
Marathon Man: A Michigan dentist’s improbable transformation - wallflower
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/08/06/120806fa_fact_singer?currentPage=all
======
yaakov34
I am a runner also (finished one marathon with a time that is nothing to write
home about), and was looking forward to an interesting story. I read this
whole article with a growing feeling of incredulity, not about the cheating
that it describes (yes, I understand that there are confabulators of this type
- Stephen Glass was already mentioned in the comments), but about the effort
and space that a national magazine would spend on this story. I kept waiting
for SOMETHING of momentous importance towards the end somewhere that would
justify all this buildup, but it never came. Yup, a guy cheated in a bunch of
races. Yup, he is a confabulator who will invent any number of details and
fake personas to build up his fantasies. Yup, he was caught in due time. You
could summarize this in five lines. This is not just beating a dead horse,
this is shooting it with a howitzer, repeatedly.

The only truly interesting detail would be the method by which he cheated,
which the reporter, at long last, admits that nobody has figured out. This
leaves the possibility that other people are cheating the same way, although
maybe less brazenly. Again, this could be summarized in a line (it's clear
that he cheated, the method is difficult to figure out). What is this, a slow
news year?

~~~
w1ntermute
The _New Yorker_ likes to publish long, meandering human interest pieces. If
you don't like those kinds of articles, skip them.

~~~
yaakov34
It's not my favorite magazine, but I've read long _New Yorker_ human interest
pieces, and they've always had more, well, interest than this.

The problem is that when you see a long piece in a respected magazine on a
subject that you are interested in, it's hard to decide at some point that all
the rest is garbage, and put it down.

I started reading this story expecting a tale of a middle-aged dentist who
transformed himself into a remarkable marathon runner. Pretty quickly, the
story veered into a tale of cheating. I could see there is another 30 pages
left to go, and kept wondering what I'd learn about. A secretive group of
marathon cheaters who jet around the country and subvert race after race? A
group of vigilante marathoners who help bring them to justice? Maybe Kip
Litton's whole life is a lie, and he is not a dentist, but a spy from
Gondwana? Maybe we at least get some fascinating psychological portraits
painted by the masters of investigative journalism?

No, in the end, it's a pile of boring and irrelevant details. "At 7:34 the
next morning, Joe Blow leaned over his model M keyboard, and, with keystrokes
echoing crisply through his split colonial house, posted a message to the
forum revealing that he has a photo of Litton at the 10K timing mat". Ok,
that's not a quote, but the article is very much like that. In the end, Kip
Litton is indeed a dentist from somewhere in Michigan, who for some
unfathomable reason decided to start cheating at marathon races for amateurs.
And that's it. Nobody knows why, and in some cases, we don't know how. This is
a 10,000 word article in a major magazine. 30 to 40 printed pages. Come on. I
have just as much right to express my disappointment, as the _New Yorker_ has
to print this nonsense in the first place.

~~~
Johngibb
I'm with you. I enjoy a well written long and meandering article, but this one
was just a dud. The story just wasn't that interesting. I kept expecting it to
pick up right until the very end; then I just felt disappointed.

~~~
thebigshane
Exactly. It was very well written and held my interest to the end. But the
article didn't have an ending at all. Not the fault of the author really, the
real story really didn't have an ending either. It just ended like "...and I
guess we'll never know. The End."

------
psn
I found this a pretty interesting read. hackerish reasons: \- The scale of the
fraud. This guy is making up a race on the internet. complete with other
runners, their profiles and so on. Its the sting come to life.

\- The data based approach to cheating detection. Random runners can look up,
in seconds, stats for any other runner. Not just their times and placings, but
checkpoint by checkpoint timings. Its then easy to profile the normal runner
and then the cheat.

\- The photo aspect. disqualifing a guy because he didn't appear in any photos
shows how far we've come in having 100s of photos of every event.

\- The lack of on-the-ground cheating detection. This guy presumably left and
entered the route of the race, with no one noticing. Runners noticed
themselves going from position X to X-1, but not ll of them complained.

\- The issues of internet anonimity. We see yet another internet comminity
with pseudonyms. This doesn't prevent it being a commumity. it doesn't prevent
people spotting strawman accounts.

and less hackerish reasons: \- The lack of clear motivation. Why did he do it?

\- the weird overreach. Why did he aim for a high ranking? If he'd come 50th
no one would have cared. Why did he talk to someone from the new yorker? Why
did he make up a whole event?

~~~
cafard
People do step off courses--for restroom stops, to chat with friends, to have
blisters tended--and then back on. I once stepped out of the Marine Corps
Marathon about the 10 mile mark to chat with some friends who were near the
Georgetown end of Key Bridge, for I knew already that my time would be nothing
special. When I pushed back in, there were some spectators who supposed I was
cheating, and why not--there is nothing so memorable in my appearance that
they should have noticed me leaving the course.

------
Xcelerate
Oh boy... as a D1 runner, I have heard far more about this guy than I care to.
If you want to read more, this topic has been discussed extensively at
Letsrun: <http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=3863010>

~~~
phil
I think Mark Singer's writing is great. Did you think he represented the
situation accurately, though?

