So I ran this race on Sunday. Let me just put down a few thoughts here to give it a little more background. But I must preface all of this with, I AM NOT defending this dude whatsoever!

1. The conditions sucked. It was high 40's at the start and a light drizzle. So could he have not warmed up and started slowly, sure.
2. The winds really picked up for the last half of the race. Worst part was, that's when the course started to go along the beach and then onto the boardwalk.
3. The last mile or maybe a bit more (I was delirious) was on the boardwalk with sideways rain, swirling winds so he could have slowed down at the end.

Now, I ran an official 2:57 but what's weird is this course registered for me and many others as a bit long, mine showing 26.4. A lot of turns and what-not may have attributed to that but my 6:42/mi pace actually had me at 2:55. So the times I think are actually a bit eschew but could have been my Garmin (though many alerts were popping the same time mine were so I think the course was a bit off)

But what I don't get is how a guy like this can get a sponsor like Newton? He's not that fast. Is it because he's a 'coach' or he has a big social media presence? Actually curious.

I'm in his AG (30-34) and I'm glad I kicked his ass, cheating or not. And I'll leave it at that!

It's pretty unlikely that a certified (map) marathon course was off.

If you are basing that on your Garmin 26.4 - please read and understand this: http://www.dcrainmaker.com/...ing-how-courses.html

Vilifying cheaters won't stop future cheaters. As a license armchair psychologist ;), I would argue the psychology of cheaters at this level (cheating for to gain entrance to big events) is not such that they will be deterred by others previously being vilified.

Yep that was my first thought but I really took the corners tight and did very little weaving and was out front with little traffic. But what's confusing to me more is how my garmin pace showed me at 6:42/mi which is around a 2:56, yet I somehow ended up adding on another nearly minute and a half? Something is fishy!

And relating back to this story, I have to sit down and look at the course but it was a semi out and back. So he could have jumped out and jumped back in no problem.

I'm not....I specifically said I am NOT defending this guy.

But the guy running "Marathon Investigations" has no responsibility / authority for public outing anyone. If he feels the need to track down cheaters, then turn over his evidence to race directors / organizers and let them do their job.

I think most would agree that when Sarah's bike was stolen there was excessive 'reaching' in trying to find a perp, although I wasn't aware it had got to the level you describe.

But that is a far cry from posting clearly questionable data about an athlete's performance, and to this day I can't recall an instance where the data has lied and an innocent athlete has been unfairly sullied. Recall the thread about the "popular, super-nice guy" that took first overall in a 70.3 last summer after running a 1.21 (ish) run (I'm sure someone can find the thread)? The guy wgho shoudl have won came on here and called him out, and everyone said, whoa, the evidence is weak. But I looked at the questionable athlete's former 13.1 times and even though he was a solid athlete (PR 1.29 half marathon if I recall), it was clear that a 1.21 half marathon at the end of a 70.3 was way beyond him (and, most importantly, any athlete would know that). And then, just when everyone was starting to pile on the OP, it transpired someone had photo evidence that proved the other "super-nice guy" cut one of the run out and backs short. Yes, it was probably unintentional, but he came on here and maligned the OP in defending himself.

Even the post yesterday where someone posted a bunch of questionable data by a female athlete in NJ, while inappropriate on some levels (first post etc.), STILL had some mighty questionable numbers.

So I get the concern, but my point is that over and over again it has been shown that if it doesn't look and smell right, it's not right. And as athletes who spend a huge amount of time training to be the best we can be, and do the best we can in these races, big or small, we are rightly indignant when someone is obviously course-cutting. And again, let's present the evidence and then see if there was a good reason for it before piling on - and I actually think people here are pretty good (on the whole) in that respect.

And my point is, again, turn the information over to the people who are responsible for enforcing the rules. No one is saying don't look at the data, don't do the research.

And it is not even specifically MI that I am talking about....but, as the thread referenced above indicates, it is all too easy for some internet-gumshoe to think he is gonna break something wide open. How many times was it explained that the 20' differential was only a "starting point" for MI's investigations, but people still couldn't get what was being said.....so is it that hard to think some yahoo who wants to make a name for himself or just throw schitt against the wall says "Hmmm....I'm just gonna find anyone that has a 20' differential and post their names 'cuz that is the yardstick that these other guys used."