Runner Disqualified After Claiming 2nd Place in Fort Lauderdale Half Marathon(marathoninvestigation.com)
marathoninvestigation.com
Runner Disqualified After Claiming 2nd Place in Fort Lauderdale Half Marathon
http://www.marathoninvestigation.com/2017/02/runner-disqualified-after-claiming-2nd.html
196 comments
I don't agree that it's innocent. Competitors in marathons (the ones that have a chance of winning especially) have put a lot of time, energy, effort, and pain into training to be successful.
To have their rewards for that effort and commitment stolen by someone who didn't earn it is not fair and should be scrutinized and called out.
To call this "trivial" seems like maybe you have no interest or experience with marathons? It might be trivial to you, but substitute marathons for some challenging endeavor in your life. If your success was stolen by someone who cheated, you wouldn't think it was trivial either.
Certainly mass internet lynch mobs are a bad thing. But what this site does is necessary. There are many instances this kind of behavior documented on sites like this.
Some of these cheaters are obsessive and do it over and over again. It is very unfair to other competitors (even those who have no chance of being winners...), taking credit for the commitment to something that you don't have.
Maybe this kind of thing bothers me more because I've seen it with people who pretend to have military service ("stolen-valor"). It's just frustrating seeing people blatantly pretend to have done something difficult just to get the accolades.
Anyways, I agree that these are self-inflicted wounds for sure.
To have their rewards for that effort and commitment stolen by someone who didn't earn it is not fair and should be scrutinized and called out.
To call this "trivial" seems like maybe you have no interest or experience with marathons? It might be trivial to you, but substitute marathons for some challenging endeavor in your life. If your success was stolen by someone who cheated, you wouldn't think it was trivial either.
Certainly mass internet lynch mobs are a bad thing. But what this site does is necessary. There are many instances this kind of behavior documented on sites like this.
Some of these cheaters are obsessive and do it over and over again. It is very unfair to other competitors (even those who have no chance of being winners...), taking credit for the commitment to something that you don't have.
Maybe this kind of thing bothers me more because I've seen it with people who pretend to have military service ("stolen-valor"). It's just frustrating seeing people blatantly pretend to have done something difficult just to get the accolades.
Anyways, I agree that these are self-inflicted wounds for sure.
I was commenting that buying instagram followers was relatively innocent, not that the act of cheating in a race was innocent. Sorry, I thought that was clear from the context.
> To call this "trivial" seems like maybe you have no interest or experience with marathons? It might be trivial to you,...
I never used the word trivial in my comment. You've successfully made a straw man and beat it to death :)
I hope you don't mind if I take your double mis-reading of my comment to make a broader point: I think your reply is an unintentional but apt example of the righteousness that can get whipped up in these types of stories.
Righteousness does some messed up stuff to our thought process. It filters things in a way to amplify the negativity of the behavior in question, crowding out nuance in the quest to reinforce belief.
It looks like you latched onto the use of the word "innocent" and started your reply, and each follow-on sentence in your reply is your thought process reinforcing this emotion, which is increasingly divorced from the original post's point (how we police behavior in the age of the internet).
Sorry to make a bit of an example of your post, but I recognize it because I've done the very same thing myself - it's something we're all susceptible to. I think the environment of internet comment threads supercharges this, as threads gain steam because they're public and can have many more participants dropping in to make a point or build on something someone else said. There's often no feedback loop to this bottom-up aggregate behavior, which can outsize the real world effects (the 'punishment') relative to the person's offense.
This site [1] has a good summary of the emotional chain of causation for why we feel this way:
* Intuition focuses the mind on a single strategy. An angry person can only see the reasons for anger.
* Anger is an unconscious choice by the system. The whole body responds to the emotion.
* Indignation also gains its power from the territorial instincts.
* The amygdala triggers the anger emotion.
* LTP (long term potentiation) makes the amygdala sensitive to imagined offence.
* Self righteous indignation permits anger without guilt.
Within the context we're talking about, this is really instructive. There are examples that describe each one of these points. And the sum of many people's anger without guilt can be fearsome.
For what its worth, I'm in full agreement with you - it bothers me too seeing people cheat, or stolen valor, or any of these types of reprehensible behaviors. What I hope for is a society that polices bad behavior by giving appropriate punishment - where we find the right response that prevents future activity rather than simply seeking to satisfy our emotional desire for revenge. I worry internet shame posts may be more the latter than the former and may have terrible unintended consequences.
[1] http://www.effective-mind-control.com/self-righteous-indigna... (I have no idea about the rest of this site and cannot vouch for all of it, but this one page was pretty darn good)
> To call this "trivial" seems like maybe you have no interest or experience with marathons? It might be trivial to you,...
I never used the word trivial in my comment. You've successfully made a straw man and beat it to death :)
I hope you don't mind if I take your double mis-reading of my comment to make a broader point: I think your reply is an unintentional but apt example of the righteousness that can get whipped up in these types of stories.
Righteousness does some messed up stuff to our thought process. It filters things in a way to amplify the negativity of the behavior in question, crowding out nuance in the quest to reinforce belief.
It looks like you latched onto the use of the word "innocent" and started your reply, and each follow-on sentence in your reply is your thought process reinforcing this emotion, which is increasingly divorced from the original post's point (how we police behavior in the age of the internet).
Sorry to make a bit of an example of your post, but I recognize it because I've done the very same thing myself - it's something we're all susceptible to. I think the environment of internet comment threads supercharges this, as threads gain steam because they're public and can have many more participants dropping in to make a point or build on something someone else said. There's often no feedback loop to this bottom-up aggregate behavior, which can outsize the real world effects (the 'punishment') relative to the person's offense.
This site [1] has a good summary of the emotional chain of causation for why we feel this way:
* Intuition focuses the mind on a single strategy. An angry person can only see the reasons for anger.
* Anger is an unconscious choice by the system. The whole body responds to the emotion.
* Indignation also gains its power from the territorial instincts.
* The amygdala triggers the anger emotion.
* LTP (long term potentiation) makes the amygdala sensitive to imagined offence.
* Self righteous indignation permits anger without guilt.
Within the context we're talking about, this is really instructive. There are examples that describe each one of these points. And the sum of many people's anger without guilt can be fearsome.
For what its worth, I'm in full agreement with you - it bothers me too seeing people cheat, or stolen valor, or any of these types of reprehensible behaviors. What I hope for is a society that polices bad behavior by giving appropriate punishment - where we find the right response that prevents future activity rather than simply seeking to satisfy our emotional desire for revenge. I worry internet shame posts may be more the latter than the former and may have terrible unintended consequences.
[1] http://www.effective-mind-control.com/self-righteous-indigna... (I have no idea about the rest of this site and cannot vouch for all of it, but this one page was pretty darn good)
A little surprised to see this on the front page of HN, but I don't think we can deny that running is probably the nerdiest of sports.
Anyway, that's nice that she owned up to it. Most of the cheaters don't. As a guy who's no doubt proved my running bonafides -- 3:06 marathon pr + there's a picture of me on the Western States 100 wikipedia page -- I always wonder why people get so angry about this kind of thing. I mean, sure, it's not cool to cheat, but this ain't the Olympics. Who gives a shit?
Nothing is getting "stolen," especially not if you weren't in the top 10 or whatever.
Anyway, that's nice that she owned up to it. Most of the cheaters don't. As a guy who's no doubt proved my running bonafides -- 3:06 marathon pr + there's a picture of me on the Western States 100 wikipedia page -- I always wonder why people get so angry about this kind of thing. I mean, sure, it's not cool to cheat, but this ain't the Olympics. Who gives a shit?
Nothing is getting "stolen," especially not if you weren't in the top 10 or whatever.
Cheating and doping both make me very angry as a casual athlete. I don't let it ruin my day, but it annoys me. Like come on, we are training 10h a week to go pay money to run a race and get a $1 medal. Let's kinda sorta keep it fair?
That's an interesting perspective.
I train Brazilian Jiu Jitsu with a bunch of guys that are on steroids and it doesn't bother me a bit. In my mind I just handicap myself vs their strength advantage so I'm happy with my relative performance.
I train Brazilian Jiu Jitsu with a bunch of guys that are on steroids and it doesn't bother me a bit. In my mind I just handicap myself vs their strength advantage so I'm happy with my relative performance.
What if one of them hurt you seriously, say causes paralysis? Would that be OK, because of course it could have happened anyway?
Heh. Actually I have a neck injury from a UFC fighter that was busted for doping. I don't blame him. He was just trying to keep his kids clothed and fed.
Obviously, I'm not gonna defend those behaviors. It's kind of a cliche, but they're really only cheating themselves.
As for the rest of us, who are we really racing against? Sure, there are the handful of jerks who you battle it out with on the local scene... and if one of those guys were to cheat, you're right, that would feel personal and that would piss me off.
But if some other random runner cut the course? Aren't we pretty much all just racing ourselves, seeing how far and fast we can push our bodies?
As for the rest of us, who are we really racing against? Sure, there are the handful of jerks who you battle it out with on the local scene... and if one of those guys were to cheat, you're right, that would feel personal and that would piss me off.
But if some other random runner cut the course? Aren't we pretty much all just racing ourselves, seeing how far and fast we can push our bodies?
