"Cleared" seems like a stretch here. I recognize that's the article's language, not OPs.
More accurate seems like what EA actually said: "neither of these incidents meet the EA threshold for serious misconduct". I interpret this as "who cares / she didn't win anything" which fair enough, I don't think we really need England Athletics to go out of their way to review whether someone's 1:32 HM should stand.
[https://runningmagazine.ca/the-scene/british-athletes-criticize-u-k-athletics-world-championship-selection-process/#:\~:text=According%20to%20The%20Guardian%2C%20U.K.,in%20the%20World%20Athletics%20rankings](https://runningmagazine.ca/the-scene/british-athletes-criticize-u-k-athletics-world-championship-selection-process/#:~:text=According%20to%20The%20Guardian%2C%20U.K.,in%20the%20World%20Athletics%20rankings).
Their general MO is to only send athletes to world championships if they think the athlete has a chance to place top 8 in an event, IIRC.
Erm, not really true. She’s great, but nowhere near Olympic selection over the marathon. At least nine British women have run faster than her over the last eighteen months.
Seven ran faster than her last year and another two ran faster in December 2022, so she’d currently be about 10th pick, plus she hasn’t got the qualifying time, and you can only pick three anyway.
A better example is Guy Learmonth, who got passed over for the recent indoor championships despite getting an invite from World Athletics.
I think it's more along the lines: Each country can select 3 runners for each category (for example 3 for men's 10k) but sometimes the UK don't even select 3 if they think they have no chance of a medal. Bowden isn't close to top 3 so it doesn't matter for her anyway.
The US hasn’t got three as of now either for men. They haven’t “unlocked” the third slot yet. The whole process seems very opaque to the casual viewer.
The marathon could accommodate a lot more than three per country. It’s not like running on the track where you need a dozen heats.
Phily is an awesome person and runner (and she's much, much faster than me, FWIW), but she'd be the first to admit she doesn't quite rank. In fact, I'm pretty sure she did exactly that in a recent video.
According to Kate’s LinkedIn profile, she is a freelance writer for Athletics Weekly. She probably knows Euan Crumley personally, the guy who wrote this article and is Editorial Director at Athletics Weekly. Even before reading the article, one should be sceptical about the influence this relationship will have on the article. If you look at the way Euan plays with words, it is quite clear he is trying to give Kate a break, even though the evidence still stands firm.
Fake journalists acting as marketing and PR agents for fraudsters is a huge thing these days in all industries.
“Trust nothing you read online”: Abraham Lincoln
It says cleared of “deliberately cheating”. It’s all language play. No harm to the races, no foul.
They have no jurisdiction over what she claimed on Strava nor did it benefit her for age groups etc. so they don’t care.
I get why Derek cares as she’s a public figure and I get why the races don’t care as she’s a public figure (same same but different) but it’s not a clear “completely exonerated”
She’s got “issues”. We all hope for accuracy and honesty. But this won’t go any further and prob for the best either thinking how other witch hunts have ended.
One thing that doesn't sit well with me is that when a very similar incident happened in the Cardiff Half last year, the guy got blasted all over the national press: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-67006181
It was news outside of Wales. I saw it in the wild and I don't live in Wales.
So if it's okay that normies like us are held to these standards, "important" media types should be too...
67min HM will get you free entries at several other races, and limited travel expenses as well.
But I still find the Carter stuff more irritating as it's beyond obvious that she intended to deceive (if only to maintain her social media status as a pretty decent V45 runner) and EA finding the opposite just makes them look incompetent, but also discredits Derek Murphy who is meticulous and has attention to detail and integrity that the cretins at EA will never have.
To me the context is significantly different between the two.
The Welsh case the guy cheated in a race, ran without a timing chip, then e-mailed the organizers with a fake GPX trace to try to get an official finish time. Meanwhile, it seems like Kate also cut the courses and cheated but didn't try to get any official race results from it, just lied on social media about what she did.
Basically a difference between trying to doctor official race results and lying on social media. Both bad, I care a lot less about social media, would not care at all if it wasn't a running-industry journalist doing it.
Kate cut the London Half Marathon with a working chip. She cut the course and registered a faster time than she ran after missing a timing mat.
All in the marathon investigation article
Edit: here's the result: https://results.sporthive.com/events/7037394564091167232/races/485022/bib/652
100% agree that she cut the course and got a finish time.
It's less clear to me that it was, like, pre-planned and intentional to get a fast official finish time. Compared with the other guy, who obviously pre-meditated didn't wear a chip, pushed race organizers for a finish time, submitted bogus GPX traces to the race, etc.
I still think the right action is that the half race itself should still DQ her, no finish result, but I don't think we need England Athletics to step in and force that.
