Thank you for all the tips, keep them coming!
Even if I don’t respond to your email, I am taking note of all the tips that I am receiving, and will make sure that those runners are included in the review of the 2016 results.
I have been working at putting together historical race data to aid in the 2016 review. We are going into this review with more knowledge, and the historical data that we need to efficiently filter and review the 2016 results. The criteria for review will be modified based on a few other factors.I expect that we will begin to start the individual runner reviews next week.
On a side note, just because a group of runners are flagged DOES NOT mean that we go in suspecting that they all cheated. Last year, there only 4% of flagged runners were determined to have cheated. There are many reasons for a slow Boston time – and most of them are legitimate. For a runner that legitimately ran Boston, the review usually takes a couple of minutes. We match photos, and check the qualifying splits if available, and glance at historical times.
Also, we will begin reviewing marathons within the 2016 qualifying window using a similar method to flag runners to review. The goal here is to review the results and notify the Race Directors prior to Boston registration to stop the ones that cheated to earn Boston qualifying times from entering in the first place.
I will continually provide updates on our progress. I suspect we will find more instances of cheating than we did with Boston 2015 – not because there are more cheaters, but because we will be able to get through more results with the additional data and resources.