Login required to post replies

Prev Next
one more thing, for kny's benefit. if we just split this into 3 laps for the sake of discussion, julie's lap would have been 1:22 or so if she came out of the water with tamasin. but she was 4min ahead of her out of the water, and that makes julie's first lap 1:27 or so. this puts a lot of pressure on what she would have needed to do in the last two-thirds of the ride to come up with a 3:52. and, that 3:52 is about the best case scenario i can make. that's if she rank 1:48. if she ran 1:50, then the split is 3:50. if she ran 1:52 then the split is 3:48.

however, i think it's fair to give her every benefit of the doubt, and just show the math. when you do this, it's very possible she did complete the entire course fairly. what makes it harder, tho, is when you calculate what needs to happen in the last 2/3 of the bike ride in order to motor tamasin up, pass her, get ahead, die, have tamasin retake her and then lose another 1:20 before the ride finish.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Slowman wrote:
one more thing, for kny's benefit. if we just split this into 3 laps for the sake of discussion, julie's lap would have been 1:22 or so if she came out of the water with tamasin. but she was 4min ahead of her out of the water, and that makes julie's first lap 1:27 or so. this puts a lot of pressure on what she would have needed to do in the last two-thirds of the ride to come up with a 3:52. and, that 3:52 is about the best case scenario i can make. that's if she rank 1:48. if she ran 1:50, then the split is 3:50. if she ran 1:52 then the split is 3:48.

however, i think it's fair to give her every benefit of the doubt, and just show the math. when you do this, it's very possible she did complete the entire course fairly. what makes it harder, tho, is when you calculate what needs to happen in the last 2/3 of the bike ride in order to motor tamasin up, pass her, get ahead, die, have tamasin retake her and then lose another 1:20 before the ride finish.

It should also be noted that without actual hard evidence of cutting the course (video footage for example) that all of Millers race exploits are, in theory, humanly possible and she may always complete the course fairly. The world record run pace at IMC, the Matt Russell beating bike laps at Vancouver Half and the Elite / Olympian level mid discipline bike performance in China. None are outside the scope of human achievement but I guess all might leave level headed people to investigate how these extraordinary feats are being achieved.

Pbandjcoaching.com
Last edited by: JayPeeWhy: Sep 24, 15 13:43
bear in mind my thesis: the OVERALL splits are achievable. what can turn a believable achievement into less believable achievement is a timed segment inside of a split.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Slowman wrote:
bear in mind my thesis: the OVERALL splits are achievable. what can turn a believable achievement into less believable achievement is a timed segment inside of a split.

Likely the reason why things have gone under the radar for so long.

Pbandjcoaching.com
JayPeeWhy wrote:
Slowman wrote:
bear in mind my thesis: the OVERALL splits are achievable. what can turn a believable achievement into less believable achievement is a timed segment inside of a split.

Likely the reason why things have gone under the radar for so long.

Was talking about this with Sylvan of sportstats this past weekend at IMLT.

I think much of this would never have come up if JM had taken the DQ quietly at this year's IMC.

Rather, she lawyered up and here we are - which I think is better since it draws attention to fairplay racing and hopefully serves as a deterrent to other folks contemplating of pulling off the same stuff (but maybe I'm just being optimistic).

Team Dimond
owtbac86 wrote:
JayPeeWhy wrote:
Slowman wrote:
bear in mind my thesis: the OVERALL splits are achievable. what can turn a believable achievement into less believable achievement is a timed segment inside of a split.

Likely the reason why things have gone under the radar for so long.

Was talking about this with Sylvan of sportstats this past weekend at IMLT.

I think much of this would never have come up if JM had taken the DQ quietly at this year's IMC.

Rather, she lawyered up and here we are - which I think is better since it draws attention to fairplay racing and hopefully serves as a deterrent to other folks contemplating of pulling off the same stuff (but maybe I'm just being optimistic).

I am sure it wouldn't. In fact, the morning of the awards there was barely a mention of the person being DQ'd. No-one knew she had been re-instated either, even the Kona spot list at the admin table had Miller removed from the list. It wasn't until they called up the individuals for awards that Miller suddenly appeared on the scene again, that's when it all kicked off.

Pbandjcoaching.com
Slowman wrote:
bear in mind my thesis: the OVERALL splits are achievable. what can turn a believable achievement into less believable achievement is a timed segment inside of a split.

and therein lies the problem with the 2 loop IM Whistler course and IM Tahoe course where you don't get out of the water between loops.

JM's 57 and 58 min Whistler swim splits on the surface are entirely in the realm of possibility for a woman 40-44, but we have to assume that every athlete exiting the water actually did both loops even though we have no record of her being a 27ish min half IM swimmer or 21 min Olympic Tri swimmer, which would be the ranges she would need to be in to pull of those swim splits at IM. But magically on the only swim course that is 2 loops with no timing mat between loops she is able to pull off unreasonably fast swims for HER, but reasonably fast swims for a fast W40-44.