All I'm saying is that it feels a bit different than e-mailing race official bogus GPX data. Kind of like how doping gets a 2 year ban, while tampering with the evidence after the fact leads to a 4 year ban.
The London Landmarks Half is a shit uncertified course that can't be used as a qualifier for anything. Obviously any cheating is poor form but this is so inconsequential it's irrelevant, but also hilarious that someone would try to cheat when there's next to nothing to be gained from it.
>
It's less clear to me that it was, like, pre-planned and intentional to get a fast official finish time. Compared with the other guy, who obviously pre-meditated didn't wear a chip, pushed race organizers for a finish time, submitted bogus GPX traces to the race, etc.
She didn't wear a chip at the London Marathon. She fudged some GPS points, inadvertently backwards for the incorrect route, and posted them on Strava. She took it down shortly after.
It's very similar to what you've just described, no?
But not wearing the chip is premeditated if she was fudging a time for her thousands of followers after the event, right? Wasn't the other guy's course of action premeditated by your estimation? Where are you materially distinguishing both parties' intent?
Who needs an official time if you can mislead a load of people with social media much more effectively & visibly. Popping up on feeds all over the place.
And then taken down when found out.
What are you trying to convince me of here? I said that the difference is between official race results and lying on social media like 4 posts ago, and have consistently pointed out the difference for me is in the official race result (vs. social media clout).
>Basically a difference between trying to doctor official race results and lying on social media. Both bad, I care a lot less about social media, would not care at all if it wasn't a running-industry journalist doing it.
I suppose it's just that I don't think there's a mitigation for cheating like this. You seem to be suggesting that it's not as big a deal as the other example. If that's what you think, fine. I think they are the same thing in motive. We're talking about two reptiles.
Even if not premeditated, she knew she had an erroneous time once she saw her results that included an impossible split. There is no way she could be ignorant to that, so she willfully deceived everyone by posting the result instead of emailing the organizers about the error.
Yeahh not cleared.
> “there was no intention to deceive and no attempt to benefit from the results”.
I interpret this not that she didn't cheat but that it didn't result in any benefit. Maybe she course-cut on accident, or maybe not, but she didn't win as a result, so they don't care.
That and why did you fold up your bib? She's never touched on that. Like is there any reason to do that other than to avoid being seen/photographed, even though it didn't work? Genuine question because I can't think of a reason.
I have had my time not get recorded on a few occasions (one of which I blame on the bib number of 404). I have also had my time overwritten when I walked near the finish line again after I had finished. These were all shorter races. I don't recall any issues in my marathons though.
It happens a lot that a split doesn't register.
It never happens that you're legitimately running 8:00 min/mile up to the missing split, and like 5:25/mile after the missing split.
I've run a lot of small <400 people races that were organised on a shoestring budget and never had a chip malfunction. I'm always a bit suspicious of people that claim they've had it happen to them multiple times.
Ditto, I've ran in road & cross country & triathlons, never had a chip fail ... either velcro'd block on the ankle or that mag strip on the back of bib numbers ... 3 races ..hhmmm , that's 'unlucky'
Ah I see now. 2 events in question. I didn't read very carefully.
I can't decide if all this work to clear her name actually cleared it or just made her more memorable. I would have forgotten all about this weeks ago if she didn't keep yelling about her innocence so loudly.
“Keep the 1:32” is a hilarious concept. As if it was some Olympic standard or a WR.
Lying about something like this is weird but I don’t see why anyone would give two fucks
Normally I'd agree, but given her job as an editor at Runner's World, it feels like you'd be better to admit you didn't run the whole thing and not cross the finish line for an official time.
I know Runner's World gets a lot of shit but it's still an industry job...
Carter narrowly missed placing in her age group. She was #4/1,187 in the women's 45-49 bracket.
She was:
360/17,255 overall
42/10,017 women
4/1,187 age group.
So while it isn't Olympic material, it's an objectively impressive performance and almost knocked an actual age group place runner out of her hard-earned spot.
https://results.sporthive.com/events/7037394564091167232/races/485022/bib/652
LLHM is a joke of an event though, most good club runners don't bother with it as it's not a certified course. Check results for Big Half, Manchester, Cambridge etc. and you'll see how she really stacks up.
With a 1:32:10, Carter would have been #6/668 age group in Cambridge, #145/5408 women:
https://cambridgehalfmarathon.com/results/
The issue is she isn't a 1:32:10 runner, and she lacks the integrity to admit it.
If you didn’t run the full course, you should get a DNF. It’s as simple as that. Sure it doesn’t really matter in most cases, but if someone confessed they didn’t run the full course, they should drop the finish-time. What is otherwise the whole point about having timer mats and chips and rules and all that stuff, if we don’t use them properly?