------
klodolph
If this were a movie, I would expect his twin brother to be revealed.

~~~
Vivtek
That's where I thought this was going.

------
oskarth
Reminds me of Stephen Glass [1], the reporter who fabricated entire events and
wrote about them in The New Republic, as well as the movie Catfish [2].

1: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fabulist>

2: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catfish_(film)>

~~~
kyberias
You don't think that spoils anything of the FILM at all?

------
ck2
A great investigation and writeup but wasted on a problem that is not really a
crime but simply a nuisance to society.

I guess some poor people shoplift out of desperation vs some wealthy dentists
fly around and cheat on marathons out of boredom.

I wish that investigative energy would have been aimed at banks, wallstreet or
billionaire tax cheats.

~~~
vermontdevil
There's plenty of energy aimed at these institutions. Matt Taibbi for one
example. There's a lot of good investigative journalism around.

Problem is most Americans does not seem to care based on the votes they cast
for the politicians who keeps the status quo.

------
danso
Thanks for posting this, it's an interesting yarn but the two the best
takeaways are:

1\. People generally care only about the bullet points - that is, it seems all
too easy to fool people with things such as resume padders because few people
have the time or energy to investigate further

2\. Granularity in data is everything. Even (actually, especially) when the
data are bullshit. With some data science skills, it can be trivially easy to
expose frauds. How hard would it be to look over all marathon results that
have split times and filter for those who improved in the second half?

------
jakejake
I hadn't heard anything about this guy until now. I wonder if he is secretly
loving the attention? We all do things to get positive attention. A narcissist
is different in that negative attention is an acceptable substitute when they
aren't able to get positive attention.

I couldn't help but feel a little sad though, there is such a wild variety of
damaged people out there.

------
majorapps
I find Richard Feynmanns accounts of hacking (non-computer) systems at Los
Amos to be fascinating - I was hoping once the cheating was revealed we were
going to be treated to a story of how someone cleverly found a loophole in the
system that was then closed, improving the system for everyone. Rather we got
a smear article...

------
GuiA
If you enjoyed this article and are unacquainted with the world of running, I
highly recommend the book "Born to Run" by Christopher McDougall.

~~~
trentmb
As a mere recreational jogger, what's there to know about running?

~~~
thebigshane
There isn't. But it _is_ an interesting book. It's about barefoot/natural
running btw.

~~~
interurban
I'm not sure how you can say there isn't anything to know about running.
Volumes upon volumes of books, magazines, and articles have been written about
every aspect of running, from training and nutrition guides to novels and
short stories.

There's no need to know that any of this even exists in order to enjoy
running, that's part of running's beauty. But there's lots to know if you want
to.

p.s. I should add that Born to Run is an interesting read about a part of
running that lots of runners don't know much about.

~~~
thebigshane
We're in agreement. I should have worded it as: there isn't anything a
recreational jogger needs from running books in order to enjoy and even get
decent at running. Not to say running books are completely useless, but most
of the things you could get from them are better learned from experience or
passed down by a coach/trainer. Exception: Running magazines (or any magazine
for that matter) are only there to entertain you and sell you things. Another
exception: if buying running accessories/books helps motivate you, go for it,
but I don't think I really needed anything more than a running journal/log.

Another really good running book for those still following along: Once a
Runner -- [http://www.amazon.com/Once-Runner-John-L-
Parker/dp/091529701...](http://www.amazon.com/Once-Runner-John-L-
Parker/dp/0915297019?tag=duckduckgo-d-20)

~~~
cafard
I haven't bought a running magazine in 25 years, I suppose. But reviews of
running shoes could be useful, I thought. And they carried schedules of races.

------
rickdale
Wow, this is literally in my backyard. I live in a town in between Davison and
Clarkston, one road gets you to either. Ultimately this guy sounds like a true
douche. In this area as a dentist you are making plenty of money and to try
and promote fake races to raise money for your son's illness is truly uncalled
for.

I love all the trouble this guy went through to fake accomplish these runs.
It's one of those you just put more work into cheating than just doing it the
old fashioned way.

~~~
duskwuff
Given the context, I'd be inclined to start wondering whether his son actually
had CF at all.

------
ck2
Additional and relevant marathon running time lying:

[http://news.runnersworld.com/2012/08/31/paul-ryan-says-
hes-r...](http://news.runnersworld.com/2012/08/31/paul-ryan-says-hes-run-
sub-300-marathon/)

I am not sure why people lie about running times.

But I've run a few marathons and you definitely remember the difference
between a 4 hour pace and a 3 hour pace.

~~~
cafard
Definitely so, if you've run a 3 hour pace. I've run a number under 3; but
what I remember about a sub-2:30 pace is that I couldn't manage it.

