I ran a 2:58 marathon and got off the gas big time for the last 5km as I had my sub 3 goal in the bag (and the suffering was starting to ramp dramatically). On its face, dropping pace at the end isn't too suspicious to me. Starting slow and ending slow is suspicious which is your comment I believe.

The kicker is, if he is 3:0X capable he should have a shit load of training logs demonstrating volume or speed. He should be able to run a sub 20 5km, ~40m 10k, sub 1:30 half fairly easily.

do "knobs like this" really deserve all they get? if we prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he cheated, or if he confesses, does he really deserve to lose his clients? should he be unemployed and on the breadline because he cheated in a running race? what kind of punishment would you consider too much?

-mike

I'm pretty sure that if there was a Slowtwitch league there would be major injury and death occuring regularly.

I disagree completely. The likelihood of getting caught doing wrong has been shown to be a significant deterrent, perhaps more so than the severity of any punishment. The more people hear about runners getting caught cheating, the less likely other runners will try to cheat in the future.

+1

Seems like if Google can make a self driving car and Space-X can land rockets autonomously, we should be able to easily catch cheaters if the race data is provided in a useable format.

Hell, we should be able to flag results before they cross the finish line.

i think the questions some are trying to ask here is, "who is this random man on the internet to "offer" me the opportunity to provide evidence that i didn't cheat? whether or not i train with GPS, maybe i don't feel like sharing it with some stranger who's decided my performance doesn't match his arbitrary standard of plausibility.

if we prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he cheated, or if he confesses, does he really deserve to lose his clients?

I disagree completely. The likelihood of getting caught doing wrong has been shown to be a significant deterrent, perhaps more so than the severity of any punishment. The more people hear about runners getting caught cheating, the less likely other runners will try to cheat in the future.

generally curious, not attacking, but since your statement come across as if you're stating a fact, do you have evidence that this is actually the case or just your belief?

I have no problem with that, but how about we give the info to a race director before and not after telling the world.
Not being a lawyer I have a feeling that might mitigate some of the legal questions that surely follow, especially if the person isn't actually guilty.

Evidence supports my first sentence you bolded.
(See page 4 of this:
http://sentencingproject.org/...Criminal-Justice.pdf)

The second sentence is my opinion, which I think is reasonable. Clearly there will always be dumb-asses that do things without much thought, but in general more publicity about cheaters being busted will likely deter many would-be cheaters.

That gets into specific deterrence and general deterrence. General deterrence has been shown to not have much effect, Specific deterrence has been shown to be very effective; after all, you don't speed on front of cops, but you certainly do speed even though you know cops are out there somewhere. I would think the timing chip and mats would have been specific enough deterrence; but it hasn't been, obviously. I don't think that outing people on the internet is specific enough deterrence either, or maybe it is just for Boston and the BQs, but then maybe that is enough for now. It seems to me that Lance and Barry Bonds and many others have turned doping and cheating into the banality of cheating. We've always had dopers/cheaters, but when it becomes moms and dads and your friends well that seems like a whole different territory.

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 would be good to see more work done by people of some authourity (such as a race director) before we blare out and ruin someones name, with picture, business information and history,

That would be the best method but in a lot of cases it has only been by group effort with numerous people providing personal race experience, timing, photographic, and historical evidence that the cheater has been caught.

I disagree completely. The likelihood of getting caught doing wrong has been shown to be a significant deterrent, perhaps more so than the severity of any punishment. The more people hear about runners getting caught cheating, the less likely other runners will try to cheat in the future.