[zulux]

So we're supposed to ignore academic fraud because the wrong person noticed it too?

[rithdmc → zulux]

I believe the article linked addressed the alleged fraud?

[edit, since I can't reply to the below comment]

> The article addresses it. It doesn't excuse it.

How do you excuse a fraud that investigations did not find find substantiated? The allegations of fraud in sports, the marathon, the fund raising, and the thesis do not hold up to evidence.

'Its inquiry found citation defects but did not uphold plagiarism, concluding that the problems were caused by “honest and reasonable error”'

I'm interested in other documentation countering the claims in this article, not a statement reiterating that he was accused of fraud with no justification.

[zulux → rithdmc]

The article addresses it. It doesn't excuse it.

EDIT: If you still want to believe he ran 30 marathons in 35 days, I wish you all the best in your continued commitment to that belief.

[readthenotes1]

It's crazy that it took a far right cabal to get a fraudster removed from his position.

It's sad that he did not get the therapy he needed.

[rithdmc → readthenotes1]

Am I missing an element to the alleged fraud that isn't addressed in this article?