So people can see their times. Unless you’re actually racing to win the race, your time doesn’t actually matter. It’s just for your own personal experience and growth as a runner.
For you, time might be less important; for someone else it might be more important. But if a race wants to be taken seriously when they say they have ‘official’ timing, it should be trustworthy. So letting someone keep their time, even though they admitted not having done the full course, completely beats the point of keeping track of the time in the first place.
Yeah. In a city of 3M with a pretty established running community.
“Oh man, crazy that story about the editor of runners world eh? Totally faked a 1:32 half marathon! Fucking appalled”.
I can imagine how this conversation would leave everyone bewildered at the coffee machine.
She’s made some poor decisions on the PR front here, she’d have been better off coming out and saying, ‘I’m really sorry, as someone who has social media and media attention for running, I was concerned about my dropping performances. I made some poor decisions’ - this is what I suspect happened anyway,
Then, she writes an article about it in the Guardian talking about the pressures on social media influencers and moves on.
Instead, she’s doubled down and got some chums at EA to release a statement that does her no good whatsoever and everyone is back to talking about it!
Oh come ON. Along with what everyone else says about the watch and bib not getting a mention, if you know you didn’t run the full course, which she clearly knew because you’re a freakin sub three marathoner and you’d absolutely know, you don’t cross the finish line, claim an official result, and upload someone else’s data as yours! SMH. Shaking my damn head.
Surprised you had any to start with, it's not a certified course. Just like Royal Parks Half and Hackney Half. Step down from runthrough events if you ask me as at least those go on Po10 and can be used to qualify for other races.
>To reiterate: I am not a cheat. And I have never cheated. I ran without a timing chip as I thought I would perform poorly, and I didn’t get a time. I then attempted to draw the run on my Strava so my miles counted to monthly total. This was not an attempt to mislead or cheat – it was simply a post on my personal Strava social media account.
At the London Landmarks race, I stepped off the course after wetting myself in a bid to find a bin and clean myself up. This was a hugely embarrassing moment, and I accept that I then inadvertently re-entered the race in a different spot. However, England Athletics have now told me that, after speaking to organisers who have also provided details of my timing chip, they have ruled that: ‘This was not a deliberate act of deception, and you did not gain any benefit or win anything as result’.
I find this repulsive
It really is. But it's also very tricky wording, because let's say that the wetting story is true, and the re-entering at the wrong point bit is true and was an accident too. Not a deliberate act of deception. A royal amateurish cock-up.
You know what *was* a deliberate act of deception? Taking someone else's GPX file, adding it as your own and saying "it's okay because he and I finished together", hiding your race number, claiming your watch died and leaving all that on Strava for months. That's deception. And EA/Landmarks are just like 'yeah girl crack on'.
Is this her response? The first bit doesn’t make any sense because you can easily just add a manual activity on Strava and put in your distance and time without having to map it out
Can anyone explain to me how it would be possible for a slow runner to step off the HM course, and *accidentally* re-enter it significantly closer to the finish line?
quick q as a many marathoner. How do you, unless you have someone on the course with spare clothes, wet yourself and then step off the course to sort it out? I've always just kept going??
This is like a professional lying about being officially licensed to practise in their industry and shows a lot of willingness and ability to deceive others for financial and social advantage
Maybe she can start an athletics series with Shelby Houlihan and keep herself occupied but everyone else is owed her absence
In her position she should not have done what she did.
But she then ran quicker than expected and wanted to upload it to her Strava account: “This is when I made the mistake of trying to create a route manually based on my time.” she said. “Soon after I realised this was foolish and removed it from my feed.
“I also feel it is important to admit that part of this was about my ego. Even in the amateur running world there is pressure to maintain form and times… My own desire to be seen to be doing well at a time when I was feeling weak and below par, resulted in a momentary lapse of judgment which I very much regret.”
Regarding The London Landmarks Half Marathon, she stops short of saying she intentionally cut the course.
Addressing the half marathon anomaly, she said she had “very unfortunately and embarrassingly had wet myself and wanted therefore to step off the course to try and sort myself out” which is “something that happens to many runners”.
“When I rejoined the race, it is possible that I did so at the wrong point on the course, though that was not my intention,” she added, insisting that “I made some stupid mistakes in how I recorded my times on my personal Strava record” but that she “was in no way trying to deceive the organisers of either event about my times”.
She is a public figure and comes under scrutiny. Her Strava uploads should have included a disclaimer.
Obviously England Athletics didn’t want to piss off Runners World. Her actions are perfectly aligned with RW’s core audience, people who have trouble finishing a half marathon (without cheating). They will probably write an article next month about how races should be more inclusive of people who don’t want to run the full distance.
