No Boston Marathon for Katie Holmes

[nycgirl]

she was also out at some event in heels the night of the marathon.....it just seems very fishy

[nwgirl]

Wearing heels later that same night? The hell you say?

Well then...I give up. I agree that she certainly can't have run a marathon. I mean, I could overlook:

1. Not wearing a bra. (Maybe she thought a tank top with a built in bra would be sufficient, this being her first marathon and all or maybe it doesn't particularly bother her to not wear a bra when running.)

2. Her not looking like she was at death's doorstep at the finish line. (Even though I've seen hundreds and hundreds of people at the finish line looking pretty damn fresh after finishing in about half her time.)

3. And no cell phone photos or pap shots. (Even though there do appear to other photos of her along the route and the fact that I've personally tried to take photos of my husband when he was running a marathon and I have seriously flat out missed him or not been able to get a good shot of him cause he was amongst a pack of people.)

I could find potential explanations for all of those things. But when you add in that she was wearing heels later that night, well...it's just too much to fight. All of the evidence is simply too overwhelming. I'm a believer now.

[nycgirl]

lol well maybe she did run the whole thing, more power to her if she did. It just seems odd that's all. Call me cynical but it seems like a really good way to get positive (not scientology related) publicity.

[Bellatheball]

Why is it so important to you that we believe her? I'm not asking in a snide way. I'm just curious why you'd come back to a thread a few times to defend her? Have you run a marathon yourself? Certainly men's and women's issues (clothing, wearing heels afterwards, bras etc) are different for men and women. And I'd love to see any links to photos of her at the start or middle of the race.

[nwgirl]

I don't know that I'm defending her more than I'm defending common sense.

Let me pose a question here. If the only photos that had ever been published or seen of her marathon run were four or five pictures of her wearing a running outfit, drenched in sweat, looking like death warmed over, wearing a bra, and she was sitting in a cafe near the marathon route, or she was near a car, or she was standing in some back alley near the route, would you take those photos as proof that she didn't run the marathon?

I'm sure everyone would jump on those and say "she obviously cheated." I have sincere doubts there would be even one person who would say "but, she's sweaty, she must have run. But, she looks really bad, she must have run. But she's wearing a bra, she must have run."

Yet you see four or five pictures of her actually on the route, with other runners around her, at the finish line, etc. and you can really make the jump to "she must not have run"? That's so bizarre to me and honestly, makes so little sense I'm really wondering if you guys are fucking with me.

Or let's say your co-worker had a picture of their daughter posted in their cubicle, and the girl had every single same thing as Katie's pictures. And your co-worker told everyone it was a picture of her daughter running a marathon, would you say to your co-worker (or behind her back to everyone else) "There's no way she ran that marathon."

Of course not.

I mean seriously, there are pictures of her at what look to be different parts of the route. But that's not enough proof that she ran? You're going to hang your hat on the absence of pictures to back up some cockemamy theory that she couldn't have run because there are no pap or cell phone pictures of her? (And if absence of pap or cell phone pictures are considered legitimate back up for her not having run, wouldn't it make sense that absence of pap or cell phone pictures of her cheating would mean that she did run?)

It's honestly ridiculous to me that anyone could ignore the only actual facts (the pictures) in lieu of...absolutely nothing to the contrary but total and complete supposition. And not even remotely good supposition at that. And what, you're withholding judgment until you see more pictures of her running? How many do you need to see for it to be proof enough that she ran? You need a minute by minute photo montage with music or what?

I bet you it would only take one grainy picture of the back of someone wearing something remotely similar to what she was wearing, taken from about two miles away for you to believe she cheated though.

That's why I've come back to this thread. Cause I can't wrap my head around that train of thinking.

[Bellatheball]

I just have to ask, have you ever run a marathon yourself? I'm not following your logic (and no, I'm not fucking with you). As a woman with boobs, there is no way in hell to run 26+ miles without a bra. There is no way. In fact, even wearing a new sports bra is sometimes enough to cause bleeding.

I do find it suspect that there are no other photos of her. If you could find ANY photos in some time sequence of her running the race, I'll glady accept she ran the race. ANYONE can jump in for the last miles and cross the finish line. I've seen it done. They even come home that that horrible photo they sometimes get of you crossing the finish line. That's all. Clearly we'll have to agree to disagree.

[nwgirl]

Dear dead horse,

I’m going to beat you a little bit more. I'm sorry I just cannot let this go and enjoy my fricking Sunday afternoon, but I seriously have some sort of personality defect where stuff like this is concerned.

This is the problem I’m having with this disagreement: IMO we are arguing fact. And you are trying to dispute fact with hypothesis and theory.

The fact is – there are photos of her running (more than just her crossing the finish line, although they are not time sequenced and I don't know where on the route they were taken). I would argue that photos (in general) are pretty good evidence and are definitely widely accepted on a daily basis as proof of fact. So for all intents and purposes, I would consider those photos “proof” that she ran the marathon.

Yet, despite photographic evidence, you have said there is “no way” she ran the marathon. That’s a pretty absolute statement. I would assume that you would have “proof” contrary to the existing proof, which is at least as good as, if not better, than the evidence you are trying to dispute (the photos). I would expect you to have photos that prove she didn’t run, or prove cheating. Barring photos, I would expect that you had at least some verifiable facts or statistics.