Yes and that is how I stay sane. However I really like to see how I rank.. like "Last year I ran in the 50th percentile, this year I ran in the 90th". 1 cheater, meh. 100 cheaters? Meh messed up my math ;)
I'm a casual runner, but I am engaged in a secret athletic struggle against my nemesis, a guy in my age group (55-59) who routinely finishes about 5 minutes ahead of me in local 5K races. It's a secret struggle because I'm not on even on his radar...but HE is on MINE. Believe me, if someone cheated and put yet another spot in the rankings between me and Nemesis, he would be stealing something important from me.
Haha. Yeah... I totally hear ya. That's fair. It's important to have a Nemesis. Go get him!
> I mean, sure, it's not cool to cheat, but this ain't the Olympics. Who gives a shit?
People who value fair play and personal honor more highly than you do. (well, you asked)
> Nothing is getting "stolen,"
Those whose rankings are affected by the cheater have had something taken from them.
People who value fair play and personal honor more highly than you do. (well, you asked)
> Nothing is getting "stolen,"
Those whose rankings are affected by the cheater have had something taken from them.
"God dammit! Don't you know who I am? I finished 355th at the North Face 50 Mile National Championships!"
I mean... on some level, I get you. On another, though, I can assure you that no one cares about your marathon time or finishing place, unless you're at an elite level.
I mean... on some level, I get you. On another, though, I can assure you that no one cares about your marathon time or finishing place, unless you're at an elite level.
This was a weak field local race with no prize money. She cheated out the top 3 female runners for bragging rights, that's really it.
In a better stacked race her time would have been much further down in the AG ranks, not competing for overall.
In a better stacked race her time would have been much further down in the AG ranks, not competing for overall.
It took several attempts at doubling down on the deception (riding the course on her bike and posting the Strava trace) and being repeatedly called out before she gave up and admitted it.
Not nearly as laudable as admitting it as soon as someone accused her of cheating.
Not nearly as laudable as admitting it as soon as someone accused her of cheating.
I commend your call to sympathy.
I don't like taking a drive-by, salacious interest in a story that doesn't affect me in the least, but will probably have serious, perhaps devastating consequences for the person involved for a long time professionally.
I also think it's worth pointing out that the original article, while using photos of the person involved, never uses their full name, so is to some extent not google-able. However, the full name is used in the comments, and then extensively in other media coverage of this story, so this is a moot point.
As with the parent, I'm not defending cheating in a competitive race, especially if sponsorship is involved. But ultimately, I can't take any pleasure in a worldwide glee-fuelled shame-fest over what is ultimately a relatively trivial, presumably non-criminal misdeed.
I don't like taking a drive-by, salacious interest in a story that doesn't affect me in the least, but will probably have serious, perhaps devastating consequences for the person involved for a long time professionally.
I also think it's worth pointing out that the original article, while using photos of the person involved, never uses their full name, so is to some extent not google-able. However, the full name is used in the comments, and then extensively in other media coverage of this story, so this is a moot point.
As with the parent, I'm not defending cheating in a competitive race, especially if sponsorship is involved. But ultimately, I can't take any pleasure in a worldwide glee-fuelled shame-fest over what is ultimately a relatively trivial, presumably non-criminal misdeed.
Maybe it's only me, but I don't see any "shame-fest" here. The article is facts based and points to concrete wrongdoings, not simply taking some moral stand.
"what is ultimately a relatively trivial, presumably non-criminal misdeed."
While it's not criminal behavior, it must be discouraged and punished as it does tremendous damage to competitive sports and other sportsmen by discouraging them ("What's the point? Everyone cheats anyway") or forcing them cutting corners themselves to stay competitive (see recent doping scandal).
"what is ultimately a relatively trivial, presumably non-criminal misdeed."
While it's not criminal behavior, it must be discouraged and punished as it does tremendous damage to competitive sports and other sportsmen by discouraging them ("What's the point? Everyone cheats anyway") or forcing them cutting corners themselves to stay competitive (see recent doping scandal).
It doesn't take a million strong Internet mob to punish an individual behavior. This bandwagon/mob/piling-on instinct may have served us well in the wild west or in small villages of a few dozen to few hundred people, but is highly inappropriate in the digital realm where the "village" consists of billions of people worldwide.
I stand by this statement despite the single (possibly accidental) downvote. Mob justice is not justice.
> but I don't see any "shame-fest" here.
Did you read all the comments? Did you see she's closed her social media accounts?
Did you read all the comments? Did you see she's closed her social media accounts?
I was talking about the article itself. I don't usually read comments bar selected few sites (HN included), because there are always trolls and haters. It's not the article's fault that we have such dire situation on the whole Internet.
I think you're missing the big picture. As said in the parent, other news are covering also the story with her real name and pictures.
It's a shame fest with media trying to give as much info on the woman they can. Not this article in particular, but the coverage of the story is borderline hateful. The Internet don't like cheater.
It's a shame fest with media trying to give as much info on the woman they can. Not this article in particular, but the coverage of the story is borderline hateful. The Internet don't like cheater.
> other news are covering also the story with her real name and pictures
Should they blur her face and not use her name?
Should they blur her face and not use her name?
This is a good question. It's easy to ask people to be reasonable and not take it too far. But there will always be writers online who don't have that filter.
Social media loves a good witch hunt.
At most we can only really be directly critical on a case by case basis. And try to push back generally.
Should this particular blog post have blurred her face? If it's certain she will be identified in other races regardless if her pic is spread around then I agree, it would probably be wise to blur it to at least temper the hivemind.
This is more about personal responsibility than unrealistically expecting everyone to follow your world view.
Social media loves a good witch hunt.
At most we can only really be directly critical on a case by case basis. And try to push back generally.
Should this particular blog post have blurred her face? If it's certain she will be identified in other races regardless if her pic is spread around then I agree, it would probably be wise to blur it to at least temper the hivemind.
This is more about personal responsibility than unrealistically expecting everyone to follow your world view.
> It's not the article's fault that we have such dire situation on the whole Internet.
On a related note, Milo Yiannopoulos got banned from Twitter for the actions of his followers. It's commonly cited throughout the media that he was banned for racism but he was actually blamed for some of his followers who jumped into the thread. At most from his 4-5 tweets during the incident you could say that he was insensitive, but he never crossed the line into racism or said anything particularly heinous.
This brings up good questions about the responsibility of people for their followers online. At what level are you responsible for drawing out this behaviour? Should they be regulating random people who comment on their blog post?
Note: not debating Milo in general, just the rationale for this one case of permanently banning a person from Twitter
On a related note, Milo Yiannopoulos got banned from Twitter for the actions of his followers. It's commonly cited throughout the media that he was banned for racism but he was actually blamed for some of his followers who jumped into the thread. At most from his 4-5 tweets during the incident you could say that he was insensitive, but he never crossed the line into racism or said anything particularly heinous.
This brings up good questions about the responsibility of people for their followers online. At what level are you responsible for drawing out this behaviour? Should they be regulating random people who comment on their blog post?
Note: not debating Milo in general, just the rationale for this one case of permanently banning a person from Twitter
The drive-by internet mob can be awful. A just & fair society is one where punishments fit the crime, and internet mobs deliver outsized punishment for all sorts of minor and often illusory things. I worry about how this woman is dealing with this situation, right now, in realtime - perhaps her past behaviors are a sign of some issues she's dealing with. I'm heartened by many of the comments in the blog who advocate for sympathy, as the punishment has already been meted.
I think people don't realize how the little things add up.
Any one member of an Internet mob doesn't hurt an alleged wrongdoer much, but together they do deliver outsized punishment for all sorts of minor and often illusory things.
Any one member of an Internet mob doesn't hurt an alleged wrongdoer much, but together they do deliver outsized punishment for all sorts of minor and often illusory things.
Social feedback mechanisms appropriate for small tribes of 100-150 people become overwhelming when used by 100,000-150,000 people, to say nothing of what happens if you add three more zeros.
You can see modern celebrity as the flip side of this problem, too. 100,000,000 people giving just a bit of respect and thumbs up to someone becomes quite a torrent of social currency.
You can see modern celebrity as the flip side of this problem, too. 100,000,000 people giving just a bit of respect and thumbs up to someone becomes quite a torrent of social currency.
[deleted]
> while using photos of the person involved, never uses their full name, so is to some extent not google-able
Wat?
Clearly her name is exposed in the Strava screenshot. Took me exactly 2mins to find significant details about her in the blog post (also: if not, you can easily reverse-image-search her runner photos).
It's great to have her disqualified from the race, she clearly cheated.
Putting the whole story on the internet without worrying about her identity being exposed. Why? Is this really what you deserve when you cheat at a half-marathon?
Wat?
Clearly her name is exposed in the Strava screenshot. Took me exactly 2mins to find significant details about her in the blog post (also: if not, you can easily reverse-image-search her runner photos).
It's great to have her disqualified from the race, she clearly cheated.
Putting the whole story on the internet without worrying about her identity being exposed. Why? Is this really what you deserve when you cheat at a half-marathon?
She has cheated in public event and took 2nd place, so yes, due to respect for other participants, it's alright cheating fact to be made public.
The podium is all about attention. She put her face and name out into the public before the blogger did.
Yes but the comment's assertion is valid. Because the screenshots clearly reveal her name and social media handles even if the article refers to her as "the runner".
I'm not so sure I agree with this line of reasoning. I'm betting she'd have had no problem with her face/name being plastered up for all to see that she had won 2nd place in the race, and promoting that on social media.
This outcome is the same magnitude, just with the sign bit flipped.
This outcome is the same magnitude, just with the sign bit flipped.
> Wat?