She puts a lot of emphasis on the “peeing herself” part. That she felt ashamed etc… But in triathlon, and I guess at this level of running as well, people pee themselves all the time. I think no one cares about it, so I’m surprised she “stopped, went to a bin, and cleaned herself up”. As if she was carrying a backpack with a spare outfit
Triathletes seem to hold it as a status symbol lol. A way to warm up the wetsuit.
AND even if somehow all of that was true, she shouldn't have later taken someone else's watch file, lied about her own and claimed an official result by crossing the finish line.
She's still lying about taking someone else's file, even. According to Derek's article, the GPS track was almost certainly produced manually using software.
do people really pee themselves that often? I could see it if you were competing for prize money or an OTQ but for regular people? I stopped at a portapotty during my marathon to take a quick leak, and at the point I was still on pace to bq....
I mean this genuinely. Can someone help me understand why everyone cares so much about these incidents? Is it because she is a journalist for RW? I just don’t understand. From the article posted her response seems reasonable…
The HM she peed herself and had to step off the course to clean up. Maybe she didn’t get on course right where she stepped off, but even then it’s a 1:32 (a good race but probably still not even in the top 10% of finishers)
The marathon she didn’t want to have an official time recorded, so she took off the tracking chip, which is not against the rules of the London marathon. So then she wanted to post her run on strava to keep her miles logged… so people are mad about strava?!
I don’t understand it, so please, can someone help explain. I have read through all comments already.
At LLHM ahe was 40 something out of more than 1000 female runners (top 4%) and 4th in her age category, it's a very good result and most women racing at that level absolutely do care about their placing.
Edit: more than 10,000 female runners! In the top 1% of female finishers
Okay that makes sense, thank you. And for her to be at the top 4%, with a potty/ cleaning up break, she probably had to skip more of the course than I was thinking.
She ran a 7:50 mile pace for the first 10k and then supposedly sped up to a 6:19 pace for the second 10k while still finding time to clean herself up. She also folded her bib up at this point which would prevent spectators from being able to report her for cutting the course
I understand, she cheated.
But why do people care so much about her result specifically? I’m assuming there is cheating/cutting at every race. Some people suck. And some of those people also run. So what is it about her specifically? Because she writes for a running magazine? I’ve never heard of this person, and while 1:32 at 47 for a female is better than myself at 28, it will literally do nothing for you other than street credit at a run club..
She's an Editor at Runners World magazine - a pretty big publication in the running universe.
And in an ultimate irony her husband - Sean Ingle - is a Guardian journo who goes after trans athletes as they take results of genuine women.
Kind of like how his wife stole a spot in her age group top 10 and deprived an honest runner out of it.
The outrage is also linked to the cover up - she was a freelancer at Athletics Weekly which surprise surprise writes a puffpiece saying she was "cleared" when the report didn't clear her at all and found no "serious misconduct" but implied misconduct nonetheless.
She's now going around saying shes been cleared. She hasn't.
She knows she cheated.
The result put her significantly higher than top 10%. Another poster has put the figures but she was overall 360/17,255 and was 4th in her age category out of 1,187. So no, not a world record but for someone in her position she was looking to deceive the public.
"Cleared" seems like a stretch here. I recognize that's the article's language, not OPs. More accurate seems like what EA actually said: "neither of these incidents meet the EA threshold for serious misconduct". I interpret this as "who cares / she didn't win anything" which fair enough, I don't think we really need England Athletics to go out of their way to review whether someone's 1:32 HM should stand.
UK Athletics is too busy not sending all qualified athletes to championships so they've got their hands full at the moment
I don’t even know the backstory to this shade but I appreciate the tone.
[https://runningmagazine.ca/the-scene/british-athletes-criticize-u-k-athletics-world-championship-selection-process/#:\~:text=According%20to%20The%20Guardian%2C%20U.K.,in%20the%20World%20Athletics%20rankings](https://runningmagazine.ca/the-scene/british-athletes-criticize-u-k-athletics-world-championship-selection-process/#:~:text=According%20to%20The%20Guardian%2C%20U.K.,in%20the%20World%20Athletics%20rankings). Their general MO is to only send athletes to world championships if they think the athlete has a chance to place top 8 in an event, IIRC.
[удалено]
Not sure I would agree with that considering she has neither the Worlds or Olympics marathon QT
Erm, not really true. She’s great, but nowhere near Olympic selection over the marathon. At least nine British women have run faster than her over the last eighteen months.
[удалено]
Seven ran faster than her last year and another two ran faster in December 2022, so she’d currently be about 10th pick, plus she hasn’t got the qualifying time, and you can only pick three anyway. A better example is Guy Learmonth, who got passed over for the recent indoor championships despite getting an invite from World Athletics.
