Posted by Frank James at 4:40 pm CDT
The Associated Press has a story out of Columbus, Ohio on questions that have arisen about Ohio Republican Rep. Jean Schmidt's finishing time in a marathon in 1993.
Apparently, Schmidt's opponent has accused her campaign of putting a doctored photo on the web site that shows her finishing the race with a time that would have made her one of the top finishers. Schmidt's lawyer contests the allegations.
Here's the AP story:
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) - Republican Rep. Jean Schmidt is fast, capable of running a marathon in 3 hours, 19 minutes, 6 seconds.
At least that’s what a photo on the Ohio congresswoman’s Web site shows.
No way, says a rival who contends that the picture from the 1993 Columbus Marathon is doctored and complained to state election officials. A four-member commission panel ruled Thursday that there was enough evidence to look into the complaint.
State law prohibits candidates from publishing false statements designed to promote their election.
The photo shows Schmidt near the finish line at the marathon with a time clock showing 3:19:06, which would have made her one of the top finishers. But a newspaper list of the top runners does not include Schmidt, said Nathan Noy, who is seeking to run as a write-in candidate against Schmidt.
Noy said he believes the photo may be fake and suggested that Schmidt never even participated in the event. In the photo, Schmidt doesn’t cast a shadow while other runners do.
Joseph Braun, an attorney representing Schmidt, denied that the photograph is fake. He produced what he said was an official race results book, listing Schmidt as the fifth-place finisher in her age group with a time of 3:19:09 - three seconds slower than the time depicted in the photograph.
The time clock reflects when the photo was taken, not her official time, Braun said.
On her Web site, Schmidt, who is 54, said she has completed 59 marathons. In April, she received a public reprimand from the Ohio Elections Commission for claiming on her Web site that she had two college degrees when she had only one.
Noy's charge that Schmidt may not have raced at all, that she might have been Photoshopped in since she's not casting a shadow is very odd. Based on the angle of the shadow cast by the runner behind her, Schmidt's shadow would be both obscured by the runner in front of her and beyond the frame of the photograph.
Her lawyer's statement, that the time on the clock represents the time the photo was taken, not the time she actually crossed the line, also makes sense.
I sure hope the state-election commission panel had more evidence than just those two items on which to base its decision to further examine the case.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
When I use the words wing nut,this is why.
Can you imagine,the people of this district voted this whack job in over an American Iraq veteran.Go figure.
Posted by: Raving Loon | August 24, 2006 4:44 PM
Gee!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why am I not surprised that a REPUBLICAN would cheat.
NEXT UP:
The swiftboating of the official timekeeper!!!
Posted by: John E. | August 24, 2006 4:54 PM
When are Democrats and Republican in office going to learn their lifes are being watched
Posted by: Dale Peters | August 24, 2006 5:27 PM
Good thing she not in france....she would probably flunk the drug test too.
Posted by: bill r. | August 24, 2006 7:11 PM
In fairness to the Swamp they did run an item on the husband beater democrat who's running for congress a few weeks back. Bipartisan campaign scandal posts go up here.
Posted by: Bill | August 24, 2006 9:39 PM
Reminds me of a Joe Biden speech.
Posted by: Terry | August 25, 2006 9:38 PM
It is typical Tribune to run an artice about unsubstantiated charges against a Republican. Will Frank James run in "The Swamp" a similar article when the charges are dismissed?
BTW, even the left wing nutjobs at "Daily Kos" are admitting the charges are bogus.
Posted by: Bruce | August 26, 2006 9:15 AM
Omitted from the article, but easily findable by searching the web, is the fact that the state board of elections has already dismissed three of Noy's charges against Schmidt. Since this fact would cast doubt on the credibility of the person making the charge, it is odd that this fact would be omitted. Or maybe it isn't so odd.
Posted by: Bruce | August 26, 2006 9:42 AM