I believe the idea is that, given the runner's name doesn't appear in the text, googling said name from cold should not produce that article.
I think that counts as "to some extent not google-able".
I believe the idea is that, given the runner's name doesn't appear in the text, googling said name from cold should not produce that article.
I think that counts as "to some extent not google-able".
I don't like taking a drive-by, salacious interest in a story that doesn't affect me in the least, but will probably have serious, perhaps devastating consequences for the person involved for a long time professionally.
Long before the Internet showed up, what you describe was why you don't do such things. Is the punishment disproportionate to the crime? Yeah, could be. But whether it's pre-internet community gossip or the whole world knows, you don't such things because it could ruin your reputation if found out. Right or wrong, that's always been reality.
"Devastating consequences...professionally", as it should be. If she'll cheat in a race to make herself look good, what will she do in your business when real money is on the line? Cook your books? Lie about results (already has a track record for that one)? As long as she comes out looking good.
Its a common theme on HN to scoff at the trivial fines for companies caught cheating when the profits gained through cheating are much larger. In the case of this runner, I think a global calling-out is appropriate given that she'd sure accept the accolades were she not found out.
Long before the Internet showed up, what you describe was why you don't do such things. Is the punishment disproportionate to the crime? Yeah, could be. But whether it's pre-internet community gossip or the whole world knows, you don't such things because it could ruin your reputation if found out. Right or wrong, that's always been reality.
"Devastating consequences...professionally", as it should be. If she'll cheat in a race to make herself look good, what will she do in your business when real money is on the line? Cook your books? Lie about results (already has a track record for that one)? As long as she comes out looking good.
Its a common theme on HN to scoff at the trivial fines for companies caught cheating when the profits gained through cheating are much larger. In the case of this runner, I think a global calling-out is appropriate given that she'd sure accept the accolades were she not found out.
The problem with this argument in this case is that she put herself out in front of ‘the mob’. She actively promoted her ‘achievement’ to a public audience. Presumably she would have been happy for any level of adulation from the public. So when it turns around to public revulsion, that's just the other side of the sword, which she first actively employed.
I would have more sympathy for your argument if this story was about some form of private cheating. But this was cheating on a public stage, one that she particularly sought out.
I would have more sympathy for your argument if this story was about some form of private cheating. But this was cheating on a public stage, one that she particularly sought out.
don't have sympathy, these people are always awful.
Thirded.
It can be really easy to make navigational errors in amateur races, especially with turnaround points. Usually there is no crowd lining the whole course, signage is bad, and the marshalling can be spotty.
Yes, this person is a bit narcissistic and a tad dishonest, but it might just have been easier to go along with the misunderstanding rather than fess up to messing up.
EDIT: OK, OK, "very dishonest" then. My point being that this stuff sometimes happens, people deal with it in different ways, and that witch-hunts can be just as damaging as the transgression itself. But yes, a lot of you (rightly) care about the integrity of amateur sportspeople who are also in the public sphere.
It can be really easy to make navigational errors in amateur races, especially with turnaround points. Usually there is no crowd lining the whole course, signage is bad, and the marshalling can be spotty.
Yes, this person is a bit narcissistic and a tad dishonest, but it might just have been easier to go along with the misunderstanding rather than fess up to messing up.
EDIT: OK, OK, "very dishonest" then. My point being that this stuff sometimes happens, people deal with it in different ways, and that witch-hunts can be just as damaging as the transgression itself. But yes, a lot of you (rightly) care about the integrity of amateur sportspeople who are also in the public sphere.
>tad dishonest
I agree that the internet mob can be unduly cruel, and as a larger issue I'm uncomfortable with the notion than a single mistake a person makes is now often immortalized on the internet for eternity, but does what this runner did really count merely as a tad dishonest?
Honest navigational errors can indeed occur. I made one such mistake in high school during a cross country race that took place in an unfamiliar wooded course. I didn't even realize I had made a mistake until I reached the finish line. The giveaway for me was that I finished in front of a number of runners whom I knew throughout the season to be faster than me, and I didn't remember passing them. It was a pretty simple mistake to rectify, I told my couch and teammates and we retraced the course to the place I went off course, no big deal.
I particularly enjoyed the part of this story where the runner retraced the course later that day, on bicycle and despite feeling ill earlier, so she could spoof the GPS data. I hope that labeling something like this as being only a tad dishonest isn't emblematic of the way SV and HN in generally view the topic of honesty.
I agree that the internet mob can be unduly cruel, and as a larger issue I'm uncomfortable with the notion than a single mistake a person makes is now often immortalized on the internet for eternity, but does what this runner did really count merely as a tad dishonest?
Honest navigational errors can indeed occur. I made one such mistake in high school during a cross country race that took place in an unfamiliar wooded course. I didn't even realize I had made a mistake until I reached the finish line. The giveaway for me was that I finished in front of a number of runners whom I knew throughout the season to be faster than me, and I didn't remember passing them. It was a pretty simple mistake to rectify, I told my couch and teammates and we retraced the course to the place I went off course, no big deal.
I particularly enjoyed the part of this story where the runner retraced the course later that day, on bicycle and despite feeling ill earlier, so she could spoof the GPS data. I hope that labeling something like this as being only a tad dishonest isn't emblematic of the way SV and HN in generally view the topic of honesty.
This..
Reading the parent comments felt like they are making cheating acceptable. This did not seem like a little mistake, it seemed more like systematic cheating. She had multiple chances to apologize, but she went on until she was faced with the facts.
Reading the parent comments felt like they are making cheating acceptable. This did not seem like a little mistake, it seemed more like systematic cheating. She had multiple chances to apologize, but she went on until she was faced with the facts.
"A tad" dishonest?
1) She was disqualified immediately, but she complained to the person in charge and actually convinced them that they made a mistake and that she didn't cheat. If she had accepted being disqualified, this wouldn't have ended up on the internet.
2) She biked the course later in the day in an attempt to fake the data, but failed because the data is timestamped. I am not sure how she could have possibly been more dishonest than that.
1) She was disqualified immediately, but she complained to the person in charge and actually convinced them that they made a mistake and that she didn't cheat. If she had accepted being disqualified, this wouldn't have ended up on the internet.
2) She biked the course later in the day in an attempt to fake the data, but failed because the data is timestamped. I am not sure how she could have possibly been more dishonest than that.
No way. I've missed turnarounds in races multiple times (although this usually results in running farther than intended) and it would NEVER occur to me to just go with it and grab a podium spot. This goes way beyond "a tad dishonest".
Tangential question: do runners get disqualified for overruns? I can't imagine many people running too far reach the podium, but I'm curious whether accidentally adding a half mile is still a disqualifying error.
The author has another blog post to explain who s/he writes about: http://www.marathoninvestigation.com/2016/05/the-differerenc...
> The overall feedback I have received from the public regarding my work on the blog and the Boston reviews has been positive. (At some point I will try to clarify the review and filtering process - but runners that just had a bad day in Boston, or paced a friend, or just took their time, are not going to be singled out. They have nothing to worry about).
In this case she cut part of the course; she sought out officials to reassure them of her time; she accepted the medal; she faked data after the race; she only came clean after she was confronted with this information.
I agree that now she's come clean any identifying information should be removed. And I hate some of the comments that are clearly piling on. And it should be obvious but any attacks on social media are unacceptable.
> The overall feedback I have received from the public regarding my work on the blog and the Boston reviews has been positive. (At some point I will try to clarify the review and filtering process - but runners that just had a bad day in Boston, or paced a friend, or just took their time, are not going to be singled out. They have nothing to worry about).
In this case she cut part of the course; she sought out officials to reassure them of her time; she accepted the medal; she faked data after the race; she only came clean after she was confronted with this information.
I agree that now she's come clean any identifying information should be removed. And I hate some of the comments that are clearly piling on. And it should be obvious but any attacks on social media are unacceptable.
> I agree that now she's come clean any identifying information should be removed.
The media is running this story with full personal information included, this stuff is the first google hit for her name and several more on the first page of results. Google's "summary" of her on the right side when you google her name describes this event and contains nothing else.
The point at which she could have prevented this is when she was caught the first time, now it's too late.
It is not possible to prove a person who got second place in a public event was a cheater and prevent their identity from coming out. Even if the blogger hadn't posted her pictures, she would have been identified quickly.
The media is running this story with full personal information included, this stuff is the first google hit for her name and several more on the first page of results. Google's "summary" of her on the right side when you google her name describes this event and contains nothing else.
The point at which she could have prevented this is when she was caught the first time, now it's too late.
It is not possible to prove a person who got second place in a public event was a cheater and prevent their identity from coming out. Even if the blogger hadn't posted her pictures, she would have been identified quickly.
> I agree that now she's come clean any identifying information should be removed.
How?
How?
Ah, yes, that's a good point. Once it's on the internet it's there forever.
This runner cheated consciously, lied afterward, covered up the cheat with a conspiracy later (biking the route to create a fake data trail). Its hard to smear any investigation as 'obsessive' compared to that.
And cheating at public events is not innocent. Its a rupture of the social contract, up there with stealing and libel. It should be dealt with promptly and vigorously. She should be banned from all further events. This is not the sort of person you want in your society, in your business, in your life.
I'm more disturbed with the evident impulse to forgive. Is nothing important any more? Is character and honesty so worthless?
And cheating at public events is not innocent. Its a rupture of the social contract, up there with stealing and libel. It should be dealt with promptly and vigorously. She should be banned from all further events. This is not the sort of person you want in your society, in your business, in your life.
