it seems as if the previous thread on this topic has exhausted its purpose. accordingly, from here on in i’d prefer that you limit your posts to anything that you want to say regarding the factual elements of this particular case. catching someone who has cut a course, yes, i’m all for that. these discussions serve a purpose, as we ought to have the expectation of fair sport and uncovering cases where contestants do not finish the prescribed course, whether inadvertently or on purpose, is helpful. this is where my interest in these threads starts and stops.
Agreed. Here are a few facts that might have got lost that i think shouldn’t be lost.
IMC 2015 - https://www.evernote.com/...WCz1MBPcKcOw23aJE-aM
Vancouver Half 2014 - https://www.evernote.com/...kUkynuvf8AAx7UQVPqh4
I missed all the posts from today from the original thread. Why was it yanked? What happened today that caused it to be removed?
i edited out her coach’s statement from your post. most of that statement is fine. but there is some editorializing in there that really was not pertinent. what is notable is that he has cut ties with her. he appears by his statement to have lost confidence in the relationship. that speaks for itself.
data that supports the notion that she did not follow the prescribed course, that’s fine. news about adjustments to her race history, such as her retroactive adjustment to her Subaru Vancouver Half finish. all that is just fact-based. that’s fine.
to answer the person who asked what was wrong with the thread that is now gone from view, i don’t find any of this fun. others do, but i don’t. i place myself in the position of various parties and i don’t see the entertainment value. i don’t blame those who do see it, but i don’t. we’re all going to be in a different place in 2 years, 5 years, 10 years. kids will grow up. we will grow old. i prefer to keep to the facts, which i think will help everybody involved more easily move to whatever the next place is in their lives.
I missed all the posts from today from the original thread. Why was it yanked? What happened today that caused it to be removed?
Last I read today people were making a lot of assumptions about Julie not based on facts…and a debate was going on about those assumptions. If her kids read the thread with just the factual points being made…fair enough…but I guess Slowman has a point that he doesn’t want to foster a discussion about Julie based on total speculation.
Fair enough. At this point I’m just interested in what the organizations (USAT, ITU, WTC, etc.) are going to do about it, if anything. There’s a history there, and a ban had better be forthcoming.
Fair enough. At this point I’m just interested in what the organizations (USAT, ITU, WTC, etc.) are going to do about it, if anything. There’s a history there, and a ban had better be forthcoming.
Not to mention examining the results and discerning whether, on the balance of probabilities, foul play occurred, and issuing a DQ if they believed it had occurred.
i don’t find any of this fun. others do.
I actually think comments have been pretty restrained.
Fair enough. At this point I’m just interested in what the organizations (USAT, ITU, WTC, etc.) are going to do about it, if anything. There’s a history there, and a ban had better be forthcoming.
Not to mention examining the results and discerning whether, on the balance of probabilities, foul play occurred, and issuing a DQ if they believed it had occurred.
When there’s a demonstrated pattern of repeated course cutting, the penalty should be a lengthy ban from competition, not just a DQ for a particular race. To me, it is on par with doping.
Would it be fair to ask to establish fact on whether or not she, or someone representing her, communicated with you and suggested the original thread be taken down? Again not trying to cause trouble but I am curious. More of a life lesson for me with dealing with certain types of people - in case I have not made it clear before I am genuinely interested sociology. If my question is inappropriate, accept my apologies and feel free to delete it.
Fair enough. At this point I’m just interested in what the organizations (USAT, ITU, WTC, etc.) are going to do about it, if anything. There’s a history there, and a ban had better be forthcoming.
Not to mention examining the results and discerning whether, on the balance of probabilities, foul play occurred, and issuing a DQ if they believed it had occurred.
When there’s a demonstrated pattern of repeated course cutting, the penalty should be a lengthy ban from competition, not just a DQ for a particular race. To me, it is on par with doping.