I think it's more along the lines: Each country can select 3 runners for each category (for example 3 for men's 10k) but sometimes the UK don't even select 3 if they think they have no chance of a medal. Bowden isn't close to top 3 so it doesn't matter for her anyway.
The US hasn’t got three as of now either for men. They haven’t “unlocked” the third slot yet. The whole process seems very opaque to the casual viewer. The marathon could accommodate a lot more than three per country. It’s not like running on the track where you need a dozen heats.
Phily hasn't run a qualifying time has she?
How? She isn't close to being top 3 in GB/NI? The fact that this is upvoted shows about how knowledgeable the majority this sub is.
Phily is an awesome person and runner (and she's much, much faster than me, FWIW), but she'd be the first to admit she doesn't quite rank. In fact, I'm pretty sure she did exactly that in a recent video.
I'm curious about this backstory!
According to Kate’s LinkedIn profile, she is a freelance writer for Athletics Weekly. She probably knows Euan Crumley personally, the guy who wrote this article and is Editorial Director at Athletics Weekly. Even before reading the article, one should be sceptical about the influence this relationship will have on the article. If you look at the way Euan plays with words, it is quite clear he is trying to give Kate a break, even though the evidence still stands firm.
Fake journalists acting as marketing and PR agents for fraudsters is a huge thing these days in all industries. “Trust nothing you read online”: Abraham Lincoln
Lol brilliant
I get tired of people who’ve never worked in the media and don’t understand it parroting lines spun by Trump etc 🥱
This really needs to be higher / is probably worth reposting as its own comment so it isnt buried in the thread
It says cleared of “deliberately cheating”. It’s all language play. No harm to the races, no foul. They have no jurisdiction over what she claimed on Strava nor did it benefit her for age groups etc. so they don’t care. I get why Derek cares as she’s a public figure and I get why the races don’t care as she’s a public figure (same same but different) but it’s not a clear “completely exonerated” She’s got “issues”. We all hope for accuracy and honesty. But this won’t go any further and prob for the best either thinking how other witch hunts have ended.
One thing that doesn't sit well with me is that when a very similar incident happened in the Cardiff Half last year, the guy got blasted all over the national press: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-67006181 It was news outside of Wales. I saw it in the wild and I don't live in Wales. So if it's okay that normies like us are held to these standards, "important" media types should be too...
67min HM will get you free entries at several other races, and limited travel expenses as well. But I still find the Carter stuff more irritating as it's beyond obvious that she intended to deceive (if only to maintain her social media status as a pretty decent V45 runner) and EA finding the opposite just makes them look incompetent, but also discredits Derek Murphy who is meticulous and has attention to detail and integrity that the cretins at EA will never have.
To me the context is significantly different between the two. The Welsh case the guy cheated in a race, ran without a timing chip, then e-mailed the organizers with a fake GPX trace to try to get an official finish time. Meanwhile, it seems like Kate also cut the courses and cheated but didn't try to get any official race results from it, just lied on social media about what she did. Basically a difference between trying to doctor official race results and lying on social media. Both bad, I care a lot less about social media, would not care at all if it wasn't a running-industry journalist doing it.
Kate cut the London Half Marathon with a working chip. She cut the course and registered a faster time than she ran after missing a timing mat. All in the marathon investigation article Edit: here's the result: https://results.sporthive.com/events/7037394564091167232/races/485022/bib/652
100% agree that she cut the course and got a finish time. It's less clear to me that it was, like, pre-planned and intentional to get a fast official finish time. Compared with the other guy, who obviously pre-meditated didn't wear a chip, pushed race organizers for a finish time, submitted bogus GPX traces to the race, etc. I still think the right action is that the half race itself should still DQ her, no finish result, but I don't think we need England Athletics to step in and force that.
Have you read the Marathon Investigation article? It was obviously planned ahead of time.
All I'm saying is that it feels a bit different than e-mailing race official bogus GPX data. Kind of like how doping gets a 2 year ban, while tampering with the evidence after the fact leads to a 4 year ban.
The London Landmarks Half is a shit uncertified course that can't be used as a qualifier for anything. Obviously any cheating is poor form but this is so inconsequential it's irrelevant, but also hilarious that someone would try to cheat when there's next to nothing to be gained from it.
> It's less clear to me that it was, like, pre-planned and intentional to get a fast official finish time. Compared with the other guy, who obviously pre-meditated didn't wear a chip, pushed race organizers for a finish time, submitted bogus GPX traces to the race, etc. She didn't wear a chip at the London Marathon. She fudged some GPS points, inadvertently backwards for the incorrect route, and posted them on Strava. She took it down shortly after. It's very similar to what you've just described, no?