I'm more disturbed with the evident impulse to forgive. Is nothing important any more? Is character and honesty so worthless?
I think those who would forgive her believe that the response is disproportionate, and that the cheating doesn't rate worldwide infamy. I guess I side with runnr_az on this in that what she did is not right but it also isn't very important. But maybe he and I share the same worldview on running and racing, in that in almost all cases racing's value comes from doing the race, not the result. Yes, in the moment I'll do whatever I can to scratch out one higher place in the result, but after the race is done it really doesn't matter if I got 23rd or 123rd. Those that finished faster could have trained harder, trained more, had more experience, had better coaching, had better genetics, or even cheated, but I found that in the end those places don't matter nearly as much as the experience I got, and even if I found out that one or five or twenty people had cheated in the races I've done, it wouldn't have taken away from that experience.
I guess if one subscribes to the race-as-life metaphor, where cheating in a race is tantamount to stealing from someone, and how one acts in a race is how one will act in the rest of life, I can see more reasons to get angry, but I think that viewing this as "rupturing the social contract" is a more extreme view, and is entering the area that Hugo was exploring with the Inspector Javert character. Yes, she cheated, yes it's wrong, and yes, she should face consequences, but how much mental energy should we expend in the pursuit and punishment of this cheating? I think I'm almost as disturbed by the obsession with the cheating as by the cheating itself.
Maybe this thinking is objectively wrong, but at least for me that's why, if forgiveness means not to ban her from all future events, my impulse is to forgive.
I guess if one subscribes to the race-as-life metaphor, where cheating in a race is tantamount to stealing from someone, and how one acts in a race is how one will act in the rest of life, I can see more reasons to get angry, but I think that viewing this as "rupturing the social contract" is a more extreme view, and is entering the area that Hugo was exploring with the Inspector Javert character. Yes, she cheated, yes it's wrong, and yes, she should face consequences, but how much mental energy should we expend in the pursuit and punishment of this cheating? I think I'm almost as disturbed by the obsession with the cheating as by the cheating itself.
Maybe this thinking is objectively wrong, but at least for me that's why, if forgiveness means not to ban her from all future events, my impulse is to forgive.
That seems like a kind of double-think. The race is important or it isn't; its meaningful to ban her or it isn't. If the race isn't that important, then 'banned for life' is a symbolic gesture only.
Other people are saying this in other ways in the thread, but the race is what someone makes of it. If what someone cares about is their place, and that's all that's important, I can see how what I wrote could be black and white. But for a lot of people, especially as the race distance gets longer unless one is on the podium one's place really doesn't matter for a race to be important, and it isn't worth caring much about whether someone is cheating.
Except that cheats must be exposed and excoriated, for all our sakes.
I didn't mean 'obsessive' as a smear, more that they were dogged in their pursuit, going as far as crunching biometrics and zooming in on a watch for evidence (enhance.. enhance.. [1]). It was an entertaining read since it looked eerily similar to how conspiracy sites construct their hilarious conclusions. And yet, it was real.
Also, 'relatively innocent' was meant in context of buying instagram followers, not in cheating.
> I'm more disturbed with the evident impulse to forgive. Is nothing important any more? Is character and honesty so worthless?
The thing I'm most disturbed by in these threads is how easily nuance is lost to the power of righteous indignation. It's like we're reading an entirely different set of comments.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vxq9yj2pVWk
Also, 'relatively innocent' was meant in context of buying instagram followers, not in cheating.
> I'm more disturbed with the evident impulse to forgive. Is nothing important any more? Is character and honesty so worthless?
The thing I'm most disturbed by in these threads is how easily nuance is lost to the power of righteous indignation. It's like we're reading an entirely different set of comments.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vxq9yj2pVWk
You have to draw a hard line on cheating. Else it all falls apart. This person is not 'nuanced'. They are a calculating conniver, a con, a selfish calculating persistent cheat. The 'I'm sorry' letter reads like a con trying another tack.
Cons are very skilled at manipulating the audience. They want exactly the reaction the 'forgive and forget' crowd are giving them.
Cons are very skilled at manipulating the audience. They want exactly the reaction the 'forgive and forget' crowd are giving them.
Why should someone who cheated at a PUBLIC event and very publicly claimed the prize and actively misled other runners and the judging committee not be exposed publicly? Is it not in the public interest to punish these peoples? Or should we never report on such misdeeds for fear of any personal and professional retribution? Isn't that part of being a responsible adult in a civil society? She's a sponsored running/lifestyle blogger, for God's sake! The social contract works for a reason.
I think you are missing his point.
There is nothing wrong with the methodology (using her own Garmin watch as conclusive evidence) but there is something to be said about the medium through which she was exposed (the Internet).
The problem is the Internet never forgets so even if she learns a hard lesson from her actions and chooses to become a changed person (ala becoming a coach/public speaker/etc), her name will still rank high on search engines for her cheating 10/30/X years from now.
EDIT: Not trying to excuse the terrible act of cheating she engaged in, but I think it is important to realize the role of the internet as a permanent record of everyone's (mis)deeds, regardless of whether it was a crime or not.
There is nothing wrong with the methodology (using her own Garmin watch as conclusive evidence) but there is something to be said about the medium through which she was exposed (the Internet).
The problem is the Internet never forgets so even if she learns a hard lesson from her actions and chooses to become a changed person (ala becoming a coach/public speaker/etc), her name will still rank high on search engines for her cheating 10/30/X years from now.
EDIT: Not trying to excuse the terrible act of cheating she engaged in, but I think it is important to realize the role of the internet as a permanent record of everyone's (mis)deeds, regardless of whether it was a crime or not.
I think you missed the point as well. The newspaper coverage of her public deception and lying is on par with the benefits that she would otherwise try to benefit from by building up her image on fake wins and defrauding people who have trained harder to get those same results - and somehow we're supposed to give her a pass because she might want to have another public trust position in the future? She should work and convince those in the public space like another person committing other public trust breaches and taking fraudulent actions. Are you saying the Internet should forget, especially inconvenient/correct but damaging stories? Public records also never forget.
For the record, I absolutely do not condone what she did.
What she did was very dishonest and she has paid the price.
Merely pointing out what has already been said elsewhere in the thread that the internet, as a medium of communication, can deliver outsized punishments long after any "crime" has been committed.
What she did was very dishonest and she has paid the price.
Merely pointing out what has already been said elsewhere in the thread that the internet, as a medium of communication, can deliver outsized punishments long after any "crime" has been committed.
Outing any wrongdoing in a position of public trust can deliver punishment, whether that's outsized or not depends on the context and what they were trying to gain from it. If she weren't a sponsored lifestyle blogger, then I would agree that this was an exaggeration, but given the fact that the then conspired to cover her tracks is damning enough to get labeled as a cheater in the race's public records. She had to know that it would be possible to permanently damage her image but judged the risks lower than the benefits, and that's on her, not the public that she tried to mislead.
And this is called being responsible for one's own actions. It is harder in the Internet age, and you pay for poor choices longer, but it is life today. Maybe her story will encourage the next person considering cheating of not doing it. The internet has almost regressed social things to become somewhat tribal. "The internet says this person is bad, so they are bad" kind of tribal.
I don't think there's any reason this post shouldn't have happened, or the cheating shouldn't have been given a public, lasting record. And yeah, the sponsorship and team membership raise this from "costing someone else a medal" to "serious manipulation".
But I share the sense that something is weird here. Maybe it's just the section trying to cast doubt on the claim that she was feeling nauseous - there's a sentiment here that I find strange regardless of the bare facts.
But I share the sense that something is weird here. Maybe it's just the section trying to cast doubt on the claim that she was feeling nauseous - there's a sentiment here that I find strange regardless of the bare facts.
>> Maybe it's just the section trying to cast doubt on the claim that she was feeling nauseous
She was feeling so nauseous that she couldn't finish the extra 1.5 miles all by herself but could bike the entire course to falsify data on Strava to double down on her cheating? Give me a break. The fact that she only recanted after all the evidence was presented to her about the depths of her cheating tells us all we need to know about her character in this instance. Positions of public trust bring with them public responsibility, and this is what it looks like, for better or for worse.
She was feeling so nauseous that she couldn't finish the extra 1.5 miles all by herself but could bike the entire course to falsify data on Strava to double down on her cheating? Give me a break. The fact that she only recanted after all the evidence was presented to her about the depths of her cheating tells us all we need to know about her character in this instance. Positions of public trust bring with them public responsibility, and this is what it looks like, for better or for worse.
Yes I agree. It went beyond proving the simple facts of the case, into attempts discredit the runner's character in other ways.
You mean by pointing out another race a few months ago where she ran another half-marathon but pictures show that someone else finished the race with her bib?
Yes, partly that. But more the part where he dredged through her Strava and found a random entry where the cadence and heart rate data looked odd compared to her description of the activity. That wasn't even for a race, just her training log.
> It definitely reads as an obsessive sleuthing
The whole blog (business?) is about identifying cheaters in marathons. Just in case you missed it (I only noticed the second time I went to the page).
The whole blog (business?) is about identifying cheaters in marathons. Just in case you missed it (I only noticed the second time I went to the page).
The domain name is quite straight forward. I honestly don't understand the discussion revolving around the morality of investigating falsified competition times in a recorded sports event with prizes for placement.
