Accused of cheating, marathon runner Frank Meza's life fell apart (2019)
lamag.com
lamag.com
Perhaps if he had stopped competing after the first blog post exposing him, things would have de-escalated. Instead, he doubled down on his lies, and made things worse for himself.
I feel sorry for Meza — even when self-inflicted, pain is pain — but I'm glad he didn't get away with it. I wish that our world did not reward cheating so regularly and handsomely, and I wish Meza had not chosen to cheat.
This was not a mere "ruined reputation", but rather a persistent, coordinated mobbing assault big enough that not even a professional PR firm could do anything.
Did he cheat? Likely yes. Did he deserve being banned from marathons? Sounds like it. But did he deserve "the pressure, attention, emailing, even trolling" that he got? No, he did not.
If I were in his position, I would have also tried to sue.
"Journalists" being paid to get every last bit of scrap on a person, sometimes even going through people's rubbish, breaking laws that protect citizens too, are far more nasty
If you want to call that trolling, I guess you could. The word has changed a lot since I first encountered it over two decades ago.
Trolls can keep it up forever. It’s a labor of love for them, a hobby. I know folks who’ve had multi-year trolls and at least one that escalated to in-person stalking.
What made his conduct outrageous is how he was clinging to his side. He could have just said: “yup, you got me. I had a rough day and made a bad decision.” They would have disqualified his result, maybe banned him in the future races and nothing more would have come from it.
You can’t keep maintaining the unmaintainable and expect people to loose interest. He liked the prestige while he was on the good side of it, and when he turned out to be a cheater he wanted suddenly none of the attention.
You said that a professional PR firm couldn’t help him. Sure enough, turns out it is very hard to rebuild a house while it is actively burning and the owner is pouring more gasoline on it every so often.
They corrode social trust.
I have no sympathy for this person, they're a snake.
Absolutely. It's a lazy, disingenuous way to just try to shut down discussion.
If you really practice this in life, you're going to be taken advantage of.
You're right, discussing it is just stupid. My mistake.
That in no way justifies what he did, at all, but it's not the case that he was an unremitting lowlife. It's a real conundrum, that otherwise wonderful people can sometimes do terrible things.
In related news, Jussie Smollett was sentenced to jail today for faking a race/sex orientation hate crime. (He also claimed the imaginary attackers were politically motivated.)
Many expected him to escape jail time, but he did not. The judge cited Smollett's refusal to accept responsibility (and the resulting harm to society) in making the decision to mandate jail time.
cheating like this denies other participants fruits of their hard labor of many years, just flushes all their effort down the drain. Compare that to just having "the pressure, attention, emailing, even trolling".
What an odd take. Just because throwing money at something doesn’t make it go away does not mean it’s a “big attack” or even that people calling him out are in any way in the wrong. As OP stated the big problem seems to be that he persistently tried to regain his old good reputation instead of accepting defeat. When a cheater wants to continue cheating, it doesn’t matter how much money he throws at PR firms, it’s still fair to call out his cheating.
>the fastest marathon ever recorded for someone in his age group of 70 to 74
A bit ridiculous then to say people were attacking him for no reason, or his daughter not understanding why anyone cared. Dude was literally claiming to be the world marathon champion in his age group while cheating for years.
>I'm pretty sure only online cheating detectives pay much attention to unusually low marathon times
It would be a world record in his age group if the LA marathon was a proper IAAF course. When people started getting suspicious his name and picture came out on the cover of the Los Angeles Times.
>specially if the person doesn't actively seek to promote themself
maybe next time cheat a few minutes slower then the world record! ridiculous!
I can't say I've seen evidence of that being a massive problem specifically, though people running under other people's names is an issue more generally.
> (events tend to restrict refunds and transfers)
That isn't just to be difficult. It can affect their insurance, there can be genuine health & safety concerns, and is often enforced by running bodies that the events associate with. Not implementing such restrictions could mean the difference between an event being able to run or not.