But the “proof” you offer up to dispute physical, hard evidence, is your statement that “no woman alive” has ever (or could ever) run a marathon without a bra? That’s not proof. That’s a hypothesis (and honestly, not even a good hypothesis at that). Hypotheses don’t hold up very well in the presence of actual proof.

To me, this isn’t about differing opinions. People (you included) are implying that she is lying and that she did not run the marathon. There have been different reasons or theories thrown out to support those various suspicions. And all of those theories are perfectly valid points which I would love to debate on their own merits. But they’re not proof of anything, much less that she didn’t run. Individually or collectively.

If the photos of her running did not exist, I would say knock yourself out and hypothesize all you want. Because you’re arguing apples to apples – you’d have hypothesis to hypothesis. But evidence or proof that she ran does exist so now you have to move to disputing the evidence those photos depict. And to dispute hard evidence, you need hard evidence. Theories or hypotheses are not fact or evidence or proof. You can’t just say “nu-unh” and expect people to believe you or disregard actual evidence.

At the end of the day, there is not one shred of evidence that she did not run, and there is more than one piece of evidence that she did (and in a format that is widely accepted as evidence). If you want the theory that she didn’t run the marathon to be taken seriously or not be challenged, you have to offer up some actual proof.

That’s all I’m saying. So, if you can prove your theories of how it’s not possible she ran, to at least the same degree the photos prove she did, I would love to say we can just agree to disagree.

And I don't care if she really ran it, or who believes that she really ran it. But I do care that someone expects me to believe the sky is green while not offering any actual proof to dispute my proof that it’s blue. If you can't disprove the photos that you've already seen, can you please explain to me how having more photos is going to somehow magically prove anything to you?

And no, I’ve never run a marathon. But that’s not proof that Katie Holmes did not run a marathon and has no bearing on you disproving those photos with actual facts or hard evidence.

[Sylkyn]

No dog in this fight, but I googled "Katie Holmes NYC marathon" and other various ways and all I found were pictures of her (and one of her, her Master and the baby) at the finish line. I couldn't find any of her en route. Now this may be because she registered under an alias and none of the newsfolks knew about her running until after she crossed the finish line, but whatever.

I am not a runner, nor do I play one on the Internet. I just couldn't locate any other pics but if anyone else does I'd like to see them. TIA!

[A*O]

Her whole life is now based on one huge LIE and I think her so-called participation in the NY marathon is yet another one put out by the Poison Dwarf's Co$ PR goons. But yes, if there are othe pics of her out there pounding the pavement for 26 long miles I'm happy to retract.

[nycgirl]

^^ agreed, if someone has pictures of her starting the race or running (not the ones taken at the very end of the race), I would love to see them and eat my words. However, the New York City Marathon is over 25 miles, extending into all 5 of NYC's boroughs, and it's a huge accomplishment. It's also something you need to train for- for a very long time. Most people train for a year or longer. I saw no pictures of her running before it, training, or anything. Then, she shows up without a bra. Sorry but have you ever tried to run without a bra? Regardless of cup size, it's uncomfortable! Then, there are only pictures of her at the end of the race. She looked like she had hardly even broken a sweat from the pictures. And finally, she goes to an event the same exact in heels- when most runners are so tired they can hardly move. Either she's superwoman, or that bitch didn't run!

I have a friend who ran it. She trained for so long beforehand and was an avid runner for years. She said it was one of the most difficult things she's ever done (and she's done many smaller marathons and triathalons). She hasn't run since. If Katie is lying about it and doing it for publicity, IMO it's a little insulting to the dedicated runners who actually accomplished running the whole thing.

[Icepik]

Not having paid too much attention to Katie running (or not running) in the marathon, but why would she lie about something like this? It's just a marathon, it's not really even newsworthy as far as I'm concerned - even if she did actually finish the entire marathon

[Laurent]

I'm someone who still thinks they orchestrated a huge cover-up where the "Pillow Pregnancy of 2005/06" is concerned, so yeah -

I think it's definately possible - probable even - they tinkered with her "running" this marathon.

[A*O]

The Co$ PR machine is all over her every waking moment with blanket publicity for each opening, gala, event Tom allows her to attend. If she ran the NY marathon there'd be pics of her before, during and after with Tom grinning like a lunatic in every shot. There'd be interviews about her "amazing achievement" and endorsements for Co$ fit camps, motivation DVDs, etc. Instead, there's been a deafening silence and that's because they realise we aren't as stupid as they think we are and if they spruik this too hard someone is going to ask some awkward questions - just like we are!

[nwgirl]

Looks like she's running here. No jacket, looking not so hot.



Running with the same guy as above, but in this one they both have jackets on.








This is a different guy than the first two with her. Definitely looks to me like she's been running. Her hair looks pretty sweaty and matted here. No jacket. She has what appears to me to be crap all over the bottom of her pants and up the back, which is what happens when you're running and kicking shit up on yourself. This is the guy she's pictured finishing with.

I don't know where any of these are at on the route, but she's with different people, at what appear to be different locations, and her state of dress or undress is different. She has an arm thing on that doesn't appear (at least that I can see) in her finish line pictures.

[Laurent]

I don't doubt she ran a few miles towards the end to make it look good, but personally, I don't believe she ran the whole thing.