Back in the days when you could buy 7,000+ twitter followers for $5 on Fiverr I use to buy followers for people all the time for fun. Friends from high school with very silly twitter account would wake up with 7,000 new followers. I also bought followers for small companies from time to time because I really enjoyed them. I noticed that their own real followers would increase after that. Confirmed this with my own twitter account.
I made the conclusion that people are more likely to follow a account that already has a lot of followers. So if the first 7,000 are fake the next 1000 or 2000 will be real and actually valuable followers.
I made the conclusion that people are more likely to follow a account that already has a lot of followers. So if the first 7,000 are fake the next 1000 or 2000 will be real and actually valuable followers.
>>My guess is a lot of people probably do this to bump up their social status a bit.
I had thought the Black Mirror episode titled "Nose Dive" was a bit silly at first, but as usual with that series, it 's turning out to be pretty prescient
I had thought the Black Mirror episode titled "Nose Dive" was a bit silly at first, but as usual with that series, it 's turning out to be pretty prescient
In time you will come to know that obsessive internet race cheat sleuthing is the greatest form of entertainment in the world. You get your Sherlock Holmes fix, you get insane psychologies to study, and you do good for the world, putting honest racers back on the podium.
There is a new crazy story every year or so, tune in next year, it is going to be great!
There is a new crazy story every year or so, tune in next year, it is going to be great!
She's a 'lifestyle blogger' so it's not like she's trying to be anonymous and then being outed by some troll. Also she didn't mind everyone celebrating her second place.
Sorry to distract from the effort of leaving her name out of this, but your discovery about her followers seems kind of like a funny coincidence considering her last name.
Cheating is endemic in the sport and finding these people can quickly become it's own kind of game. So, IMO there is nothing odd with this effort. EX: http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Philadelphia-Marat...
For me the most interesting tidbit is that she biked the entire race afterwards in a cover up attempt.
Are there any studies on doing something wrong and escalating it with coverup attempts? Or is there a name for this that I'm not aware of? I know it has to be the theme of at least one classical drama...sort of a reverse "Hans in Luck" of sorts...I dunno.
I have witnessed this pattern before and the spiral that person went on was completely out of character and a progression of small pieces. I wouldn't be shocked if a good number of serious crimes had almost comically trivial root causes that escalated that way.
I have witnessed this pattern before and the spiral that person went on was completely out of character and a progression of small pieces. I wouldn't be shocked if a good number of serious crimes had almost comically trivial root causes that escalated that way.
Marcus Einfeld comes to mind. A formerly well respected Australian judge who perjured himself over a $77 speeding ticket by blaming it on dead Americans and received 3 years in prison for the string of lies he told to trying to cover it up. Madness. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Einfeld#Criminal_convic...
Everyone should read this. It's hilarious.
First the judge tried to blame Teresa Brennan, "an old friend" from the USA. Turns out she was dead, and he knew it.
But then he claimed that he had lent his car on that day to a different Teresa Brennan, whom he claimed also lived in the USA, and who had also died.
When various TV shows have comically stupid plot twists I sometimes struggle with "suspension of disbelief". But this is one of those cases where truth is far stranger than fiction. You'd never believe someone in such a position of trust could be so stupid over something so petty.
First the judge tried to blame Teresa Brennan, "an old friend" from the USA. Turns out she was dead, and he knew it.
But then he claimed that he had lent his car on that day to a different Teresa Brennan, whom he claimed also lived in the USA, and who had also died.
When various TV shows have comically stupid plot twists I sometimes struggle with "suspension of disbelief". But this is one of those cases where truth is far stranger than fiction. You'd never believe someone in such a position of trust could be so stupid over something so petty.
I suppose the definitive example of this would be the Watergate scandal [1], which led to the coining of the phrase "It's not the crime, it's the cover-up".
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal
Another funny case is Melky Cabrera, an MLB player, who built out a website to cover up his positive PED test.
http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/8282185/san-francisco-gia...
http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/8282185/san-francisco-gia...
Escalation of commitment / commitment bias / sunk costs are what you're looking for. Agree, I've observed this 'cover it up with a bigger lie' thing happen. Madoff's scheme is a similar one, and that judge story in sibling comment is great example. These things are almost always comical/tragic in nature.
Personally I am fascinated by marathon cheats. Every time I see a story about someone cheating in a marathon I can't help but wonder what was going through the person's head before, during, and after.
I also wonder how often they do it, and why. You don't win any money, there is no incentive I can make out beyond bragging rights.
I mean, they aren't exactly footraces, right? It's an endurance test, IMO. Usually for charity, people usually participate for the exercise and show support for a good cause, or so I always assumed.
Winning seems totally arbitrary on one hand, but on the other hand I have to assume people do compete on some level, which makes the cheating more sensible, if you think about it in that sense.
I cheated once when I was a teenager at an online competitive game, so I'm not completely ignorant about the temptation of cheating. I'm used to people cheating at competitive online games, they're usually underskilled and looking to compensate, underage, just looking to spoil the fun, or some combination of those.
Maybe that's the intention here, to spoil the fun for those looking to compete. I suppose I'll never really know, but I can't help but ponder it whenever it comes up.
I also wonder how often they do it, and why. You don't win any money, there is no incentive I can make out beyond bragging rights.
I mean, they aren't exactly footraces, right? It's an endurance test, IMO. Usually for charity, people usually participate for the exercise and show support for a good cause, or so I always assumed.
Winning seems totally arbitrary on one hand, but on the other hand I have to assume people do compete on some level, which makes the cheating more sensible, if you think about it in that sense.
I cheated once when I was a teenager at an online competitive game, so I'm not completely ignorant about the temptation of cheating. I'm used to people cheating at competitive online games, they're usually underskilled and looking to compensate, underage, just looking to spoil the fun, or some combination of those.
Maybe that's the intention here, to spoil the fun for those looking to compete. I suppose I'll never really know, but I can't help but ponder it whenever it comes up.
While the vast majority of participants in races are doing it for fun/exercise, there are a handful of sub-elite runners at most races who are in it for more competitive reasons.
It could be prize money, but that is usually small. There are other types of compensation though. Being a member of a race team, receiving free or discounted gear, free entries to races, and some level of celebrity within the running community.
It's fun and rewarding, and a ton of hard work.
I suspect that a significant portion of her world is now rocked. In order to run those times, she is running every day and probably participating in group workouts, etc. A significant part of her social network is likely tied to her success as a runner, even though it is not her primary job.
I can only imagine how difficult this must be, which makes her decision to cheat so baffling.
It could be prize money, but that is usually small. There are other types of compensation though. Being a member of a race team, receiving free or discounted gear, free entries to races, and some level of celebrity within the running community.
It's fun and rewarding, and a ton of hard work.
I suspect that a significant portion of her world is now rocked. In order to run those times, she is running every day and probably participating in group workouts, etc. A significant part of her social network is likely tied to her success as a runner, even though it is not her primary job.
I can only imagine how difficult this must be, which makes her decision to cheat so baffling.
The New Yorker did an interesting article examining one such cheater http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/08/06/marathon-man
Many races do have cash prizes. For a smaller race, it could be just a trophy, or a trophy plus something from a sponsor, but it could also be cash ($50-$100+ range).
I have to believe that most people can make $100 in much easier ways than running most of a marathon
I'm an avid runner. I can say with confidence there's next to no money in running if you're not a unicorn in the elite circuit. I follow the sub-elite scene moderately closely I'd say. The successful ones who are at it full time and have a sponsorship may live in a house or condo not much bigger than a shack. Some live out of their van.
This was a half marathon.
There was a famous example of cheating (using EPO) a few years ago.
"In that time [roughly two years, I think], he won nearly $40,000 in prize money in more than 75 races, including international competitions, United States championships and local road races."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/sports/runner-christian-he...
There was a famous example of cheating (using EPO) a few years ago.
"In that time [roughly two years, I think], he won nearly $40,000 in prize money in more than 75 races, including international competitions, United States championships and local road races."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/sports/runner-christian-he...
In this case the runner needed to achieve a certain qualification time for another event. So she was under pressure, which led to the poor decision.
I wish people would not refer to dishonest decisions as poor decisions.
It's an example of spin and was doubtless invented by a PR company for some politician caught with his pants down.
It's an example of spin and was doubtless invented by a PR company for some politician caught with his pants down.
Why? If I choose to cheat on a test to pass a class and avoid studying it's a poor decision (from a risk vs reward perspective) and also a dishonest one (from a societal perspective). Many dishonest choices are poor ones.
I guess you're arguing that poor implies bad judgement which is a lesser crime than dishonesty? But actually in some cases I'd rather have the latter than the former.
I guess you're arguing that poor implies bad judgement which is a lesser crime than dishonesty? But actually in some cases I'd rather have the latter than the former.
Poor is deliberately chosen in an effort to understate things.
I can see why she would try to downplay her actions and hope that everyone else would play along.
I can see why she would try to downplay her actions and hope that everyone else would play along.
Here's how I interpret the two phrases:
"I done fucked up" vs "I lied"
Personally I don't really read it as downplaying (though I accept I may not attach a normal level of stigma to dishonesty)
"I done fucked up" vs "I lied"
Personally I don't really read it as downplaying (though I accept I may not attach a normal level of stigma to dishonesty)
I specifically chose those words for their generous effect.
[deleted]
I am not of the few vocal minority here who sympathizes with the person who cheated. Marathons are shared, sacred experiences organized by a community of volunteers. The marathoninvestigation.com author is protecting that which is sacred and shared among the running community. That is a noble cause and worth commending.
