Should results be limited to participants?

123578

Comments

  • Nose NowtNose Nowt ✭✭✭

    "If someone really wants to find you they will."

    Obviously.  But that's not the point.

  • Run Wales wrote (see)

    "If someone really wants to find you they will."

    Obviously.  But that's not the point.

    Well what is the fecking point ????????????????????

  • Nose NowtNose Nowt ✭✭✭
    Dave The Ex- Spartan wrote (see)
    Run Wales wrote (see)

    "If someone really wants to find you they will."

    Obviously.  But that's not the point.

    Well what is the fecking point ????????????????????

    Please refer to the scores of posts I've posted on this thread.

  • I have.....   and I still don't know what the feck you are going on about

  • Isn't the point - why not make it harder for people to find you by having less information available to give them the means by which to do it?

    I'm not sure I have an opinion on this one way or the other BTW but I think that's what RW is trying to say.

  • Screamapillar wrote (see)

    Isn't the point - why not make it harder for people to find you by having less information available to give them the means by which to do it?


    Ah.. OK then.. So Wales lives in a concrete bunker...

    I get it now.....   Carry on as you were

  • Well, I find it odd that someone would spend their time trawling through race listings to look for controversy among the results of ordinary runners and odder still to start threads about it.

    Clearly several other posters also find this behaviour odd and have now thought "blimey, even being a completely average, unremarkable rather boring runner doesn't provide safety from being gossiped about online. That's a bit weird, and possibly a bit creepy if you think who else might use race results to go digging into people's private lives ... maybe that nutter I went out with once in 2002 who still keeps emailing me"  image

  • Big-Bad-BobBig-Bad-Bob ✭✭✭
    Run Wales wrote (see)

    "If someone really wants to find you they will."

    Obviously.  But that's not the point.

    Why isn't it? And as Spartan says, exactly what is the point then?

    That you want to dismantle the way in which an entire sport operates to pour some soothing balm on the paranoia of a tiny minority of insecure nutjobs?

  • Big-Bad-BobBig-Bad-Bob ✭✭✭
    xine267 wrote (see)

    Well, I find it odd that someone would spend their time trawling through race listings to look for controversy among the results of ordinary runners and odder still to start threads about it.

    Clearly several other posters also find this behaviour odd and have now thought "blimey, even being a completely average, unremarkable rather boring runner doesn't provide safety from being gossiped about online. That's a bit weird, and possibly a bit creepy if you think who else might use race results to go digging into people's private lives ... maybe that nutter I went out with once in 2002 who still keeps emailing me"  image

    That's not how it came about.

    The runner in question appeared from nowhere to shoot straight into the Top 10 improvers for the month on the Run Britain website - until the error was corrected.

    This was mentioned entirely independently, on at least two threads that I know of, on this very site, but the other one didn't garner the same attention, tut-tuts, and faux horror as it wasn't posted by you know who.

    Factomundo.

  • xine267 wrote (see)

    I still find it odd.

     

    What that the nutter is still chasing you after 11 years ?

  • And yet ... I still find it odd.

  • Dave The Ex- Spartan wrote (see)
    xine267 wrote (see)

    I still find it odd.

     

    What that the nutter is still chasing you after 11 years ?


    God no, that's completely understandable. I'm amazing

  • David Falconer 3 wrote (see)
    Big_Bad_Bob wrote (see)

    This was mentioned entirely independently, on at least two threads that I know of, on this very site, but the other one didn't garner the same attention, tut-tuts, and faux horror as it wasn't posted by you know who.

    Factomundo.

    The same people on here who are completely outraged by what I write will be posting on the very next thread I make ......... and so it goes on ......

     

    David, I'm not even mildly outraged. I just find the whole thing a bit .... strange.

  • Big-Bad-BobBig-Bad-Bob ✭✭✭

    Xine. You find it strange that people would look at the results history of someone who suddenly appears from nowhere to shoot straight into a prize winning position of a national competition?

    Hmmm...ok. Hands up, I'm strange. image

  • ... and starting threads about them on RW - or contacting a RW forumite who was pretty much guaranteed to start a thread about them  - instead of contacting the competition administrators or the race organisers or contacting them and giving them a chance to sort it out. Yes, I do find that a bit strange. 

  • If people want to spend their time looking at race results, why is that odd?  Different people like to do different things - if checking race results floats some people's boats, then fine, let them get on with it. 

    Is it odd that you'd look at split times for a particular race or triathlon, if you were going to be doing that race or triathlon yourself, in order to compare yourself and consider your chances????  I don't think so.

    I think everyone just needs to get a grip and move on, and dare I say, stop being so soft.........

  • Big-Bad-BobBig-Bad-Bob ✭✭✭

    I didn't start a thread. And as I've explained elsewhere, I contacted DF3 as the result was clearly bogus, he'd already shown an interest in a similar case, and unlike some of the horrified hand-wringers it would appear, I don't actually consider it a duty of mine to protect the rest of the world from their cartoon bogeyman. What he chose to do with it was entirely up to him. 

    When I first spotted the problem, I had nothing more than a time that clearly didn't add up, so there wasn't enough to report. Eventually there was after what DF3 found himself, thus it was reported and it has since been corrected.

  • Big_Bad_Bob wrote (see)

    I contacted DF3 as the result was clearly bogus, he'd already shown an interest in a similar case... 

    You do realise he's just some bloke that posts on here, not Sherlock Holmes...right...?

  • DeanR7DeanR7 ✭✭✭

    perhaps because nobody has contacted brighton? how can they chase something up they dont know about.

  • Big-Bad-BobBig-Bad-Bob ✭✭✭
    Screamapillar wrote (see)
    Big_Bad_Bob wrote (see)

    I contacted DF3 as the result was clearly bogus, he'd already shown an interest in a similar case... 

    You do realise he's just some bloke that posts on here, not Sherlock Holmes...right...?

    Er, yes. Apparently Holmes wasn't available this week.

  • Big-Bad-BobBig-Bad-Bob ✭✭✭
    dean richardson 7 wrote (see)

    perhaps because nobody has contacted brighton? how can they chase something up they dont know about.

    I did.

     

  • DeanR7DeanR7 ✭✭✭

    i missed that, to be fair those threads were open and closed on a hourly basisimage

    maybe the organisors got enough "proof" it was legitimate finish time just that the database holding her splits mis-recorded them. 

    either that or she was a rotter & a cheat and was upto no good.

  • DustinDustin ✭✭✭

    I also e-mailed the chip time company to ask them a generic question (without referencing a specific race or runner):
    Can a chip record start and finish times yet throw out spurious splits in the interim. I would expect a complete failure to record (which there was also a case of within the top 50). I've not heard back yet.
    And yes, the thread(s) were withdrawn as something fishy was questioned but some people didn't like it.

Sign In or Register to comment.