Dev
JayPeeWhy wrote:
Apologies for the confusion. I have amended the wording.

Miller appears to have done approximately 1hr 23min during the initial lap to the point of pictures being taken
Gray Hewitt appears to be doing 1hr 16min during the initial lap to the point of pictures being taken
Reno appears to be doing 1hr 11min during the initial lap to the point of pictures being taken

These pictures may well have been taken before the end of lap 1. Looks like it was 2 minutes or so before the end of lap 1 going by Reno's data.

This actually makes things very marginally worse for Miller because, as everyone else is going faster, the time difference at the end of the actual lap would be greater than that noted.

Reno's Garmin Connect data would appear to show laps of 1:13.15 / 2:27.55 (so a 1:14.40 lap) / 3:46.27 (This is a 1:18.32 lap that includes a slow, almost zero cadence straight - see below. With that 1 minutes plus accounted for this lap is likely around 1:17 plus change)

There is straight section at the end of the ride, off of the looped part that accounts for a minute or so and is likely the run into transition that has been recorded by the watch.
Of course, your analysis only holds water if you assume no one else is cutting the course.
True, they would have to have undergone some pretty substantial GPS data manipulation though.

Pbandjcoaching.com
I wish I could upvote all the work you do.
Thus, the awkward photo we have seen of the awards presentation....

@CycleHeavy
JayPeeWhy wrote:
True, they would have to have undergone some pretty substantial GPS data manipulation though.

This gave me an idea.

Could we use someone else's garmin files to build a "best case" for JM's power output? Say Reno's? Export everything into excel, we know the average speed that would be needed, so figure out what theoretical power would be required to meet that. I think there are enough knowns to calculate the unknowns...

I don't have a power meter, haven't trained with one, but my math mind says you should be able to build to virtual file from JM for the first 40km and last 80km. Maybe this would show a "not normal" performance. The more power files one had for the course the stronger this case could be made.

Just to clarify, I'm not trying to convince myself... Given the context (multiple DQ's for course cutting, eye witness testimony, photos), I think its reasonable to assume she only completed 2 laps of the bike course.
Honestly, what's the point? I'm all about using forensic evidence, as was done in these cases, to root out cheaters. But, this one's been caught. She's been DQed three times and the world now knows her racing MO. We all also know the score on China, too. That result is never going to be officially changed, but who cares.

I'm glad that Dan allowed this site to be the collection and distribution point for the forensic analysis, because there is nowhere else in the world for this to happen and it provides a valuable service to the community. Honestly, if I'm a cheater or potential cheater, I fear the humiliation that comes from being publicly revealed far more than I fear a DQ. And, being publicly revealed requires a site like slowtwitch.
kny wrote:
Honestly, what's the point? I'm all about using forensic evidence, as was done in these cases, to root out cheaters. But, this one's been caught. She's been DQed three times and the world now knows her racing MO. We all also know the score on China, too. That result is never going to be officially changed, but who cares.

I'm glad that Dan allowed this site to be the collection and distribution point for the forensic analysis, because there is nowhere else in the world for this to happen and it provides a valuable service to the community. Honestly, if I'm a cheater or potential cheater, I fear the humiliation that comes from being publicly revealed far more than I fear a DQ. And, being publicly revealed requires a site like slowtwitch.

TriMeSBR wrote:
Thus, the awkward photo we have seen of the awards presentation....

Is that photo still kicking around on here?

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?
JayPeeWhy wrote:
I am sure it wouldn't. In fact, the morning of the awards there was barely a mention of the person being DQ'd. No-one knew she had been re-instated either, even the Kona spot list at the admin table had Miller removed from the list. It wasn't until they called up the individuals for awards that Miller suddenly appeared on the scene again, that's when it all kicked off.

Must have missed this in the thread, what happened at the awards ceremony?
Slowman wrote:
bear in mind my thesis: the OVERALL splits are achievable. what can turn a believable achievement into less believable achievement is a timed segment inside of a split.

EXACTLY. This aspect, for me, is what makes this disturbing situation so disturbing is all the premeditated calculations that had to go into this to make it believable. The evening of or morning after most Ironman races, I quickly peruse the top 3 or so female times across all the age groups, and for Ironman Canada 2015 I remember her name and time as the "winner" in her age group before all this situation unfolded. I remember both her over-all time for the event, and each split within that over-all time as being very good, none super-human, all within the realm of possibility for someone in her age group.

Last edited by: highflyer: Sep 25, 15 7:51
BLeP wrote:
TriMeSBR wrote:
Thus, the awkward photo we have seen of the awards presentation....

Is that photo still kicking around on here?

The forum seems to be shrinking images. Here is a URL: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9597614/IMC-Pic.jpeg

I love the way that the winner, Suzanne Davis, is sponsored by a company focussed primarily on time.