I agree but perhaps it's because the majority of apologists do not truly appreciate the challenges of running such races that they place a higher value on an amateur runner's privacy than the results of an arbitrary running event being skewed by a cheater.
Difficulty doesn't make things 'sacred' unless you're obsessed & delusional. It would be difficult to stand on one-leg for 40 hours but it would also be pointless & stupid, not 'sacred'.
I know nothing about running and this post was like looking into a whole world I did not know existed, all of this tech used in something as basic as running, so many opportunities for entrepreneurs in every aspect of life. Every one lives in their own world, some people wonder why gamers like to finish all side quests in a game, others may wonder why someone cares about running marathons so much, using all this tech, but most interestingly of all, the lengths someone would go to cheat in a run, and the lengths someone would go to uncover it all. The apology on instagram if real is a bit lame.
That's the kind of apology you expect from someone that's sorry they got caught. She can't get through the first paragraph without trying to make another excuse about not feeling well. Completely removes any sincerity from the rest of the piece.
Different people have different morals, and honor isn't as universal as we would hope.
Different people have different morals, and honor isn't as universal as we would hope.
You would think the turnaround point would be a natural place for the race organisers to put a timing mat. They would capture an extra split time and be able to automatically identify runners succumbing to this temptation.
Timing mats are usually placed at the same distance in every race: 5k, 10k, 13.1mi, etc. Adding extra mats probably means more cost.
That didn't prevent the 2016 Philadelphia Marathon organizers from placing an unannounced mat at a turnaround point 22 miles into the race. It helped them catch hundreds of cheaters.
And even if you can afford the extra mats, another challenge is where to place them. It's obvious with an out-and-back course, but there are many shortcut opportunities on every loop path, and you can't place a mat at every apex.
That didn't prevent the 2016 Philadelphia Marathon organizers from placing an unannounced mat at a turnaround point 22 miles into the race. It helped them catch hundreds of cheaters.
And even if you can afford the extra mats, another challenge is where to place them. It's obvious with an out-and-back course, but there are many shortcut opportunities on every loop path, and you can't place a mat at every apex.
Many of the bigger city marathons are simply placing them at every 5k interval (20k will be 21.1k). I try and run 1-2 marathons a year and the results are posted minutes after I cross the line. It's always fun to see how many places I creep up as the days go by afterwards from people getting DQ'ed.
It's too easy to match pictures to a bib number and then simply look at the splits and wonder why someone ran a record breaking 10 minute 5k near the end after cruising along at a series of 25 minute 5k's. An 8 year old kid can investigate this stuff.
It's too easy to match pictures to a bib number and then simply look at the splits and wonder why someone ran a record breaking 10 minute 5k near the end after cruising along at a series of 25 minute 5k's. An 8 year old kid can investigate this stuff.
Hundreds of cheaters?! Now I'm starting to understand why marathon sleuthing is the cottage industry that it is.
I think the number was unusually high for this particular race because the out-and-back is at the tail end of the race, is very long (4 miles out, 4 miles back), is only separated by traffic cones (making it easy to cut to the other side), and the weather was unusually brutal (very windy, near-freezing). It never occurred to me to cut to the other side, but I can understand why it did to many others.
"That didn't prevent the 2016 Philadelphia Marathon organizers from placing an unannounced mat at a turnaround point 22 miles into the race. It helped them catch hundreds of cheaters."
That sounds like a nice and easy way to weed out a lot of cheaters - every race has one or two randomly placed timing mats.
That sounds like a nice and easy way to weed out a lot of cheaters - every race has one or two randomly placed timing mats.
One comment in the link says there actually was a timing mat at the turnaround point:
"Fantastic investigative work. HOWEVER. Not sure why you had to do this. You see, I ran the race. And you wouldn't know this because you didn't, but there are four timing mats - start, finish, 10K and turnaround (about 9 miles)."
the answer from Derek is:
"I am aware of the timing mat at the turnaround. The timer did notice this, and she was initially DQ'd but was added back in until they went through everything. In every race there are missed mats - sometimes they malfunction, or they aren't placed across the entire course and are missed by an honest runner."
"Fantastic investigative work. HOWEVER. Not sure why you had to do this. You see, I ran the race. And you wouldn't know this because you didn't, but there are four timing mats - start, finish, 10K and turnaround (about 9 miles)."
the answer from Derek is:
"I am aware of the timing mat at the turnaround. The timer did notice this, and she was initially DQ'd but was added back in until they went through everything. In every race there are missed mats - sometimes they malfunction, or they aren't placed across the entire course and are missed by an honest runner."
Some of them do this. The Marine Corps Marathon places mats at the end of long turnaround points and they say they routinely disqualify people.
Wow! The sleuthing here is intense and that smoking gun (a purchased high-res version of a photo showing the actual distance covered) is amazing!
Why? What drives people to do it?
Is there money on the line? sponsorships for products.
It obviously wasn't just a momentary weakness it was an elaborate plan and for what to brag about it at work or on Instagram? But wouldn't she know she cheated every time she thought or talked about it. That would be hard thing to live with it seems
Edit: wonder how I'd feel if a friend or co-worker did this. I could see it creating some serious trust issues
Is there money on the line? sponsorships for products.
It obviously wasn't just a momentary weakness it was an elaborate plan and for what to brag about it at work or on Instagram? But wouldn't she know she cheated every time she thought or talked about it. That would be hard thing to live with it seems
Edit: wonder how I'd feel if a friend or co-worker did this. I could see it creating some serious trust issues
Beyond this post, you might be interested in another post in the blog: http://www.marathoninvestigation.com/2017/01/WhyIcheated.htm.... The blogger interviews someone he caught cheating in a pretty benign fashion about why he cheated. From that article, and my perspective on it, the answer to:
> That would be hard thing to live with it seems
Is the choice is not between
I've run marathons in the past and my times were awful but back then I was generally a happier person. If I were to be running a marathon today and somehow the timers marked me an hour faster then I really was for example, I might not correct them.
> That would be hard thing to live with it seems
Is the choice is not between
1) My great life
2) My greater life, with some compliments
1) My life that I don't feel great about
2) My life that I don't feel great about, with some compliments now
I've run marathons in the past and my times were awful but back then I was generally a happier person. If I were to be running a marathon today and somehow the timers marked me an hour faster then I really was for example, I might not correct them.
>>somehow the timers marked me an hour faster then I really was for example, I might not correct them.
People are more likely to draw the moral line in the sand when the error in your favour goes so far as to bump a legitimate winner off the podium. Your scenario above regarding "[...] with some compliments now" seems more in line with "just a slightly better time in the middle of the pack."
I appreciate your willingness to be open and honest about how you'd handle a less egregious situation, but I doubt you'd go this far based on the relative positioning you've outlined.
People are more likely to draw the moral line in the sand when the error in your favour goes so far as to bump a legitimate winner off the podium. Your scenario above regarding "[...] with some compliments now" seems more in line with "just a slightly better time in the middle of the pack."
I appreciate your willingness to be open and honest about how you'd handle a less egregious situation, but I doubt you'd go this far based on the relative positioning you've outlined.
I think there is a difference between momentarily having a lapse in judgement and just not saying anything. We've all made bad decisions, I certainly made plenty. There is a different of preparing and planning to cheat, like say doing the race on a bicycle to cover up the lie and generate fake data.
She's a Harvard grad.
Lots of over achievement in her short life.
Gotta keep appearances up. Gotta keep the family and friends impressed. And so on...
Lots of over achievement in her short life.
Gotta keep appearances up. Gotta keep the family and friends impressed. And so on...
> Is there money on the line? sponsorships for products.
Author speculated it may have something to do with some runners club and...
>> She wrote a blog post that read like a tourism commercial for Fort Lauderdale. I have confirmed that her trip was sponsored and that at least a portion of her trip and activities were comped.
Author speculated it may have something to do with some runners club and...
>> She wrote a blog post that read like a tourism commercial for Fort Lauderdale. I have confirmed that her trip was sponsored and that at least a portion of her trip and activities were comped.
Well that might explain the motivation then. I imagine she could have made a great blog even finishing last.
The article mentions sponsorships.
Yap saw it and it says it was comped (by work?) as well. How much is that worth in that event vs living with knowing she cheated.
Living with knowing you cheated is nothing (0 effect) to some people.
It's a half-marathon, not a University entry exam
One race alone doesn't make anyone's name.
One race alone doesn't make anyone's name.
A much more interesting "marathon cheating" story: http://time.com/3822577/rosie-ruiz-history/
Also related to Boston: http://www.runnersworld.com/boston-marathon/dozens-suspected...
Also related to Boston: http://www.runnersworld.com/boston-marathon/dozens-suspected...
I didn't find this one as interesting. She took the subway and popped out for the last mile. The half marathon we got a lot of info about the pace, cadence, and heartrate that the runner herself submitted.
I think the interesting bit is this:
> And while Ruiz never faced criminal consequences for faking her race finishes, she later ran afoul of the law for unrelated reasons. In 1982, she was charged with stealing $60,000 from the realty company she worked for, and in 1983 she was arrested for selling two kilos of cocaine to an undercover detective, per the AP.
> And while Ruiz never faced criminal consequences for faking her race finishes, she later ran afoul of the law for unrelated reasons. In 1982, she was charged with stealing $60,000 from the realty company she worked for, and in 1983 she was arrested for selling two kilos of cocaine to an undercover detective, per the AP.
