
Is he a record-setting marathon runner, or a cheater? - ilamont
https://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-marathon-cheating-allegations-frank-meza-20190621-story.html
======
nradov
100% cheater

[https://www.marathoninvestigation.com/2019/06/frank-meza-
add...](https://www.marathoninvestigation.com/2019/06/frank-meza-additional-
evidence-la-marathon-course-cutting.html)

------
human20190310
I wonder if the neurotransmitter "kick" one gets out of pulling off a
successful cheat is equal to or greater than that of legitimately winning.

~~~
rdiddly
The only way we could know would be to ask someone who had done both. But of
course it's very unlikely there's any such person. If you can win, you
probably wouldn't cheat, and if you have to cheat, it's probably because you
can't win.

~~~
braythwayt
Back when I played contract bridge semi-seriously, there were lots and lots of
known cheats, all of whom were already world-class players when playing under
stringent conditions to prevent cheating.

But the moment those conditions were relaxed, they cheated.

I don't know why this is even a mystery: These people want to win, and they
will do everything, including get as legitimately good as they can, AND cheat
if they can get away with it.

We see this is lots of other fields: Black hat hackers who clearly are
talented enough to make money legitimately, politicians who rig elections
(cough--votes suppression--cough) who are probably going to win in their
strongholds anyways, unicorns that raise hundred of millions of dollars in
funds but still break all sorts of ethical and legal rules...

What about "deflate-gate?" Did the New England Patriots need to play fast and
loose with footballs to win? Or did the just want to win so badly that they
did everything legal, questionable, and illegal to win?

Lots of big-name athletes have doped and dope today. Do they need to dope to
win? Is it a red-queen's race against other dopers? Or are some of them so
focused on winning that they see dope as just part of winning along with the
best equipment and the right training and winning the VO2 Max lottery?

Some people just want to win, and they want to win so badly they are prepared
to get good AND cheat. They think that cheating is part of winning, just as
being good is part of winning.

I do not think that the only people who cheat are people who couldn't win
without cheating.

~~~
braythwayt
p.s. For maximum fun, look into accusations that professional cyclists--
including some very big names--are using hidden motors!

~~~
nradov
Race officials scan for hidden motors at all the major races now so it's
impossible for high profile pro riders to get away with that any more.

~~~
braythwayt
It's true that they scan, and perhaps its true that the current generation of
scanners cannot be defeated, but I think we're in violent agreement that some
world-class athletes are thought to cheat despite being world-class.

------
ghshephard
Zero need for an observer here - just allocate the person a GPS watch with a
tamper tag on it. Indeed, anyone who wants to post record times should
probably be required to have one.

~~~
Bedon292
All the serious runners I know have their own GPS watches already, and chest
straps to monitor heart rate. I only know a couple though, so it could be a
biased sample. Or perhaps it is an age group difference, but I would think a
doctor who is serious about his training would be a prime candidate for buying
one though.

~~~
nradov
Most serious amateur athletes now use GPS trackers but many elite pro
marathoners still compete with nothing or just a simple digital wristwatch.

------
ksherlock
If you found that interesting, the story of Kip Litton (name dropped in the
article) is a good read.

[https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/08/06/marathon-
man](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/08/06/marathon-man)

------
swimfar
Similar story about a Canadian triathlete:
[http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/10/sports/julie-miller-
ironma...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/10/sports/julie-miller-ironman-
triathlon-cheat.html)

HN Discussion:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11459976](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11459976)

------
neonate
[http://archive.is/8KuiD](http://archive.is/8KuiD)

------
JetezLeLogin
_" I took up running for fun. What I can tell you is that I did not cut. My
last few marathons I have had to step off the course, looking for a place to
pee. I didn’t know this was against the rules, I was not aware of that. I’ve
done this several times. I’ve realized my problem is that I don’t hydrate
properly. I have never cut the distance but I have stepped off of the
course."_

Just analyzing the man's statements for basic "tells" of non-candor and non-
forthrightness, like they do in law enforcement:

1) "What I can tell you is..." \- That's a distancing, qualifying phrase - we
might call it an abstraction layer. It's like there's an AnswerTheQuestion()
method that instead of just returning an answer, has to first call the
GetAThingToTellThem() method. Hmm interesting. Great separation of concerns if
you're a computer program, but totally unnecessary if you're being concise and
direct.

2) "What I can tell you is that I did not cut." \- It's a non-denial denial.
He doesn't actually say he didn't cut. He says he can tell you that he didn't
cut. (OK go ahead and tell me then, whenever you're ready.) He can also tell
me that he's a purple elephant that farts rainbows.

3) "...I did not cut" \- Resorting to a formality by eschewing the contraction
- using "did not" vs. "didn't." And I wouldn't make the usual allowance for
Latin heritage, because he's a doctor and has been in the US for a long time,
plus he uses contractions freely elsewhere (didn't, I've).

4) After starting two sentences with "I've", notice in the last sentence (the
second it comes time for another direct denial), it goes back to formal
language: "I have."

5) "I didn't know this was against the rules..." Getting defensive, trying to
portray himself as a victim being persecuted unjustly (totally outside the
normal purview of the usual rules which he thought he knew) and therefore
deserving of sympathy. Also subtly attacking the interviewer for asking the
question. Aggression is a big tell.

6) Overall does it seem to be just impartially reporting/presenting
information or does it seem to be making a case or argument by "dressing up"
the facts to favor himself? Notice the overall wordiness of the thing and the
volunteering of superfluous information. I do this for fun. I don't hydrate
properly (WTF does that mean, you tryin to say you drank too much water dawg?)

None of these on their own would be inherently suspicious, and might have
other explanations, but occurring all together like this, they're a billboard
telling you "Take a closer look."

Edit: Reply comments are starting to object along the lines that this doesn't
prove anything. That is correct. The goal isn't to prove guilt; only evidence
proves guilt. The goal is only to direct the course of the investigation.
You're only looking for "warmer or colder." Keep going this direction or look
somewhere else? That's why I conclude with "Take a closer look" and not
"Please convict this person of a crime immediately." It's akin to a polygraph
reading - fairly unscientific, generally inadmissible, but valuable in
deciding what to do next in the investigation.