Transfers are also an admin faf for the organisers, even ignoring that.
> I'm pretty sure only online cheating detectives pay much attention
I would suggest that this story is a reason to reconsider how sure you are about that?
If nothing else, consider that it being important enough for someone to cheat suggests it is important enough that other people don't want their achievements to be diminished by cheaters.
There are many things in life that only matter to a minority of people, that doesn't mean it is right for someone to stomp over that something for some perverse sense of self-satisfaction. While the trollish mob bullying is going too far by a massive margin, it is not wrong for people to care when someone cheats.
It's just a fucking race mate, this man teaches people and heals people - if you run a marathon, it should be about your own sense of achievement, why care so much about what some other person has done?
But people have an unhealthy competitive urge. I saw the same thing when I played basketball. Pickup games where people took things way too seriously, like the outcome of the game meant they'd get a call from an NBA scout, when most of the players were juco level at most.
In general that is far from the truth. Running communities tend to be very helpful and welcoming groups in my experience. Yes, there are a few alpha-cock types out there and one or two online forums where they manage to dominate (mainly because they leave other groups where being an arse is actively unappreciated), but that sort of prick appears in all walks of life and running seems to have fewer than its fair share.
A lot of the noise that you do hear comes from outside the running groups sometimes. For instance most people making jokes belittling joggers compared to runners neither run nor jog, they just like taking the mick out of a recognisable target. It is like the people who hardly ever leave their couch unless they need to go get another beer going on about how Cantona should have taken a particular shot differently (yeah, my football knowledge is that up-to-date!).
> if you run a marathon, it should be about your own sense of achievement
I would agree there. Though if there are awards for best-in-class or otherwise they should go to the people who genuinely earn them.
> why care so much about what some other person has done?
People don't generally like a cheat in any area, If someone else missed out on a best-in-class or other result because of a cheater they are perfectly justified in being irritated and many will be irritating on their behalf.
The man didn't deserve bullying by an online mob, he needed mental help not harassment and the ban from other events should be sufficient counter action, but that doesn't mean we should dismiss cheating as a victimless action that we shouldn't care about because it doesn't directly affect us.
with his systematic cheating and refusal to accept the reality and take the responsibility magically confined only to marathons ... The guy was an executive and moral integrity isn't that execs are known for. Cheating, outright denying of proven facts, legal threats and hiring PR company - that is a typical exec behavior, and public/community campaign is frequently the only way to stop them.
I don't know how anyone who has lived through the baseball PED scandal thinks doubling down helps. Bonds & Clemens fought tooth and nail against allegations. They'll never get into the hall of fame. Compare this to someone like David Ortiz, who got voted into Cooperstown this year. Ortiz didn't even really apologize. He just didn't double down.
I feel like this happens with other celebrity scandals, too, where the people who don't publicly argue stuff like this seem to have their public image less tarnished, if at all.
Someone cheating sucks, but nobody deserves to be mobbed and totally ruined.
It’s usually people at the “local elite” level as well. The pros who actually make a living running could never get away with it… it’s just people being vain, who in most cases have legitimate talent but feel so much pressure to perform.
Nobody is getting rich by cheating. They are primarily cheating themselves. Driving them into the ground helps nobody.
Reminds me of the start of Icarus before it turns into being about international politics. Cyclists spending tons of money on top of the line bikes and tons of doping just to try to win the tri-county cycling race.
I wouldn’t say running, even amateur running, is entirely meritocratic. You get a lot of the same behavior, just less outlets for it. (E.g. you can buy this Nike shoes with the carbon fiber panel in them, but besides shoes there is not much you can do to push your performance besides). E.g. You do get people with mysteriously very low times compared to their last race or age group. I don’t think you should be drug testing local races and marathons because it just seems pointless and overkill for what is supposed to be a friendly community competition, but I would say the exact same thing about people who want to win said community competition at all cost.