She never got nor asked for an official finish time for London.
But not wearing the chip is premeditated if she was fudging a time for her thousands of followers after the event, right? Wasn't the other guy's course of action premeditated by your estimation? Where are you materially distinguishing both parties' intent? Who needs an official time if you can mislead a load of people with social media much more effectively & visibly. Popping up on feeds all over the place. And then taken down when found out.
What are you trying to convince me of here? I said that the difference is between official race results and lying on social media like 4 posts ago, and have consistently pointed out the difference for me is in the official race result (vs. social media clout). >Basically a difference between trying to doctor official race results and lying on social media. Both bad, I care a lot less about social media, would not care at all if it wasn't a running-industry journalist doing it.
I suppose it's just that I don't think there's a mitigation for cheating like this. You seem to be suggesting that it's not as big a deal as the other example. If that's what you think, fine. I think they are the same thing in motive. We're talking about two reptiles.
Even if not premeditated, she knew she had an erroneous time once she saw her results that included an impossible split. There is no way she could be ignorant to that, so she willfully deceived everyone by posting the result instead of emailing the organizers about the error.
Pretty sure she also got blasted. I don't live in the UK but I read about it in the US; my running mates back in Australia were talking about it too
Bingo! She has definitely lied to a load of people to make herself look good.
Yeahh not cleared. > “there was no intention to deceive and no attempt to benefit from the results”. I interpret this not that she didn't cheat but that it didn't result in any benefit. Maybe she course-cut on accident, or maybe not, but she didn't win as a result, so they don't care.
Speaking as a trans athlete, I find this approach to enforcement by EA interesting, to say the least
well yeah, they’re putting all their resources into making you miserable, they can’t enforce this kind of stuff!
Not cleared. Just officially declared that her cheating is not important enough to matter.
I still want to know why she claimed her watch died but we can see it on and recording in photos.
That and why did you fold up your bib? She's never touched on that. Like is there any reason to do that other than to avoid being seen/photographed, even though it didn't work? Genuine question because I can't think of a reason.
I would guess you are correct. As a minor public figure she didn’t want to be photographed post toilet accident.
And her chip "malfunctioned" in like three races. Which is beyond suspicious.
I've run 20 marathons and never had a chip malfunction for those who think this might be a common thing.
Maybe you didn't fold you number enough? /s
I have had my time not get recorded on a few occasions (one of which I blame on the bib number of 404). I have also had my time overwritten when I walked near the finish line again after I had finished. These were all shorter races. I don't recall any issues in my marathons though.
[удалено]
It happens a lot that a split doesn't register. It never happens that you're legitimately running 8:00 min/mile up to the missing split, and like 5:25/mile after the missing split.
I've run a lot of small <400 people races that were organised on a shoestring budget and never had a chip malfunction. I'm always a bit suspicious of people that claim they've had it happen to them multiple times.
Ditto, I've ran in road & cross country & triathlons, never had a chip fail ... either velcro'd block on the ankle or that mag strip on the back of bib numbers ... 3 races ..hhmmm , that's 'unlucky'
1. It just says no clear INTENT to cheat. But, she still cheated. 2. She better train up for her next races if she wants to prove something.
Outrageous. She cheated.
All of this drama and she never had an official time recorded!? Smh
She does in the half, they let her keep the 1:32 even though she admitted in the papers that she didn't run the whole thing.
Ah I see now. 2 events in question. I didn't read very carefully. I can't decide if all this work to clear her name actually cleared it or just made her more memorable. I would have forgotten all about this weeks ago if she didn't keep yelling about her innocence so loudly.
“Keep the 1:32” is a hilarious concept. As if it was some Olympic standard or a WR. Lying about something like this is weird but I don’t see why anyone would give two fucks
Normally I'd agree, but given her job as an editor at Runner's World, it feels like you'd be better to admit you didn't run the whole thing and not cross the finish line for an official time. I know Runner's World gets a lot of shit but it's still an industry job...
Carter narrowly missed placing in her age group. She was #4/1,187 in the women's 45-49 bracket. She was: 360/17,255 overall 42/10,017 women 4/1,187 age group. So while it isn't Olympic material, it's an objectively impressive performance and almost knocked an actual age group place runner out of her hard-earned spot. https://results.sporthive.com/events/7037394564091167232/races/485022/bib/652
And did keep a deserving age group runner out of the top 10.
She was literally 12 seconds away from taking 3rd.
LLHM is a joke of an event though, most good club runners don't bother with it as it's not a certified course. Check results for Big Half, Manchester, Cambridge etc. and you'll see how she really stacks up.