Pbandjcoaching.com
Last edited by: JayPeeWhy: Sep 25, 15 8:01
highflyer wrote:
Slowman wrote:
bear in mind my thesis: the OVERALL splits are achievable. what can turn a believable achievement into less believable achievement is a timed segment inside of a split.

EXACTLY. This aspect, for me, is what makes this disturbing situation so disturbing is all the premeditated calculations that had to go into this to make it believable. The evening of or morning after most Ironman races, I quickly peruse the top 3 or so female times across all the age groups, and for Ironman Canada 2015 I remember her name and time as the "winner" in her age group before all this situation unfolded. I remember both her over-all time for the event, and each split within that over-all time as being very good, none super-human, all within the realm of possibility for someone in her age group.

This is why I keep coming back to the 57 and 58 min Whistler swim splits that she put down. Totally in the realm of human performance in her age group, but you'd have to do some decent premeditated calculations to come in right on those targets IF you only swam one loop super easy. Of course there is no way of knowing what anyone really swam at Whistler since there is no intermediate time check. Darn, if I just used that strategy at Tahoe (double loop, no exit and chip in at the mid point) and swam a 54 min single loop with some long raft breaks instead of a lame 66 min double loop hyperventilating the entire time searching for non existent oxygen, I would have KQ'd!!!!
I don't know that it makes it any more disturbing. Whats the point of cheating if you do such a horrible job of it that it's obvious to even the casual observer that you cheated?

Don't half ass your way through life, man. Use your whole ass.

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?
Hot Tamales wrote:
JayPeeWhy wrote:

I am sure it wouldn't. In fact, the morning of the awards there was barely a mention of the person being DQ'd. No-one knew she had been re-instated either, even the Kona spot list at the admin table had Miller removed from the list. It wasn't until they called up the individuals for awards that Miller suddenly appeared on the scene again, that's when it all kicked off.

Must have missed this in the thread, what happened at the awards ceremony?

Winners got called up, general confusion as to why Miller was there at all. Discussion amongst athletes on stage. Miller made a run for it and got stopped at the top of the stairs by the real winner, Suzanne Davis, who having been 100% positive she was in the lead (having lead off the bike) demanded to know exactly where Miller had come from to win. After that it was just a succession of people saying she did not complete the course, from spectators to other athletes to people who knew her and said she could never run a 3:30 at IM and could likely not run an open marathon in that time. After that the house of cards started to tumble.

Pbandjcoaching.com
JayPeeWhy wrote:
Hot Tamales wrote:
Must have missed this in the thread, what happened at the awards ceremony?

Winners got called up, general confusion as to why Miller was there at all. Discussion amongst athletes on stage. Miller made a run for it and got stopped at the top of the stairs by the real winner, Suzanne Davis, who having been 100% positive she was in the lead (having lead off the bike) demanded to know exactly where Miller had come from to win. After that it was just a succession of people saying she did not complete the course, from spectators to other athletes to people who knew her and said she could never run a 3:30 at IM and could likely not run an open marathon in that time. After that the house of cards started to tumble.

Wow, so she went up even though she was DQ'd by then and wasn't called up? Wow, that takes balls.
Or I think a special type of madness ?
Hot Tamales wrote:
Wow, so she went up even though she was DQ'd by then and wasn't called up? Wow, that takes balls.

No, she was DQ'd the day of the race, argued her way back in that morning (or the night prior) so DQ overturned at the time of the awards but the results still showed a DQ and no name on the list. Hence the surprise when she was called up on stage.

Pbandjcoaching.com
Quote:
Honestly, what's the point? I'm all about using forensic evidence, as was done in these cases, to root out cheaters. But, this one's been caught. She's been DQed three times and the world now knows her racing MO. We all also know the score on China, too. That result is never going to be officially changed, but who cares.

While I personally don't believe building a theoretical power file for JM's ride in China is going to help or prove anything, if the "ITU Technical Committee" has any testicular fortitude and common sense, we will see a DQ out of China too.

Quote:
Alan Ma, the ITU's technical delegate for the race in Weihai, referred inquiries about Ms. Miller's championship victory to the ITU's spokesperson Erin Greene. Ms. Greene re-referred to the technical committee chair Gergely Markus, who wrote that Ms. Miller's Weihai race, "will be on the agenda of the next Technical Committee meeting for further investigation."

Based on that quote from the new article by Dan http://www.slowtwitch.com/...at_Weihai__5370.html it is obvious that Julie's result in China is still to be reviewed. Remember, her result there was questioned from the git-go, and now that it has been proven that Julie Miller has a propensity to cut courses, I don't see how ITU doesn't DQ her result from China. I would have to think that ITU will have access to many more photos as well as split data that will only show more clearly her cheating, now that they are looking into it.

Tony
http://www.triathleteguru.com

Prev Next