People wanting to win that local level at all costs are definitely cheating the other clean/non-cheating athletes who would've been on a podium but the scope is limited to those in contention (though still wrong).
For the most part, people are competing against themselves and trying to get a qualifying time for another event or just set a PR.
Pros cheat and get away with it often enough.
It's tragic that the cheater killed himself. But if marathon running is a "true meritocracy" where "performance is the true test", the public interest and outcry over violating the sport's core tenets is really not to blame, especially given a significant cheating problem.
> They are primarily cheating themselves.
This implies that there's nothing at stake for the non-cheaters, or that it's not important to them or the sport itself.
I hate to say race organizers should demand people load a phone app just so they can get an official result, but maybe we're back to needing dedicated hardware or enough tracking mats that spoofing the system becomes impractical.
The professional runners are monitored so closely cutting is not a realistic option.... and they're the ones actually getting prize money... obviously they're tested for doping etc... Everything else is really just personal achievement... and if you're cheating at that level you're just depriving yourself of legitimate accomplishment. It isn't a race organizers responsibility to keep you from doing so....
When it comes to something w/ limited availability like a Boston etc... that is different.... if you cut a course (or cheated via other means) in order to submit a qualifying time you're legitimately affecting others as well. I have to admit it does get murky here and there.
The LetsRun forum is such a wild place - it's a really strange mix of great running news discussion, 4-chan / bodybuilding.com conspiracy theories, and (IMO) a lot of teenage / college male runners who have a lot of angst, and something to prove because they are in an unpopular sport. Moderators/owners (rojo / pojo? or something) don't do anything / actively encourage this.
I look back at my teenage years and realised how hazardous they are to mental health. My curiousity & engagement on those communities was limited to infrequent lurking.
I now understand why alt-right/q anon movement popped up so quickly.
A big issue with these boards is that the ownership can't overmod because these communities are a big drawcard, even if they're financial negatives.
Yes, but so are Facebook and Twitter.
There is a difference though as those platforms have larger moderation resources though.
You can apply the same arbitrary granularity to bodybuilding.com (different subforums) and 4chan (different boards) too, and say 'such and such subforum isn't as toxic as these other ones...'.
The point is that all four platforms spread and foster toxicity. And given that Twitter and Facebook are magnitudes bigger, they also do so much more than 4chan or bodybuiding.com.
One FB/Twitter, you can only see stuff posted by your friends, friends of friends, specific people whose names/usernames you know and have searched for, groups you have chosen to join, and ads they show you. The other 99.99% of content is invisible to you.
There’s that word. The world is super “toxic”. The aforementioned sites allow people to speak freely, which can result in negativity, but they’re also bastions of freedom and creativity and everyone’s thoughts being equally visible.
One can easily argue that that’s far less toxic than Reddit’s style of everyone being the church mom that silences and admonishes everyone that says something “problematic” or what the congregation considers unacceptable. Where’s the fun in that?
There’s definitely a certain group of people who hate not being able to silence others, since if they can’t silence and censor their opponents, their arguments don’t really hold up.
And by the way, just because there is no active moderation doesn't mean that every voice is equally heard. Or did any one on running.com listen what Dr. Meza had to say?
Pour encourager les autres.
"The only freedom which counts is the freedom to do what some other people think to be wrong. There is no point in demanding freedom to do that which all will applaud. All the so-called liberties or rights are things which have to be asserted against others; who claim that if such things are to be allowed, their own rights are infringed or their own liberties threatened. This is always true, even when we speak of the freedom to worship, of the right of free speech or association, or of public assembly. If we are to allow freedoms at all there will constantly be complaints that either the liberty itself or the way in which it is exercised is being abused, and, if it is a genuine freedom, these complaints will often be justified. There is no way of having a free society in which there is not abuse. Abuse is the very hallmark of liberty."
They're places that provide access to actual human beings though. So many other online communities - especially ones with wide readership - are astroturfed into oblivion.