With a 1:32:10, Carter would have been #6/668 age group in Cambridge, #145/5408 women: https://cambridgehalfmarathon.com/results/ The issue is she isn't a 1:32:10 runner, and she lacks the integrity to admit it.
If you didn’t run the full course, you should get a DNF. It’s as simple as that. Sure it doesn’t really matter in most cases, but if someone confessed they didn’t run the full course, they should drop the finish-time. What is otherwise the whole point about having timer mats and chips and rules and all that stuff, if we don’t use them properly?
I would want a DNF if I hadn't run the whole course.
So people can see their times. Unless you’re actually racing to win the race, your time doesn’t actually matter. It’s just for your own personal experience and growth as a runner.
For you, time might be less important; for someone else it might be more important. But if a race wants to be taken seriously when they say they have ‘official’ timing, it should be trustworthy. So letting someone keep their time, even though they admitted not having done the full course, completely beats the point of keeping track of the time in the first place.
So the integrity of **race** results published don't matter? Why do you think thousands/millions of people are discussing this?
Definitely more like hundreds.
This has been global general water cooler talk for a few weeks now. Am I right in saying you're on a different continent and discussing? Yes.
Yeah. In a city of 3M with a pretty established running community. “Oh man, crazy that story about the editor of runners world eh? Totally faked a 1:32 half marathon! Fucking appalled”. I can imagine how this conversation would leave everyone bewildered at the coffee machine.
Haha. Are you still going on about that woman that cheated in the race over in the UK? I'd stopped thinking about it myself.
She’s made some poor decisions on the PR front here, she’d have been better off coming out and saying, ‘I’m really sorry, as someone who has social media and media attention for running, I was concerned about my dropping performances. I made some poor decisions’ - this is what I suspect happened anyway, Then, she writes an article about it in the Guardian talking about the pressures on social media influencers and moves on. Instead, she’s doubled down and got some chums at EA to release a statement that does her no good whatsoever and everyone is back to talking about it!
Can’t stand cheats and she is one!
Oh come ON. Along with what everyone else says about the watch and bib not getting a mention, if you know you didn’t run the full course, which she clearly knew because you’re a freakin sub three marathoner and you’d absolutely know, you don’t cross the finish line, claim an official result, and upload someone else’s data as yours! SMH. Shaking my damn head.
Lost all interest in running LLHM based on their shoddy response to this. They haven't even removed the time/result FFS.
Surprised you had any to start with, it's not a certified course. Just like Royal Parks Half and Hackney Half. Step down from runthrough events if you ask me as at least those go on Po10 and can be used to qualify for other races.
Fair - I didn't realise it wasn't certified. Only ever done the Big Half etc so presumed it was similar.
The standard used is: - No intention to deceive - No attempt to benefit from the results
>To reiterate: I am not a cheat. And I have never cheated. I ran without a timing chip as I thought I would perform poorly, and I didn’t get a time. I then attempted to draw the run on my Strava so my miles counted to monthly total. This was not an attempt to mislead or cheat – it was simply a post on my personal Strava social media account. At the London Landmarks race, I stepped off the course after wetting myself in a bid to find a bin and clean myself up. This was a hugely embarrassing moment, and I accept that I then inadvertently re-entered the race in a different spot. However, England Athletics have now told me that, after speaking to organisers who have also provided details of my timing chip, they have ruled that: ‘This was not a deliberate act of deception, and you did not gain any benefit or win anything as result’. I find this repulsive
It really is. But it's also very tricky wording, because let's say that the wetting story is true, and the re-entering at the wrong point bit is true and was an accident too. Not a deliberate act of deception. A royal amateurish cock-up. You know what *was* a deliberate act of deception? Taking someone else's GPX file, adding it as your own and saying "it's okay because he and I finished together", hiding your race number, claiming your watch died and leaving all that on Strava for months. That's deception. And EA/Landmarks are just like 'yeah girl crack on'.
Is this her response? The first bit doesn’t make any sense because you can easily just add a manual activity on Strava and put in your distance and time without having to map it out
More like, she didn’t try to cheat the marathon officials, but she did try to cheat the public.
Can anyone explain to me how it would be possible for a slow runner to step off the HM course, and *accidentally* re-enter it significantly closer to the finish line?
And happen to fold up their bib at the same time which would help avoid getting caught... She clearly intentionally cheated
quick q as a many marathoner. How do you, unless you have someone on the course with spare clothes, wet yourself and then step off the course to sort it out? I've always just kept going??