Try this one, the 'Marathon Man': http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/08/06/marathon-man
Yes, but she won overall. That's pretty interesting for sheer boldness.
These sorts of situations keep appearing with lots of attention. One of the most (in)famous instances has a thread with thousands of pages on the Letsrun.com forum
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=6479539
There's also the case of the guy who was faking his run accross America
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=7355147
For whatever reason, this group of people in the online running community gets really into discovering who is cheating.
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=6479539
There's also the case of the guy who was faking his run accross America
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=7355147
For whatever reason, this group of people in the online running community gets really into discovering who is cheating.
I did this by accident before, at a 5K. I arrived to the race so late that when I crossed the starting line to BEGIN the race it registered that as my finish time and I'm posted on the result website as finishing in 2nd place.
You didn't "do this" unless you also stood on a podium, lied to race officials, and tried to cover it up.
Accidentally registering a false time (even accidentally cutting the course and claiming a prize, which would be more than you did) is very different to cutting the course and then cycling the route to falsify GPS records.
Publicly shaming people for money is not right way for holding the true, athletic, fair-play spirit of running. While his work and methods are outstanding, it's still ethical burden to ask for donations just to humiliate wrongdoers. Don't get me wrong, i'm a runner myself and i'm all about reporting, but making it opportunistic just doesn't feel right for me.
Why do you think this is public shaming?
If so, majority of newspapers are about public shaming. It's actually decent investigation here.
If so, majority of newspapers are about public shaming. It's actually decent investigation here.
It's made public so people can discus and judge. Problem with this approach is that it will not only shame, but also mark a target for offenders, so it's not only adjudication, it's a act of aggression. Think about police investigators. Why are they not publishing full names and faces of criminals?
EDIT On second thought, public shaming is consequence of something more important. If race officials would pay for reporting legitimate offences there wouldn't be a need to ask for donations. So author could keep those investigations hidden.
EDIT On second thought, public shaming is consequence of something more important. If race officials would pay for reporting legitimate offences there wouldn't be a need to ask for donations. So author could keep those investigations hidden.
This is utterly factual. If the facts are shameful, that's on the person who created the facts about them, not on the reporter.
Newspapers are about public shaming and a significant portion of the public is sick of it.
I mean, look at what the WSJ tried to do to PewDiePie, how the rest of the media piled on, and how people reacted.
I mean, look at what the WSJ tried to do to PewDiePie, how the rest of the media piled on, and how people reacted.
PewDiePie was a public figure already. The person in the article was not.
The person caught cheating has no platform from which to defend themselves. PewDiePie made $15million from his platform.
The person caught cheating has no platform from which to defend themselves. PewDiePie made $15million from his platform.
You are setting your own personal threshold here's that many people won't agree with. She put herself out there as a paid blogger with her name attached to her work. Shes as much a public figure in her niche circle as pewddiepie is a public figure in his niche circle.
The money difference is irrelevant, the NASA scientists who made that announcement yesterday are much closer to her earning level than they are to pewdiepie and much more well known than either.
She has the same platforms available to post her rebuttal as pewdiepie does, the medium she used for all her articles.
The money difference is irrelevant, the NASA scientists who made that announcement yesterday are much closer to her earning level than they are to pewdiepie and much more well known than either.
She has the same platforms available to post her rebuttal as pewdiepie does, the medium she used for all her articles.
> You are setting your own personal threshold here's that many people won't agree with.
Lets look at US law. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure) A public figure (like Pewpiedie) " A public figure (such as a politician, celebrity, or business leader) cannot base a lawsuit on incorrect harmful statements unless there is proof that the writer or publisher acted with actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth).[1] The burden of proof in defamation actions is higher in the case of a public figure."
The marathoner is not a celebrity nor does she base her livelihood on being a public figure.
From a U.S. libel/slander perspective there is a clear legal distinction - its not my opinion.
Lets look at US law. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure) A public figure (like Pewpiedie) " A public figure (such as a politician, celebrity, or business leader) cannot base a lawsuit on incorrect harmful statements unless there is proof that the writer or publisher acted with actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth).[1] The burden of proof in defamation actions is higher in the case of a public figure."
The marathoner is not a celebrity nor does she base her livelihood on being a public figure.
From a U.S. libel/slander perspective there is a clear legal distinction - its not my opinion.
PewDiePie is hardly the first person this has happened to.
A Huffington Post writer is at least as much a public figure as a scientist with the ESA, and has more of a platform for self defense.
A Huffington Post writer is at least as much a public figure as a scientist with the ESA, and has more of a platform for self defense.
[deleted]
A common answer to this is that news papers are, ostensibly, "public interest shamers". That's the defense.
This seems very much a situation of "public interest shaming", as the cheating directly harmed the legitimate runners of that marathon, and the marathon community has a legitimate interest in shaming/punishing/expelling caught cheaters (in addition to simply removing the fraudulent result) as a deterrent to potential future cheaters.
It's similar to disqualifications for fraud or doping in most sports - you don't only remove the current result, you disqualify them from some future events as a 'punishment'/deterrent.
It's similar to disqualifications for fraud or doping in most sports - you don't only remove the current result, you disqualify them from some future events as a 'punishment'/deterrent.
> as the cheating directly harmed the legitimate runners of that marathon
Did it really? Did she hurt any of them? Did she even affect their times? Did they lose out on any prizes?
Did it really? Did she hurt any of them? Did she even affect their times? Did they lose out on any prizes?
Did they lose out on any prizes?
Well she did take second place, so if nothing else she did deny someone a place on the podium.
Well she did take second place, so if nothing else she did deny someone a place on the podium.
It's a public post pointing out someones shameful act. How is that not textbook public shaming?
What does the status of newspapers being public shamers have to do with it?
What does the status of newspapers being public shamers have to do with it?
All sports governing bodies do exeactly that. How else do you uphold the spirit of fairness?
Not to be too tangential but I'm actually looking for a good running watch (I'm just getting back into running) and possibly heart rate monitor + gps. I noticed in the article they show her watch (to show the discrepancy in distance). What watch is that? What is the running software?
EDIT (I missed the Garmin 235 link and paragraph). I am not sure how I missed it over and over (I was using my phone) and yes I feel dumb for posting the comment.
EDIT (I missed the Garmin 235 link and paragraph). I am not sure how I missed it over and over (I was using my phone) and yes I feel dumb for posting the comment.
I'd love to recommend the Polar M600 which I have owned since the beginning of this year. It is one ugly Android Wear watch but in terms of functionality and features I do not regret the purchase one bit. It has built in GPS and a pretty accurate heart-rate monitor and superb battery life which is around a day and a half which includes a daily 5-7mile 50min to a 1.5hr run with GPS and HR monitor active and music streaming to my BT earphones to boot during said runs (streaming from the watch not phone which is left in the car mind you).
A review on Amazon pretty much sums up all the bullet points for what I was looking for and meets and or exceeds all of them:
- GPS tracking
- Heart rate monitor
- Onboard music storage
- Smart notifications
- Battery life
https://www.amazon.com/Polar-Smart-Sports-Watch-black/dp/B01...
Also the Android Wear 2.0 update has been confirmed coming down the pipe to this watch as well this spring.
A review on Amazon pretty much sums up all the bullet points for what I was looking for and meets and or exceeds all of them:
- GPS tracking
- Heart rate monitor
- Onboard music storage
- Smart notifications
- Battery life
https://www.amazon.com/Polar-Smart-Sports-Watch-black/dp/B01...
Also the Android Wear 2.0 update has been confirmed coming down the pipe to this watch as well this spring.
It says so in the article, it is the Garmin Forerunner 230 or 235. The 230 uses a chest strap for heart rate, the 235 has optical heart rate built in. The software is Garmin's. To connect the watch and get the data off it you can use Garmin Connect (works via your phone and bluetooth) or you can connect the watch with a wire and use it as you would a regular hard drive. The files on a Garmin are saved as .FIT files. I use a Garmin Forerunner 225 and am quite happy with it.
I feel completely stupid for missing that. For some reason the layout of the pictures on my phone made me miss that. I might delete my comment now.
May I piggyback on this tangent ?
I really want a real-time heartrate monitor but have been convinced that the wristwatch heartrate monitors are quite inaccurate compared to the chest straps ...
But I also need a simple timer/chronograph. Do I need two devices or is there a chest strap HR monitor that has a simple timer/watch/chrono built into it ?
I really want a real-time heartrate monitor but have been convinced that the wristwatch heartrate monitors are quite inaccurate compared to the chest straps ...
But I also need a simple timer/chronograph. Do I need two devices or is there a chest strap HR monitor that has a simple timer/watch/chrono built into it ?
I did some careful examining of the picture (after commenting) and it looks like she is wearing a high end garmin watch.
That is sort of the problem. There is super cheap that timex just does time, fitbit/garmin/polar that requires constant charging and is buggy and then there is the ultra highend garmin watches that are $500+ (the fenix series).
I just can't justify $500 (Garmin Fenix) as I only wear watches when I run. Looks like Amazon sells them refurbished though.
That is sort of the problem. There is super cheap that timex just does time, fitbit/garmin/polar that requires constant charging and is buggy and then there is the ultra highend garmin watches that are $500+ (the fenix series).
I just can't justify $500 (Garmin Fenix) as I only wear watches when I run. Looks like Amazon sells them refurbished though.
The article does link to the watch (a Garmin 235) on Amazon [0].