My take on it is that having to deal mentally with lunatics howling at the moon and screaming about the upcoming Great Replacement is the price you pay for access to actual opinions. That screaming horde is what keeps the astroturfers and consent manufacturers out.
But you only see opinions of people who are willing to tolerate the torrent of abusive posts. You won't see the opinions of the silent majority who see the stupid flamewars and decide they'll spend their time elsewhere.
There's value to be gleaned from /pol/ if you can stand the lunatics. The skychan threads sometimes yield some interesting conjecture.
4chan is currently the best place for realtime ukraine war footage and analysis, in my opinion.
While I don’t particularly deny this
> 4chan is currently the best place for realtime ukraine war footage and analysis
Is most definitely a no.
Oddly enough, Reddit seems to be the best for footage, with Telegram likely coming second.
As for analysis, Twitter without a doubt. Is there a load of absolute horse shit? Of course. If you don’t know how to detour that, you shouldn’t care much in the first place.
The only good thing that has come out of 4chan regarding this war is the cope cage. That is indeed hilarious.
I'm not really sure how to respond to that. It's intrinsically different. It's getting responses from people who don't care what their neighbour thinks about them vs getting responses from people who care in the utmost what their neighbour thinks of them. One is intrinsically likely to be more unfiltered than the other.
If you want to know what sentiment a community actually holds you have to seek out all types of opinions.
These forums seem to collect the most problematic people from every political group and subculture, put them all together, and then teach them their own unique manosphere philosophy that is currently one of my least favorite things about all of mankind.
It's some kind of primitivist thought combined with a screenshot of a Nietzsche quote about strength and power, some pretentious militant atheism, a bit of eugenics, a lot of intelligence-worshipping, and a heavy dose of still believing in cringe culture.
Way bigger than just alt right, there seems to be a variant for every affiliation. It's almost mainstream.
Right now, I'm running 50+ miles a week training for a marathon. That is really hard and a major commitment. I won't set any records, but I have a good shot at placing in my age group. I don't run to win anything or achieve a certain place, but I would be somewhat pissed off if some idiot like this cheated and beat me.
I enjoy most of the time that I spend running, but to get to this level, you have to go through a pretty difficult level of training which makes all of your life a lot more stressful during the periods of intense training. Right now, I'm staying in a job that I don't like because the schedule is very flexible and allows me to spend around 15 hours a week training.
Anything else is just our human brains looking for patters and finding it even if it’s not there.
This reminds me of Lance Armstrong. Prior to his outing, I believed Lance Armstrong was innocent of doping. But many serious cyclists told me there was no way he was not doping, and they were right. Expertise is often useful.
No, it wasn't because he was discovered. It was because he was being harassed by folks and media. To make it worse, people harassed his employers so much that they distanced themselves from him. I'm not surprised somebody wasn't able handle an Internet and media mob.
When your whole sense of identity (in this case running marathons) is ripped away from you (whether or not you cheated) you no longer have a reason to live. Unless you have other things to live for family, work, whatever. Other senses of identity and self.
I'm not clear on the suicide. Usually when men commit suicide, it is not survivable. I don't see how jumping into an an empty LA river channel would be considered "unsurvivable." Standing at the brink, I'd expect someone like him to realize, "this is no good... I might survive." Isn't it possible he was pushed? He did have future plans to deliver lunch to his wife.
The bridge is maybe 18 feet above ground level and the river bed is maybe 35 feet below ground; about 53 feet of total fall, on to concrete. That's a very big fall, and his advanced age makes it even more dangerous.
I don't think the theory that male suicides are rationally evaluating success probability is especially sound. But even under that theory, it's a hard fall.
I think, generally, the abuse that's occurring here is that people willfully raised the profile of a perceived wrong. Lobbying the people who run the races or local papers that ran stories about him to correct those things is appropriate. The national media showing up and people trying to bully or harass him crosses over into ethically bankrupt behavior under the guise of "justice".
