Could a Fraudster Win the Boston Marathon?

As you can imagine, I was extremely intrigued when I saw the headline, “Dozens Suspected of Cheating to Enter Boston Marathon.” My fraud and running worlds collided in this article, which shines light on how some runners cheat to run one of the world’s most famous races, the Boston Marathon.

As you know, I run, and I love it. With only a few years under my belt, I have accomplished a lot by completing a half marathon, two marathons and an ultramarathon. During this time, I have accepted the fact that I am not a fast runner. It is extremely difficult to shave a minute off your pace when you are running 26.2 miles. I would have to reduce my pace by almost two and half minutes per mile to qualify for Boston. Alas, I will never run a Boston qualifying time, and I am okay with it.

There are others who are not okay with it, and they cheat for the opportunity to run in the Boston Marathon. The article highlights an analysis of the data from the 2015 race results and further investigation into some of the runners, which shows how runners cheat. There were lots of interesting parallels to the fraud investigations that I perform. I have included some of these below:

• Use of data analytics to identify “suspects.” The data analytics played an important role of narrowing down the investigation from all 32,000 runners to approximately 2,500. The 2,500 became the population of “suspects.” The investigators analyzed the time it took a runner to complete the 2015 Boston Marathon and compared it to an estimated qualifying time, which was based on their individual bib number. If the runner’s actual time was 20 minutes or more slower than their estimated qualifying time, then the runner became a suspect. We perform similar analytics during most fraud investigations to identify suspicious transactions.
• Perform investigative procedures to identify potential cheaters. Once the “suspects” were identified, additional procedures were performed to determine why a runner was slower. In some cases, there will be false positives. The runner may have run the Boston Marathon with an injury or they may not have trained as hard as they did for their qualifying race, but based on the procedures performed, it can be determined whether they cheated to qualify. There may be some runners who are identified as suspects, but due to lack of evidence to support or refute a determination, the runners would be included in an “unable to determine” category. This leaves us with the last bucket of runners who were identified as cheaters based on the procedures performed and data gathered. The investigative procedures vary based on the individual runner and evidence that can be gathered. This is a very similar process to what we use when we identify suspicious transactions.
• Gather and evaluate evidence from a variety of sources. In performing the investigative procedures, there was data gathered from numerous third party sources to determine if an individual cheated. Some of the evidence that was gathered and evaluated included previous Boston Marathon race results, other race results, pictures from the race, and verbal communications from race directors or the runners themselves. The evidence is evaluated and weighted against other available information to uncover the truth. Did the runner who participated in the Boston Marathon qualify legitimately? In a blog post published the same day as the Runners World article mentioned above, it states that the investigation has identified that 54 runners’ results were deemed invalid.
• Rationalization of the cheater. In the article, there were several interviews conducted to discuss why they cheated. The views expressed are startling. One person was a firefighter, and he stated, “This is absolutely deflating. My life and job are based on integrity. And I cheated.” The firefighter cut 4 miles off his qualifying race by not running a portion of the course. The article describes how he rationalized his behavior and the previous quote was captured from him after confronted with the evidence. A second person stated, “I am not going to apologize for running in the place of somebody who would have been there anyway.” This person gets bibs from people who are registered for the race but aren’t going to run it for some reason. He identifies these people on a public forum on MarathonGuide.com. With regard to these examples, it is easy to rationalize because the victim is not easily identified. As I say often, people can rationalize anything.

By using this example, I hope you gain additional clarity into how a fraud investigation is conducted. Most fraud investigations are highly complex, involving many issues, but with this simple example, I can show the investigative process without getting caught up in the complexities.

Looking forward to next week, I would like for you to think about this question:  Is it okay for someone to break the rules, mislead or cheat to run the Boston Marathon? This is a trick question and could be classified as an ethical dilemma. I would say, “Yes,” and her name was Switzer. 

For weekly insights on fighting financial fraud, click here: