I didn't see any accusations. I saw some facts stated, defenders claiming accusations, others drawing the conclusion that a big city marathon organiser had a monumental c*ck up which has since been corrected. The jury is still out however on Brighton & Paris...
I think you're being disingenuous Dustin, the whole point of the thread was to cast doubt on the woman's time with the implication that her husband had carried her chip.
I would just like to know if they did cheat or if they didn't, was there an error in timing or not?
There was an error in the timing which impacted lots of runners. The organisers are working through the issue and until it resolved results aren't being accepted by Power of 10. Interestingly the lady and gentleman are not married and not related. So overall it was all a bag of shit posted by DF3 and the thread is still available.
I didn't see any accusations. I saw some facts stated, defenders claiming accusations, others drawing the conclusion that a big city marathon organiser had a monumental c*ck up which has since been corrected.
Dustin - I probably should have finished quoting your post at "I didn't see any accusations". Yes, people can draw their own conclusions, but the insinuation was pretty obvious. Smoke/fire, ducks quacking, all that lazy-minded nonsense. (Why would you have to jump to the conclusion - wrongly - that two people sharing the same surname are husband and wife, if not to facilitate the obvious idea that they are in cahoots?)
DF3 - No I don't, but at the time of initial shit stirring, no one really knew.
Where there's smoke, sometimes there's fire. I just don't get the mindset that revels in misinformation, speculation, and assuming the worst in people.
Returning to Brighton (f*Kn h#ll I can't believe we are still on about this) - the result appears wrong.
But I don't really understand the mentality of someone who has a genuine sub 4 marathon PB (a time that is certainly good enough to be proud of) [that should create a whole new string of posts! wanting to create and support a marathon PB that is not correct.
How do you puff your chest out when quoting a false marathon PB? Lets face it for most of us we are simply racing ourselves.
I didn't see any accusations. I saw some facts stated,
He stated that they're husband and wife, which they're not. The whole original post was an implication that there was cheating going on. That others saw through that realised it was something else is to their credit, not DF3's. It's classic tabloid journalism: present some facts, add in some extra inferences from those facts and present the whole lot in such a way that's meant to confirm some prejudice or other, while claiming that it's "balanced journalism". "Oh look, here's two identical chip times for a man and woman with the same surname. Clearly they're husband and wife running together... oh, she's got a new pb which would get her into the London marathon... but she's not in the photos, how could that be?"
He was clearly accusing them of cheating, the least he could do is admit the error and apologise.
But I don't really understand the mentality of someone who has a genuine sub 4 marathon PB (a time that is certainly good enough to be proud of) [that should create a whole new string of posts! wanting to create and support a marathon PB that is not correct.
CD - point taken, yes it was stated they were husband and wife which I imagine is incorrect, yet the times credited and the photo links were presented, which tbh was what I looked at. Sure I know the insinuation but given the way that DF presents things, it would be foolhardy to jump to conclusions. Even a cursory glance through the results suggested something amiss with the whole thing, which immediately exonnerated the individuals concerned.
Still not convinced by the previous (Brighton/Paris) episode and am geniunely intrigued as to whether the improvement was down to pumping up the miles and lots of slow racing. The misrepresented time between the club's website and the official one appears, at best, odd.
I just looked up and noticed that the people Im talking about have edited their posts about the London GFA ....... no doubt because of what Ive said here ......
Comments
I didn't see any accusations.
I saw some facts stated, defenders claiming accusations, others drawing the conclusion that a big city marathon organiser had a monumental c*ck up which has since been corrected.
The jury is still out however on Brighton & Paris...
Has the thread been removed?
As said above, I think the Manchester one was down to a timing cock up.
No idea what happened with Brighton in the end.
What happened at Paris?
I think you're being disingenuous Dustin, the whole point of the thread was to cast doubt on the woman's time with the implication that her husband had carried her chip.
I would just like to know if they did cheat or if they didn't, was there an error in timing or not?
I thought someone might know either way.
There was an error in the timing which impacted lots of runners. The organisers are working through the issue and until it resolved results aren't being accepted by Power of 10. Interestingly the lady and gentleman are not married and not related. So overall it was all a bag of shit posted by DF3 and the thread is still available.
DF3 - please create some new threads today as I have a boring day ahead at work and could do with amusing
No names either with the reference you are making, or accusations.
The whole point of the thread was what? I never saw any instructions. It was just a 'think' piece.
Now who's stirring?
🙂
If anyone really is full of sh*t my colleague has just been sent a voucher for a cut-price colonic irrigation...
See how I can see the good in everyone. You lot should be more like me.
Seriously?!
Well you're clearly riveted by it having mentioned it twice in two days.
Yes Phil, seriously : "others drawing the conclusion that a big city marathon organiser had a monumental c*ck up which has since been corrected."
Granted it wasn't presented in the prettiest way (look at the poster) but credit some of us with a bit of integrity to form our own conclusions.
Dustin - I probably should have finished quoting your post at "I didn't see any accusations". Yes, people can draw their own conclusions, but the insinuation was pretty obvious. Smoke/fire, ducks quacking, all that lazy-minded nonsense. (Why would you have to jump to the conclusion - wrongly - that two people sharing the same surname are husband and wife, if not to facilitate the obvious idea that they are in cahoots?)
DF3 - No I don't, but at the time of initial shit stirring, no one really knew.
Where there's smoke, sometimes there's fire. I just don't get the mindset that revels in misinformation, speculation, and assuming the worst in people.
Returning to Brighton (f*Kn h#ll I can't believe we are still on about this) - the result appears wrong.
But I don't really understand the mentality of someone who has a genuine sub 4 marathon PB (a time that is certainly good enough to be proud of) [that should create a whole new string of posts! wanting to create and support a marathon PB that is not correct.
How do you puff your chest out when quoting a false marathon PB? Lets face it for most of us we are simply racing ourselves.
He stated that they're husband and wife, which they're not. The whole original post was an implication that there was cheating going on. That others saw through that realised it was something else is to their credit, not DF3's. It's classic tabloid journalism: present some facts, add in some extra inferences from those facts and present the whole lot in such a way that's meant to confirm some prejudice or other, while claiming that it's "balanced journalism". "Oh look, here's two identical chip times for a man and woman with the same surname. Clearly they're husband and wife running together... oh, she's got a new pb which would get her into the London marathon... but she's not in the photos, how could that be?"
He was clearly accusing them of cheating, the least he could do is admit the error and apologise.
You could ask Paul Ryan that one.
CD - point taken, yes it was stated they were husband and wife which I imagine is incorrect, yet the times credited and the photo links were presented, which tbh was what I looked at.
Sure I know the insinuation but given the way that DF presents things, it would be foolhardy to jump to conclusions. Even a cursory glance through the results suggested something amiss with the whole thing, which immediately exonnerated the individuals concerned.
Still not convinced by the previous (Brighton/Paris) episode and am geniunely intrigued as to whether the improvement was down to pumping up the miles and lots of slow racing. The misrepresented time between the club's website and the official one appears, at best, odd.
Proof of that please.
So no proof then....?