All that was before the internet really took of, so. But those "guardians" of whatever cause are among the most toxic and worst people I know.
Real people went to real crusades at one point. Contemporary Jihadi terrorist organizations refer to American missions in the Middle East as crusades right in their names, you can find it in the CIA's world factbook. It's an accusation-of-accusation word in the media, "conspiracy" is another one, newscasters attempt to discredit people by accusing them of accusing others of conspiring. This happened to George Carlin, for one, who turned it around on the newscaster and the whole crowd cheered him.
EDIT: now that I'm reading your posts again I recall the ref who did a truly gross thing, declare a penalty in the 1998 World Cup between Italy and Chile. Turns out he really had been given a crazy bribe. Just so disgusting.
A general point regarding cheating: Do you have any idea how many amateur athletes are doping? And never get caught or called out?
>>A general point regarding cheating: Do you have any idea how many amateur athletes are doping? And never get caught or called out?
Sure. Most top guys at 40+ are on something. Some are caught and banned. Often their names are published with a little syringe next to results. Most aren't caught. What does it have to do with anything?
The fact that, you, and others, don't see a problem when someone commits suicide after a prolonged bullying campaign, regardless of that persons action, is really, deeply troublesome.
https://news.yahoo.com/respected-developer-died-suicide-expe...
Also, anyone who runs knows that website they mention is one of the most toxic places on the internet, not just for running but everything and anything. ala "4chan" (8chan?) It's hundreds, thousands, of teenagers and 20-something boys with complete anonymity and nothing but free time. The website owners do not moderate. So once they get ahold of something to attack, they are going to bully it to death, in this case literally.
This article leaves out a lot of his disqualifications, too.
EDIT: And I fail to see any materially objectionable, insulting harassment, meaning beyond calling him out for cheating, which he totally deserved.
"Meanwhile, on LetsRun, some users had posted contact information for Meza’s employers. A handful of people left negative online reviews for him."
So my question is, why? Who cares? Why harass this man, actively try and destroy his life and livelihood because he might have cheated. Maybe he did. So what? How does it affect you?
The saddest thing here is that people don't have better shit to do than punish this man who likely contributed more to the world than them for a victimless crime.
The biggest scam was that I comped him a free entry for winning to come back, which happened twice. So that means the legit winner lost out on that, a token amount, maybe $150, but it still, 6+ years on, pisses me off that I was duped.
For me it was a huge "Why??" we were a small, regional race, didn't have any status as a qualifier or anything. By all accounts and the subsequent magazine article about the cheater revealed what in hindsight would be some serious mental health issues on his part.
They don't even do that much to get at him, they just ask him to prove it. I don't see it as harassment. He put himself in the spotlight when he ran those crazy times. Keep in mind, if this guy actually had actually run even one of his times for real, it would have been an opportunity to challenge the best. Just run one more marathon, or not even, just 5K at that same speed. A chance at the bigtime!
This happened with the Wright Brothers, the press actually did harass them in that case, but everyone said they were "Flyers or Liars". It was an opportunity! Well the Wright Brothers were Flyers. Frank Meza was a liar. And when the Wright Brothers did fly in front of all those journalists they became the most famous people in the world!
Meza had so many opportunities to admit he cheated.
And he had the choice (obviously not but hypothetically) of running like he said he did! They gave him that out!
Nobody looks at the people he cheated, he didn't cheat the marathon, he cheated other runners, real people came in one slot later, there was a real 70-74 year old who actually had merit that could have come in first and made the news, except for Frank Meza. It's just not the same to be declared a winner after the fact, by disqualification especially if the cheater never admits it. And runners just hate the cheaters, this is so much worse than steroids, teleporters ruin the sport on another level. And never admits it, with so much proof! Like he tried running even half as fast as he said he did and he ends up cardiac problems!
Headline should say "Marathon Cheater Frank Meza Kills Himself to Avoid Admitting It".