~~~
bardworx
That’s quite an analysis but means nothing as words can be mixed or he can use
non conjugated words to make sure there is no distortion.

Also, I’m not a cop, but I grew up around a lot of cops. I spent many nights
serving cops after their shift and listening to their stories. As such, I can
say that your whole “this is how cops do it” is bullshit because it’s not
admissible in court. What cops do is ask the same question a thousand
different ways until you tell them the truth, hence the long sessions.

------
hartator
> officials lacked evidence to take action but requested he run with an
> observer the following year. Meza agreed but ended up skipping L.A. in 2016,
> entering the Oakland Marathon instead.

I suppose that says it all.

~~~
inopinatus
Inferentially speaking, this remark says more about you than the data point
does about the accused.

~~~
hsitz
How so? If you know anything about running, you know that it would be quite
simple for the guy to go out and run another race to confirm the level of his
fitness. He might be a few minutes off, but it's quite easy for a marathoner
to go out an run another (observed) race five or ten minutes slower than a
recent PR. Five or ten minutes slower would be fine, would confirm his level
of fitness is close to what he claims. Very suspicious that this has not
happened.

The truth is probably that his actual fitness is half-an-hour or an hour or
more slower, and that he's a cheat. Yes, this assertion could be wrong. But
given that it would be so easy for the guy to disprove it (and confirm his
previous race) it's very suspicious that he hasn't done it.

~~~
inopinatus
Irrespective of the other evidence, it’s the unwillingness to entertain
alternative explanations and just label an absence of self-defence as “very
suspicious” that I find to be the hallmark of a braying lynch mob. It’s a
rejection of critical thinking.

Which is why I specifically called that out and nothing more.

~~~
jmull
If you want to pursue critical thinking, what are the explanations for the
various discrepancies in his races?

I see on the marathoninvestigation site the Dr. has been given opportunities
to explain these suspicious discrepancies and either hasn’t or provided
explanations that are contradicted by hard facts.

~~~
hitekker
The GP saw a chance to denigrate someone, took it, and when others questioned
the motivations behind the denigration, he or she retreated to some kind of
weird psuedo-objectivity.

>Inferentially speaking, this remark says more about you than the data point
does about the accused

Shortly after:

>It's why I specifically called that out and nothing more

Self-righteousness is a weird thing.

~~~
inopinatus
Nope. Happy to stand by the original claim that the specific data point quoted
was meaningless and everything that flows from that about the quality of
judgment for those believing it was, in contrast, definitive of guilt.

“Nothing more” refers to consideration of any other evidence.

As for “retreating into objectivity” I’d say I was far from it when
subsequently upping the emotional ante with the descriptor of a “braying lynch
mob”, which is how I really feel about the peanut gallery.

Luke 6:37 applies recursively to all of us.

------
mruts
Why does anyone care? I don’t run matherons or exercise at all but why do
people feel so strongly about this? No one is making money on running
marathons and if people want to cheat, more power to them I suppose.

~~~
Bedon292
Because it affect others. There are trophies and prizes, even if they aren't
large. He isn't just coming in in the middle of the pack he is winning his age
group. And you have to qualify for larger races, which have limited numbers of
runners. If he cheats to qualify then he is taking a place that someone else
should have gotten.

~~~
runnr_az
Yeah... I think this is the key thing. For "normal" runners, if someone wants
to cheat - no big deal, whatever. It's all supposed to be fun and there's no
reason to be too anal about auditing results. It's lame if they cheat or
whatever, but they're really only cheating themselves.

For the age group record, it matters! It should be, like, a real thing... the
people who get those records work really, really friggin' hard, so they
deserve to be treated fairly.

