live in a day and age where it is possible to get multi tiered ramifications and punishments for our actions.
I will never regret standing up for a friend no matter what information anyone uncovers. I have reason to believe in the good in most people and in this case of Julie specifically.



Thank you for your respectful responses to my previous post.
Quote Reply
Re: IM Canada F40-44: new thread [zedzded] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
I still stand by my belief (however foolish anyone might think it is) that it was not Julie's intention to cut the course.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Quote Reply
Re: IM Canada F40-44: new thread [spudone] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I think Krista Guloien knows full well that JM blatantly cheated, but is trying to paint herself out to be "best friend of the year 2015" by standing by her friend..

Quote Reply
Re: IM Canada F40-44: new thread [zedzded] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
.....so it would not be that easy to slap up a post......
I would have thought it would be real easy, a simple, no I didn't cut the course, yes I can easily prove/demonstrate my athletic capabilities. That's how I would respond. It's real easy to tell the truth, lies are complicated.
Quote Reply
Re: IM Canada F40-44: new thread [spudone] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It's not just twice though is it - its much more than twice ?
Quote Reply
Re: IM Canada F40-44: new thread [zedzded] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
zedzded wrote:
I think Krista Guloien knows full well that JM blatantly cheated, but is trying to paint herself out to be "best friend of the year 2015" by standing by her friend..
And I have no idea what she is referring to with "cyber bulling" but posters on ST just want the wrong to be rectified. And the multiple and blatant cheating (not misguided accidental course-cutting) to be addressed.

It seems a cop-out for her friend to try and turn it around and say she is being bullied. Her friend JT is the one that did it and brought any ramifications on herself.
Quote Reply
Re: IM Canada F40-44: new thread [tonythetriguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
tonythetriguy wrote:
Quote:
But what if she is wearing this watch?

Couldn't have been as the race in question was 2013 and the 920 XT didn't come out until October of 2014. I would say that it is pretty apparent that she has a timing chip on at the same time as the two watch photos, so she "loses" the timing chip at some point on the run.


So, if she finished this race (2013 IMC) without a timing chip, isn't that grounds for a DQ from it as well? Plus there is the eyewitness account/claim that they witnessed her cutting the course that I posted earlier in this thread.

The picture above proves that she began the run leg of IMC 2013 with her timing chip on her ankle. However, the Vancouver Sun article says:

"Miller, who is a recreational — not a professional — racer, said her timing chips were lost during the Ironman in Whistler both this year and in 2013, when she finished in the top 10 for her age group. She guessed they fell off during the swim or when she changed her clothes between the bike and run."

So she told the Vancouver Sun that she guessed her chip at IMC 2013 either fell off during the swim or in T2 and yet there it is on her ankle in the run. Presumably Sportstats data can corroborate the fact that she crossed the T2 exit mat with the chip on.

I guess she may have mis-remembered what happened.
Quote Reply
Re: IM Canada F40-44: new thread [Kay Serrar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Timing splits from 2013 confirm she left T2 with her chip on (the chip did atleast pass the mat - because she has a T2-time).
Quote Reply
Re: IM Canada F40-44: new thread [lovegoat] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Wow this things sure has some legs! Its now right on the front of the website of the main newspaper for a city 2 and a half million people! Not sure how it was placed in the print edition. Kona doesnt even get that sort of coverage in a paper like The Vancouver Sun


From reading the article it appears she isn't really bothering to defend her times in questions - just stating that she "wished she knew what happened to her timing chip". Then everyone gets muddled with emotional stuff (that is doing a good job confusing the situation).
Quote Reply
Re: IM Canada F40-44: new thread [lovegoat] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Lets talk about IMC 2013.

I've taken a look at the photos and splits and have drawn some conclusions. Perhaps people familiar with the run course can fact check this and see if it makes sense. If I have made any errors in my analysis or conclusions please let me know. I'm trying to look at this in a fair and objective manner, so I want this to be correct.