There's life after death. In a parallel universe, he respawned in like a psych ward (typically) and it's twice as bad, I guess they treat him better in the ward because he's a doctor but he still lives his life out in shame as a fraud. Probably then his life really does fall apart, people going through everything he's done with a fine-toothed comb, and find all sorts of stuff. Nobody cheats exclusively in the cases they're caught.
He just spent his whole life asking people to kiss up to him, well where he respawned I can tell you there is absolutely none of that.
Meza was much more than his worst moment, as are we all.
Maybe I'm being too hard on him in reaction to how soft the article is, it might have been senility.
The article mentions 3 or 4 things it could have been. We will never know, because this man is dead, and cannot say.
By "careful reading" I meant "not careless reading". No one who paid reasonable attention while reading the article would leave with anything other than the "plain as day" conclusion that Meza cheated.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Are you serious?
I think the tech for self-navigating drone that follows a person is already mature?
"Ok guys, I get why you don't believe my results, it's natural to be suspicious. Please give me a GPS tracker, I will run with it to prove nothing shady is going on" is not that hard to arrange unless you're actually cheating.
Video/ photo every xkm would be better. Especially as eta (at a checkpoint) can be fairly accurately er...estimated.
He deserved his reputation to be ruined, he deserved to be exposed and humiliated. He could have stopped it all by not competing anymore or you know, at least not cheating. His reputation was more important to him than his life. I respect the choice but it's only his. The community he tried to cheat employed the only defense mechanism that actually works.
You learn it's the only mechanism that works if you dealt with bullying, cheating at gambling, cheating in small business deals, cheating in sports, especially amateur ones. There is nothing else you can use to fight cheating/abuse. It's true the abuser often never admits wrongdoing until they are exposed publicly and humiliated. They hope it never gets to that point and they are often right. The same way the school bully doesn't face consequences, someone who stole something small from a friend doesn't or someone who cheated you in a poker game.
When they do get exposed they often blame their victims - true bully style. When I read the article I think about the victims. People who competed with him just so ego of a cheater could be satisfied and who beared the frustration of being helpless and officials ignoring their concerns for too long.
The article also mentions one of the most common and naive mistakes people make when accessing character:
"Everyone who knew him testified to his generosity, modesty, and sense of justice."
It's very easy and common for successful people to be generous and offer "sense of justice" to the community. I've seen this tens of times in the gambling world. You're successful, you are admired, you share your knowledge with others, help them, are asked to help when resolving disputes. You're well respected and feed of it. Then a day comes when things turn around. You either got caught cheating or the one edge you have becomes known and it's no longer there. Your results suffer and then it starts: you scam someone in a deal, you stop picking up calls from people who lend you money, you are suddenly involved in more and more shadiness.
It's just very difficult to judge someone's character when things are going well for them. Even violent drug dealer were often loved in their communities. It's just how people behave. It's easy, it's rewarding. It doesn't say much about your character.
It's a long rant about something I have dealt a lot with during my life from early years to adulthood. In business, in gambling, in sports, in little in group competitions for status. I know the community usually sides with the abuser/cheater. They are the popular one and it's just easier. He deserved his reputation to be ruined. For him it was more important than his life. Please don't blame the victims for his choices.
You know there are other people who "deserve to be exposed and humiliated" even more than elderly marathon cheaters, right? Putin, for instance? Taliban? But they are out of reach, and too powerful. Too dangerous to keyboard warriors, to be honest.
Much easier to go after elderly marathon cheaters. Don't you agree?
He should have been banned from races if there was sufficient proof he cheated and his times revoked - he can claim he didn't cheat all he wants, but he isn't going to be in any races so what does it matter?
I'm a runner who races, and if someone cheats that's bad but it isn't taking away anything from others - most racers are mostly racing against themselves anyway. I'm not thinking I want to beat the person in front, I'm thinking that I want to beat my personal target time.
I get that people always say positive things about people who have died, but take it with a grain of salt, right?