I was thinking more of the people who’s pocket she (may) have picked to get the podium. But yeah, ban for a reasonable and justifiable length of time, not just for her but also to serve as warning to other who may be tempted.
Fair enough. At this point I’m just interested in what the organizations (USAT, ITU, WTC, etc.) are going to do about it, if anything. There’s a history there, and a ban had better be forthcoming.
Not to mention examining the results and discerning whether, on the balance of probabilities, foul play occurred, and issuing a DQ if they believed it had occurred.
When there’s a demonstrated pattern of repeated course cutting, the penalty should be a lengthy ban from competition, not just a DQ for a particular race. To me, it is on par with doping.
A guy in Australia was banned for 2 years for doing this exact thing, almost a carbon copy.
i hope you’ll please pardon my snip of your comments. i understand how you feel. yes, the behavior that the data indicates happened harmed those who were unjustly kept from enjoying their reward. they are now, if belatedly, realizing the credit they are due.
i’ve spoken to a number of people who know her who, if you discount for a moment this silo of her behavior, have nothing but glowing comments about her. she’s loved, admired, she’s known to be giving, inspirational, and on and on. i can’t speak about julie, i don’t know her, and wouldn’t try to characterize her if i did, but in my experience those who are loved and admired are often or usually loved and admired for good, valid and real reasons. everything that was thought good about them was good. most of us think of people in binary terms: good or bad, healthy or unhealthy. in my experience that’s just not real life.
therefore i would prefer for those here to be circumspect, judicious, measured in their commentary. the actions on the field of play speak for themselves. i don’t think they need amplification.
i hope you’ll please pardon my snip of your comments. i understand how you feel. yes, the behavior that the data indicates happened harmed those who were unjustly kept from enjoying their reward. they are now, if belatedly, realizing the credit they are due.
i’ve spoken to a number of people who know her who, if you discount for a moment this silo of her behavior, have nothing but glowing comments about her. she’s loved, admired, she’s known to be giving, inspirational, and on and on. i can’t speak about julie, i don’t know her, and wouldn’t try to characterize her if i did, but in my experience those who are loved and admired are often or usually loved and admired for good, valid and real reasons. everything that was thought good about them was good. most of us think of people in binary terms: good or bad, healthy or unhealthy. in my experience that’s just not real life.
therefore i would prefer for those here to be circumspect, judicious, measured in their commentary. the actions on the field of play speak for themselves. i don’t think they need amplification.
Yeah no worries and I totally get where you’re coming from. I have no idea what kind of person she is, what her life has been like, what adversity she’s had to deal with etc etc and besides I’m not exactly an angel (I go drunk and stole an old mans mobility scooter when I was at Uni/college), so I shouldn’t be too quick to judge.
“Would it be fair to ask to establish fact on whether or not she, or someone representing her, communicated with you and suggested the original thread be taken down?”
over the last 2 days in particular i’ve spoken to a number of people who are close to or advocates of julie miller. i tried to listen to my sense of right and duty. that sense told me that we need a place in the sport where we can, as a community, come together, share notes, and where justice and fairness can increase. absent a clearinghouse like this we can’t do that.
i therefore resisted the notion that these threads should come down. and, i still resist the idea. there just is no way i’m going to knuckle to that. but i continued to watch the threads and ask myself whether:
- we were still engaged in fact-finding?
- were those who wished to express opinions and process how they felt were given a proper opportunity?
all spirited threads eventually degrade. it’s the nature of internet discussions. it seemed to me that the thread was starting to morph from information to entertainment. i therefore felt it time to curve this discussion back around to its most important elements.
“if you discount for a moment this silo of her behavior”
How can we possibly discount it?
I have some friends, non-cycling folk, who thought the world of LA and all the good he did. He preached the gospel and they were truly shaken to the core when they discovered the real truth about him and the sham his life/recovery etc turned out to be.
Different kind of cheating for sure, but the same (or at least similar) type of person.