Summary:
Pictures taken during Ironman Canada 2013 appear to show Julie Miller at the 6.9k/26.6k location at 9:01:18 race time. Depending on whether these were taken during her first or second lap, the time established would require either 3:15/km for 35.3 km (photo taken first lap) or 4:06/km for 26.2km (photo taken second lap). Neither of these options seem plausible as both are faster than the winning female professional.

Background:
Due to recent disqualifications and questions about Julie Miller’s finishing times, it was decided to investigate the 2013 results. In this event she placed 10th in her age group, but as with Ironman 2015, she did not have any run splits. This brings into question whether or not she completed the required 2 laps of the run course.

In 2013 the run time recorded in the official results is 3:42:19. This is 5:16min/km average pace and does not draw any particular attention like the one recorded in 2015, but with no intermediate splits it requires further investigation. The objective was to find a picture with other athletes and establish a time for that picture. From this time cases can be tested against her run start and finish times.

This analysis will only consider objective and verifiable information. With that in mind, the source data will be clearly referenced and linked where possible so that one can verify themselves.

One might see similarities in this report to the “Evernote document” for Ironman 2015, but the two are not connected. This has not been written by or with the consent of that author.


Analysis:
The image below is a screen shot of page 5185 of Finisher Pix race photos from Ironman Canada 2013. It depicts a wooden bridge overlooking water. Its location can be established to be very close to the 6.9k (26.2k second loop) timing mat due to the convergence of numbers in the results for the pictured athletes (see table below). There are a number of athletes in each other’s pictures, showing that the photos were taken in rapid succession which is backed up by the close times recorded at 6.9k or 26.2k.

Julie Miller is visible in images with both #2344 and #280. #280’s bib is not visible, but his arm marking is, and a search for #280 clearly shows the same person. Athlete #280 started the run before #2344, so we can conclude that #280 is on his second lap and #2344 is on his first. With their finish times we can also conclude that this is the only time they would have been going in the same direction at the same time. Based on this and the fact that their split times are within one second of each other we can assume this picture was taken very close to the timing mat and for the sake of simplicity will assign 9:01:18 to this picture.



Split times from published results available on Irontracker:



Having established that these athletes are at that location together, at or very close to 6.9/26.2k, Julie Miller is either crosses 6.9k at 9:01:18 (first lap) or crosses 26.2k at 9:01:18 ( second lap).

Case 1 – this was taken during Julie’s first lap
If it was Julie’s first lap she would have covered 6.9km in 1:47:22, or 15:34/km and the remaining 35.3km in 1:54:57, or 3:15/km. This equates to a 2:17:25 marathon pace for 35.3km and would qualify for the olympic marathon if maintained for 42.2k. The winning female professional ran this section at a 4:09/km pace.

Case 2 – this was taken during Julie’s second lap
If this was Julie’s second lap, then she would have covered the first 26.2k in 1:47:22, or 4:06/km and the remaining 16k in 1:54:57, or 7:11/km. This equates to a 2:52:56 marathon pace for 26.2km. The winning female professional ran this section at 4:11/km pace.


Conclusion:
In order for the posted time to be correct Julie Miller must have run the first 26.2km of Ironman Canada 2013 at a pace faster than the winning female (4:11/km in the same section). This is not consistent with other results posted by her or triathletes in general. Evidence of this nature suggests that Julie did not run the full course that day and should be removed from the finishers results with a Disqualification.

*edit with correction from bx3
Last edited by: peeg: Sep 4, 15 7:36
Quote Reply
Re: IM Canada F40-44: new thread [peeg] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
mike drop
Quote Reply
Re: IM Canada F40-44: new thread [peeg] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'll pick that mic up and announce that peeg has won the interwebs
Quote Reply
Re: IM Canada F40-44: new thread [peeg] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
well presented. based on that evidence, and the rationale used for DQ'ing her from this year's IMC, I don't see how WTC could NOT DQ her from IMC 2013. If they didn't, it would be inconsistent.
Quote Reply
Re: IM Canada F40-44: new thread [peeg] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
great work!

do you know this location? https://www.finisherpix.com/...a-2013.html#25250017

i m asking as she still as her chip at the time? is it pass the 6.9km mark? somewhere before?