Did they ever run along to actually verify? Nah, too lazy, just blame him and see what happens.
then he went to LA marathon where he wasn't banned, but had to run with an observer, and still ran without an observer to set the world record in his age group...
Did posters just stopped reading articles on HN?
Where does it mention hard evidence of cheating before his death? Suspicious splits are not evidence. Not running with an observer is just that.
I get that people get mad at cheaters but without evidence it's unfair to harrass people. Even asking them to "prove" their ability is harrasment. That's all.
>In 2015 the L.A. Marathon must have noticed something fishy because officials asked him to run with an observer in the future. But when he returned in 2017, he ran alone, the observer idea apparently forgotten. He also ran solo in 2018 and 2019.
>So Murphy and the LetsRun crew grumbled when the L.A. Marathon announced in early June that it would not disqualify Meza from the 2019 race. >Instead, officials would ask him—again—to run with an observer next time around. “This is the best solution for all,” they told Murphy.
They're literally begging the guy to stop cheating so they don't have to ban him, and the guys does a world record. It's beyond ridiculous.
Instead of admitting it, he kills himself. I'm sorry, the whole story is tragic, but obviously this guy's problems went far beyond evil posters on letsrun, as awful as that site is.
But in itself, running without an observer is not cheating when it comes to finish time. It may be a violation of the race rules, but that's it.
Suspicious? Yes. Ridiculous? Yes. Direct evidence of cheating before his death? Nope. I don't see that in the article.
My dislike of the accusations and harrasment basically come down to this: would this hold up in court? I think it would not.
From the article: On July 3 a LetsRun user posted a photo with the comment: “Frank on a bike?” The image, taken by an official photographer during the 2014 San Francisco Marathon, showed a blurry figure riding a bicycle down the sidewalk. His face was obscured, but his outfit—a black cap, a gray long-sleeve shirt, Nike Zoom Marathoners, green socks—resembled what Meza was pictured wearing at the end of the race. When I sat down with the family and we examined the photo together, they denied that it was Meza. “It looks like someone photoshopped this,” Lorena said, pointing to the shoes. Plus, this man was wearing black athletic pants with a white stripe. “You don’t run a marathon in sweats,” Tina said.
From the final paragraph: Late on July 4, while word of Meza’s death was starting to circulate, a LetsRun user posted one last series of photos from the 2014 San Francisco Marathon. In each the Golden Gate Bridge looms in the background. And there is Meza, unmistakably, hanging out by a timing mat as other runners blow past him. He wears a familiar outfit: the hat, the shoes, the socks—and long black pants with a white stripe.
It's oddly non-prominent, but I think the article does present direct evidence of his cheating. It's not logical proof, and I don't know if it's the right standard, but with the right prosecution lawyer I think it probably would be enough to convince a jury in court.
Unless he stopped for over 6 minutes to piss on the doorstep of a Hooters, he cheated
- - -
Why act like there is a day-by-day timeline of evidence found and presented in the article's flowery writing. Its obviously skipping out on some aspects make telling the story easier, so its daft to use it as a base to understand the situation fully, but you act like you have become well informed somehow.
Perhaps, if those kids start breaking board game records. Fewest number of turns to Monopoly millionaire? Most items placed on the Buckaroo horse? Chess and go games would be better examples.
But more seriously, how seriously should people take these events? For those that are actually runners (and not just trolls), running may be there passion and doing well in these (pricey) events might be the highlight of their year. And then they hear others are cheating and I can imagine some would get very angry about that. Same with absolutely anything you invest your resources in.
If its in a public competition, yes, kids should be outed for cheating.
Less publicly...how many families get into it when someone gets caught cheating?
If i play cards for pennies with my friends, and one cheats, should nothing be said?
Absolutely not. No child should be publicly outed for anything whatsoever. Perhaps quietly disqualified, but I will never find it acceptable to "out" children who make poor decisions.