[0] https://www.amazon.com/Garmin-Forerunner-230-Black-White/dp/...
[0] https://www.amazon.com/Garmin-Forerunner-230-Black-White/dp/...
[deleted]
The Garmin 235 image...is that an E Ink display?
It's a 215x180 color LCD, not e-ink.
Thanks for point that out. Edge crispness, lack of glare, and broad daylight contrast of the display was really throwing me off.
These are "reflective" LCD displays, where there is a one-way mirror between the LCD and backlight. In daylight, the backlight is actually off and the display is illuminated by the light around you. Pretty common e.g. on all sorts of boating displays (GPS/Radar/Sonar/etc.).
And it's a shame that nobody makes an Android device for the long tail of special interest use cases where a transflective display showing some simple custom app would save the day.
What's the value of making this a public matter? Is this a really major half-marathon or something?
Reserving a domain to publish this "investigation" seems unnecessary and somewhat troubling -- as does the extent of the investigation itself.
EDIT: I was mistaken -- this site is dedicated to ratting out cheating runners. Whatever floats your boat, I suppose.
EDIT: I was mistaken -- this site is dedicated to ratting out cheating runners. Whatever floats your boat, I suppose.
This post from the comments does a pretty good job of describing why outing fraudsters is a noble cause:
"Lastly, and why I donated, is that this is a nod to the spirit that every serious, non-professional athlete carries with them. Each race we run is one more (or probably one less) opportunity to be as competitive as we can possibly be. We love to be measured. Most know we'll never be getting prize money, or making the Olympics, so this is it for us. These events are the only place we can live out our kooky sports fantasies. And at the core of that -- the one thing that makes it so gratifying when you make a podium, or a top 10, etc. -- is that you believe you have been able to "better the competition" fair and square. What this young lady did last Sunday was to steal that confidence from all of us. And by "outing" her in the fashion that you did... we get to see the right amount of equal, and opposite, force put things back onto an even keel. You weren't unfair in anything you did, instead, you just did what everyone is craving -- to absolutely right an absolute wrong. We even understand her twisted and pathetic motive now. And that's important -- VERY important, because everyone reading this knows that it will happen again. But back at the finish line we'll be saying... "Hey, remember that Derek guy? I think I'm gonna see if he can help us out with what happened at the race today." Thanks :)"
"Lastly, and why I donated, is that this is a nod to the spirit that every serious, non-professional athlete carries with them. Each race we run is one more (or probably one less) opportunity to be as competitive as we can possibly be. We love to be measured. Most know we'll never be getting prize money, or making the Olympics, so this is it for us. These events are the only place we can live out our kooky sports fantasies. And at the core of that -- the one thing that makes it so gratifying when you make a podium, or a top 10, etc. -- is that you believe you have been able to "better the competition" fair and square. What this young lady did last Sunday was to steal that confidence from all of us. And by "outing" her in the fashion that you did... we get to see the right amount of equal, and opposite, force put things back onto an even keel. You weren't unfair in anything you did, instead, you just did what everyone is craving -- to absolutely right an absolute wrong. We even understand her twisted and pathetic motive now. And that's important -- VERY important, because everyone reading this knows that it will happen again. But back at the finish line we'll be saying... "Hey, remember that Derek guy? I think I'm gonna see if he can help us out with what happened at the race today." Thanks :)"
This is just the flip side of the coin of the cheater: people inflating their egos about something that really doesn't matter. Have fun with it. It doesn't matter if you win and it doesn't matter if someone cheats.
You could say that about all sports competitions...
For non-professional sports I totally agree. It's a hobby.
What is the point of professional sports?
The only benefit I can see is learning more about the human physique. But does that alone justify the scale and investment, or could that be had in cheaper ways?
The only benefit I can see is learning more about the human physique. But does that alone justify the scale and investment, or could that be had in cheaper ways?
Professionals get paid either to entertain or as part of an entry fee Ponzi scheme. The latter is what you see in Judo and Jiu Jitsu with the federations raking in the money.
There's value in the blog above and beyond outing the occasional cheater. It makes people think twice. It prevents cheating from being normalized, like what happened in professional cycling.
It also reminds society that a great number of us still value honesty and integrity, and believe that hard work should be rewarded justly. Too many people today say/do something bad and think a "heartfelt" apology will wash it all away.
I'm not in favor of mass internet shaming for kicks. But in cases like this where it's clear it was premeditated and the individual tried to scam their way out of trouble, and there was financial/other gain involved that robbed a more deserving recipient, I'm not bothered.
It also reminds society that a great number of us still value honesty and integrity, and believe that hard work should be rewarded justly. Too many people today say/do something bad and think a "heartfelt" apology will wash it all away.
I'm not in favor of mass internet shaming for kicks. But in cases like this where it's clear it was premeditated and the individual tried to scam their way out of trouble, and there was financial/other gain involved that robbed a more deserving recipient, I'm not bothered.
What cheating are you referring to in professional cycling? I only know of all the doping... a blog like this would have no effect on that.
Personally I'm of the opinion that power meters and heart rate monitors should be compulsory for all professional bike races, the data kept privately in escrow for cases of suspected cheating.
It's one thing a domestique getting a bit of a sticky bottle from a team car or someone drafting cars back to the peloton after a crash but now we have the specter of mechanical doping hanging over the sport.
At least with power/heart rate data you could compare the cyclist's performance (speed, rate of ascent, etc) with the power measured at the pedals. If someone's power jumps 50 watts but their heart rate doesn't change over time you know something is up.
Some riders have said they'd like to see power meters banned as it affects the tactics of the race. In that case all you'd have to do is hide the live data from the riders.
It's one thing a domestique getting a bit of a sticky bottle from a team car or someone drafting cars back to the peloton after a crash but now we have the specter of mechanical doping hanging over the sport.
At least with power/heart rate data you could compare the cyclist's performance (speed, rate of ascent, etc) with the power measured at the pedals. If someone's power jumps 50 watts but their heart rate doesn't change over time you know something is up.
Some riders have said they'd like to see power meters banned as it affects the tactics of the race. In that case all you'd have to do is hide the live data from the riders.
[deleted]
http://www.marathoninvestigation.com/2016/05/the-differerenc... this article might find some relevancy for this thread
Still better use of resource than sites like http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/
Just a note on this.
I know stereotyping/judging is innate from what I can tell/heard. Like an evolution/survival thing, is this person going to harm me. While you can judge somebody because they look sloppy/bad, I also envy that "I don't give a ----" mindset, me personally I'm like "Oh... excuse me... can I breathe this air... if it wouldn't trouble you?" I don't like that about myself. At the end of the day we're just animals on a rock.
I know stereotyping/judging is innate from what I can tell/heard. Like an evolution/survival thing, is this person going to harm me. While you can judge somebody because they look sloppy/bad, I also envy that "I don't give a ----" mindset, me personally I'm like "Oh... excuse me... can I breathe this air... if it wouldn't trouble you?" I don't like that about myself. At the end of the day we're just animals on a rock.
What exactly is the point of this post?
I second the opinion that this shouldn't be on HN. It's just doxxing the poor girl.
I thought it was about using the current Tech (GPS tracking/social media) to provide evidence.
>It's just doxxing the poor girl.
Actually she is a fully grown up woman.
Actually she is a fully grown up woman.
I don't think it meets the strict definition of docxing if the person in question is using their real name on social profiles along with face pictures and publicizing their results. Although I do sympathize with someone getting publicly shamed.
HN should never dox people.
HN shouldn't approve of articles doxxing.
But I don't think hiding from things happening on the internet is the HN way.
Upvoting an article means it's interesting, not that you agree with the views necessarily.
This is certainly an article from a site that uses mob justice. And like most mob justice about something pretty silly, it's more about getting outraged and getting to pick on someone.
HN shouldn't approve of articles doxxing.
But I don't think hiding from things happening on the internet is the HN way.
Upvoting an article means it's interesting, not that you agree with the views necessarily.
This is certainly an article from a site that uses mob justice. And like most mob justice about something pretty silly, it's more about getting outraged and getting to pick on someone.
HN: Should remove this post because it is a doxxing post.
HN: should not be engaged in internet hating/shaming.
HN: should not be engaged in internet hating/shaming.
I am surprised by the new, gentle and forgiving approach of the crowd towards this runner here. It contrasts drastically with some attacks I see here against some politicians or corporate leaders when they fail to meet the HN-echo chamber standards.
Also, isn't this what the media usually does? Find dirt and expose it, damn the consequences to those involved?
Damsel in Distress?
Also, isn't this what the media usually does? Find dirt and expose it, damn the consequences to those involved?
Damsel in Distress?
That said, the poster was pretty fair, and generally refer to her as "the runner". It definitely reads as an obsessive sleuthing, no doubt in part because there were follow-on discoveries made. As the saying goes, "one is a fluke, two is a coincidence, three is a trend", and it seems there's a trend here.
What's interesting is someone in the comments mentioned this:
> The majority of those "30K" instagram followers are fake accounts - many of the likes on her recent photos are spam bots. She 100 percent buys followers/likes.
My guess is a lot of people probably do this to bump up their social status a bit. It's relatively innocent (if a bit narcissistic), though if its true in her case, it fits a clear pattern. Can't verify though, given it seems she's shut down her social media presence.
This is one of those cases where sympathy and revulsion are equally valid emotions. I wouldn't want to be on the other end of the hive-mind, but it is a self-inflicted wound.