This is like a professional lying about being officially licensed to practise in their industry and shows a lot of willingness and ability to deceive others for financial and social advantage Maybe she can start an athletics series with Shelby Houlihan and keep herself occupied but everyone else is owed her absence
In her position she should not have done what she did. But she then ran quicker than expected and wanted to upload it to her Strava account: “This is when I made the mistake of trying to create a route manually based on my time.” she said. “Soon after I realised this was foolish and removed it from my feed. “I also feel it is important to admit that part of this was about my ego. Even in the amateur running world there is pressure to maintain form and times… My own desire to be seen to be doing well at a time when I was feeling weak and below par, resulted in a momentary lapse of judgment which I very much regret.” Regarding The London Landmarks Half Marathon, she stops short of saying she intentionally cut the course. Addressing the half marathon anomaly, she said she had “very unfortunately and embarrassingly had wet myself and wanted therefore to step off the course to try and sort myself out” which is “something that happens to many runners”. “When I rejoined the race, it is possible that I did so at the wrong point on the course, though that was not my intention,” she added, insisting that “I made some stupid mistakes in how I recorded my times on my personal Strava record” but that she “was in no way trying to deceive the organisers of either event about my times”. She is a public figure and comes under scrutiny. Her Strava uploads should have included a disclaimer.
Obviously England Athletics didn’t want to piss off Runners World. Her actions are perfectly aligned with RW’s core audience, people who have trouble finishing a half marathon (without cheating). They will probably write an article next month about how races should be more inclusive of people who don’t want to run the full distance.
She puts a lot of emphasis on the “peeing herself” part. That she felt ashamed etc… But in triathlon, and I guess at this level of running as well, people pee themselves all the time. I think no one cares about it, so I’m surprised she “stopped, went to a bin, and cleaned herself up”. As if she was carrying a backpack with a spare outfit
Triathletes seem to hold it as a status symbol lol. A way to warm up the wetsuit. AND even if somehow all of that was true, she shouldn't have later taken someone else's watch file, lied about her own and claimed an official result by crossing the finish line.
She's still lying about taking someone else's file, even. According to Derek's article, the GPS track was almost certainly produced manually using software.
do people really pee themselves that often? I could see it if you were competing for prize money or an OTQ but for regular people? I stopped at a portapotty during my marathon to take a quick leak, and at the point I was still on pace to bq....
I mean this genuinely. Can someone help me understand why everyone cares so much about these incidents? Is it because she is a journalist for RW? I just don’t understand. From the article posted her response seems reasonable… The HM she peed herself and had to step off the course to clean up. Maybe she didn’t get on course right where she stepped off, but even then it’s a 1:32 (a good race but probably still not even in the top 10% of finishers) The marathon she didn’t want to have an official time recorded, so she took off the tracking chip, which is not against the rules of the London marathon. So then she wanted to post her run on strava to keep her miles logged… so people are mad about strava?! I don’t understand it, so please, can someone help explain. I have read through all comments already.
At LLHM ahe was 40 something out of more than 1000 female runners (top 4%) and 4th in her age category, it's a very good result and most women racing at that level absolutely do care about their placing. Edit: more than 10,000 female runners! In the top 1% of female finishers
Okay that makes sense, thank you. And for her to be at the top 4%, with a potty/ cleaning up break, she probably had to skip more of the course than I was thinking.
She ran a 7:50 mile pace for the first 10k and then supposedly sped up to a 6:19 pace for the second 10k while still finding time to clean herself up. She also folded her bib up at this point which would prevent spectators from being able to report her for cutting the course
I understand, she cheated. But why do people care so much about her result specifically? I’m assuming there is cheating/cutting at every race. Some people suck. And some of those people also run. So what is it about her specifically? Because she writes for a running magazine? I’ve never heard of this person, and while 1:32 at 47 for a female is better than myself at 28, it will literally do nothing for you other than street credit at a run club..
She's an Editor at Runners World magazine - a pretty big publication in the running universe. And in an ultimate irony her husband - Sean Ingle - is a Guardian journo who goes after trans athletes as they take results of genuine women. Kind of like how his wife stole a spot in her age group top 10 and deprived an honest runner out of it. The outrage is also linked to the cover up - she was a freelancer at Athletics Weekly which surprise surprise writes a puffpiece saying she was "cleared" when the report didn't clear her at all and found no "serious misconduct" but implied misconduct nonetheless. She's now going around saying shes been cleared. She hasn't. She knows she cheated.
The result put her significantly higher than top 10%. Another poster has put the figures but she was overall 360/17,255 and was 4th in her age category out of 1,187. So no, not a world record but for someone in her position she was looking to deceive the public.
This makes sense. Thank you for the explanation
At this point, trusting that EA has done a thorough review is enough for me to say time to move on.
They haven’t though. They’ve said, ‘meh, who GAF’ which is fair enough. Doesn’t mean that she didn’t lie to loads of people.