So far we have had a DQ from Ironman Canada in 2015 and a stripping of results from the Vancouver Half Iron in 2014
There has been a lot of speculation regarding the performance of Julie Miller at the ITU Long Course World Championship in China in 2014.
A run that decimated all in her age group - 1hr 23m 43s (some 6 minutes faster than anyone else in her AG over just 20km) and a run that decimated most of the pro / elite female field (she had the 4th Fastest Female time compared to all Elite/ Pro Women - **beating Andrea Hewett (NZ) and Laura Bennett (USA) **
The lady who came 2nd in the 40-44 Age Group, thereby losing the right to call herself a World Champion, is Victoria Hill who was representing Great Britain. Victoria is a super consistent athlete and a great runner. Following the recent DQ’s and after a year of uncertainly she has decided to come forward with her version of events at that World Championship race.
Here’s what she had to say:
At the time in Weihai, the result was always a mystery. Julie had clearly crossed the line in front of me… I only clocked her on our last lap. I knew I was catching her, there was no way she is a faster runner than me. At the finish, the results said I had won which of course she challenged. She had crossed the line in front of me so I accepted I had come 2nd. The results were a debacle, it took ages for them to do our awards ceremony and then it transpired that her chip had been lost/something went wrong with it. I had no reason to think otherwise.
When the results finally came out on the website, it showed that she had come off the bike after me and then ran a faster time than me. I always knew this was wrong as I know for a fact no girl past me on the run. As this part is my strength, I normally do the passing on the run so would be well aware of another female passing me. The results only got published on line the next day and I never challenged it. In hindsight, of course I should have done but I just assumed she had come off the bike well in front of me and that I could not quite get her on the run. It was a 3 lap bike and a 4 lap run so somewhere she obviously …
The third placed girl is also in contact with Victoria and they are looking to pursue the matter with ITU.
.
“How can we possibly discount it?”
let me put it this way. JFK cheated on his wife, was true to his country. Nixon cheated on his country, was true to his wife. we want to think of people in binary terms. in my experience, people aren’t binary. i have foxhole friends upon whom i absolutely rely who i would never in a million years trust in business, or trust in love. i didn’t grow up thinking this. i just was constrained by experience to change my view.
you brought up lance. i’ve known lance since he was a teenager, and i’m here to tell you - regardless of the shit i’ll take for it - he’s one of those foxhole types. there are any number of areas where i would absolutely trust lance and rely upon him. in fact, i’m beyond certain lance would never cut a course. but lance has areas where he is just not honorable. those who know me implicitly might say in response to that: pot-kettle.
i don’t know julie, but if you’re asking for my best uneducated guess those who felt she was a true friend, a loving wife and mom, a great worker, a tireless volunteer, etc., etc., did not lose the true friend, loving mom, etc. so, those folks can take this behavior we’re discussing, set it aside for a moment, and consider the rest. i doubt the rest has changed.
the evidence discussed points to a silo of her life that doesn’t comport with the rest, but that doesn’t mean all the rest need be discounted.
i looked hard at those WC results and unless i’m wrong victoria had the fastest female AG run of the day, all AGs. and she was 6min down on julie’s run. i am very suspicious of this run. it makes no sense in the context of all her other results.
this, you may talk about. i hope you will talk about it. i hope the truth is found out about this WC race. this run split does not comport with all the rest of her results. further, her superhuman results are either in the bike, but not the run, or they’re on the run, but not the bike. i have been in the sport since the beginning. i’ve seen it all. i’ve seen the entire arc of the sport. nobody ever has exhibited that kind of performance behavior while racing.
consequently, this deserves an explanation. i would like that china WC race thoroughly vetted, such results discussed right here. i hope you don’t think i want to quash that discussion.
Local town news from up here.
<http://www.squamishchief.com/sports/local-sports/squamish-triathlete-disqualified-from-ironman-1.2040964
Vancouver Half, OMG those P1 bike splits stand out very obviously - I am surprised it wasn’t raised or passed on to scoring by someone in the category.