Jonathan Caron

Jonnyo Coaching
Quote Reply
Re: IM Canada F40-44: new thread [peeg] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply

Quote:
Athlete #280 started the run before #2344, so we can conclude that #280 is on his first lap and #2344 is on his second.

I think you might have that backwards. 280 is on his second lap, and 2344 on his first.




Triathlon Conversion Calculator: http://www.tricalc3.com
Predict your finish time: http://www.tricalc3.com/?x=3
iPhone / iPod / Android Optimized: http://www.tricalc3.com/tricalc3app/
Quote Reply
Re: IM Canada F40-44: new thread [bx3] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
bx3 wrote:

Quote:
Athlete #280 started the run before #2344, so we can conclude that #280 is on his first lap and #2344 is on his second.


I think you might have that backwards. 280 is on his second lap, and 2344 on his first.


Yes, thanks... corrected
Quote Reply
Re: IM Canada F40-44: new thread [jonnyo] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
jonnyo wrote:
great work!

do you know this location? https://www.finisherpix.com/...a-2013.html#25250017

i m asking as she still as her chip at the time? is it pass the 6.9km mark? somewhere before?

99% sure that is by the skate park - in 2013 we ran there 3 times I believe - out of T2, start of second lap AND the finish?

Brent

DFRU - Detta Family Racing Unit...the kids like it and we all get out and after it...gotta keep the fam involved!
Quote Reply
Re: IM Canada F40-44: new thread [Kay Serrar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Kay Serrar wrote:
well presented. based on that evidence, and the rationale used for DQ'ing her from this year's IMC, I don't see how WTC could NOT DQ her from IMC 2013. If they didn't, it would be inconsistent.


An article has been posted on the main page
http://www.slowtwitch.com/...ds_Athlete_5326.html
Quote Reply
Re: IM Canada F40-44: new thread [peeg] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
peeg wrote:
Kay Serrar wrote:
well presented. based on that evidence, and the rationale used for DQ'ing her from this year's IMC, I don't see how WTC could NOT DQ her from IMC 2013. If they didn't, it would be inconsistent.


An article has been posted on the main page
http://www.slowtwitch.com/...ds_Athlete_5326.html

That's good that they have now also DQ'd her for the 2013 IMC race.

For the 2014 ITU Worlds in Weihai, it appears that the ITU do not have access to the run lap split data, which means they cannot do a similar analysis as WTC has done, even if there were photos of her in close proximity to other athletes. However, the ITU could still DQ her based on an "unreasonable" total run time - unreasonable being based on comparisons to her performances elsewhere. It seems that there was a bit of a mess in the Weihai timings, but even if they thought JM's bike time may have been longer (it is extremely unlikely it could have been shorter, as she had one of the fastest bike splits in her AG), then this would mean her run split would have been even quicker. So either a) her bike split is accurate and she ran a 6:48/mile pace for the 20km run, which seems unreasonable enough for a DQ, or b) her bike split was longer and she would have had to run even faster than that (ie. also a DQ).

I suspect ITU have concluded that a 6:48/mile run pace is close enough to possible that they don't feel they can DQ her, but it's sad that she is clinging on to someone else's (Victoria Hill's) World Champion title in the face of all the overwhelming evidence.

Edit to fix quotes
Last edited by: Kay Serrar: Sep 4, 15 8:01
Quote Reply
Re: IM Canada F40-44: new thread [Kay Serrar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
If her run time in Weihai is not not considered sufficiently compelling for a DQ, couldn't she be disqualified simply because her qualification to even compete in that race has now been revoked?

Achim Traut
Quote Reply

Prev Next