------
barking
Certain people (e.g. doctors, policemen, lawyers) seem to be defined by their
jobs. If he had been a plumber this story would probably have been titled _An
improbable transformation_

~~~
mccr8
It is just a bit of a pun, as the movie Marathon Man has a dentist in a key
role.

------
vorg
How often this Michigan dentist's story is similar to the way some startup
businesses raise funds, and some open source software projects recruit
developers!

------
jacques_chester
People cheat.

In some sports it's easier to spot than in others.

------
vishaldpatel
What about multiple runners with the same shoe size?

------
emini_guy
Good time, much better than that of some other "accomplished runner",
[http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/09/paul-ryan-
supe...](http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/09/paul-ryan-superman)

~~~
philwelch
Please don't post comments like this. It doesn't really add anything to the
discussion, and for that matter it doesn't really add anything to _any_
discussion.

I'm a fan of making fun of politicians, too, but you don't accomplish anything
or convince anyone by doing so.

~~~
nashequilibrium
I am not American so I have no U.S. Political bias, but the comment is on
point about someone not being truthful regarding their achievements. If this
was not a politician you would have not complained. Its seems like you are
more concerned about this being about a politician than someone not being
truthful.

~~~
philwelch
The OP was about a guy who cheats at marathons. The comment was about a verbal
gaffe by a recently nominated and controversial Vice-Presidential candidate.

I'm not sure about your countrymen, but Americans have an annoying way of
derailing every conversation and forum into petty, non-sequitur, assume-bad-
faith attacks on politicians of the opposing party in a way that really adds
nothing to the discourse. It's not that the comment wouldn't have bothered me
if it hadn't been about a politician; it's that the comment wouldn't have even
been made if it wasn't about a politician. There's this obsession with proving
that politicians of the opposing party are terrible human beings in every
possible way (so that we may feel righteous in our cause) instead of actually
discussing things that matter. The end result is a sequence of catty remarks
that only convince people who already agree with you, which stops any
productive dialogue before it starts. It's the single most destructive thing
about the American political culture.

HN is one of my few remaining refuges from that bullshit. If everyone else is
suddenly fine with it, maybe it is time for me to leave.

~~~
emini_guy
First of all, it's a bit arrogant, to say the least, to make insinuations
about someone's intentions, especially if you are such a big champion of non-
BS contributions : I am an independent so I have no dog in this political
fight and my comment had nothing to do with anyone's political affiliation.
Second, I am amused that you call it "verbal gaffe." If you want to brag about
your accomplishments, you better make sure you checked your data well or else
you may end up looking incompetent at the very best. If you are not sure, say
so, or simply abstain from bragging. That's what I expect from a professional
or anyone (who should be) concerned about his or her integrity, and Mr. Ryan
is a professional politician, so I see no reason to cut him any slack. You
have a high threshold of tolerance for BS when it comes to politicians, it
appears, but I am afraid it comes with the price of seeing BS where it's not.

My comment had to do with the integrity (be it professional or personal),
which is the real issue of this thread and not some "guy who cheats at
marathons" and it was your comments that turned it into some sort of political
issue, and made you sound like an apologist for Mr. Ryan.

This piece ("it's that the comment wouldn't have even been made if it wasn't
about a politician.") is not even wrong. What are you God? You think you know
everything?

You made lame straw man insinuations that would offend anyone of normal IQ and
then you hurry to close with "maybe it is time for me to leave" as if you
wanted to prove yourself right and the issue were closed. But you are still
wrong because your assumptions were never right. Sounds like a typical
political "logic" to me, based on insinuations, twisting facts, and pandering
to the audience. Yes, I too would like to see this place free "from that
bullshit," because that's the real BS.

~~~
philwelch
The point isn't _my_ tolerance or intolerance towards Mr. Ryan's statements.
It's that loosely-relevant political pot-shots aren't really considered
valuable comments on HN. I just thought it would be helpful to tell you why
your comments weren't being received well. I'm sorry it didn't come across
that way.

For what it's worth, even if it was Joe Biden, Justin Bieber, or Mark
Zuckerberg who lied about running a sub-3-hour marathon, it still would have
been a bad comment and I still would have made a similar response.

~~~
nacker
Well, it appears that other people received the comment well. I thought it was
fair and relevant. However, it is tedious to read threads that have been
hijacked by this kind of sniping.

~~~
lotharbot
Dude has a net karma score of -2. That's after all the upvotes from whoever
"thought it was fair and relevant". Since upvotes are easier to come by than
downvotes (not everyone can downvote), this suggests the comment _wasn't_
received well. Because philwelch is exactly right -- it simply doesn't add to
the discussion.

It may appear that people are mostly siding with you because nobody else has
verbalized support for philwelch. That's because we HN veterans don't
generally post "me-too" opinions, we just quietly upvote the guy who's right
and downvote the guy who's wrong. In this case, I've chosen to break the
silence because you seem like you might be willing to learn HN cultural norms.

Here on HN, we ask that you not take cheap shots at politicians, religions,
etc. -- even those we really don't like. It makes for boring reading. Instead,
make comments that other people will come away from thinking "I learned
something valuable from that".

------
Tichy
wall of text

