[martimarkov]

As the article pointed out - there was no concrete evidence beyond doubt. The stupidity of the community is to blame: you think someone is cheating and you dead set on proving it? Fine let him run next time and get real evidence. Get a drones up with some friends. Get someone to run next to him.

Anything else is just our human brains looking for patters and finding it even if it’s not there.

[loeg]

The evidence is very concrete if you are vaguely familiar with competitive running. You can't set record times with 33%+ 5k split-to-split variance; if you can set a record time doing that, you could go literally minutes faster with even pacing. The folks at the front are chasing marginal seconds and this guy was leaving minutes on the table and smoking everyone.

[teliskr]

So anytime someone thinks something is dubious, their brain is "looking for patters and finding it even if it’s not there". I disagree, sometimes your brain makes connections and often (but not always) those connections are correct. To most dedicated runners (such as the LetsRun group); this case is pretty obvious. The last paragraph of the article reads pretty conclusive of his guilt.

This reminds me of Lance Armstrong. Prior to his outing, I believed Lance Armstrong was innocent of doping. But many serious cyclists told me there was no way he was not doping, and they were right. Expertise is often useful.