Adapted form a post I made in the 14.1 forum:
I believe the run happened, and its validation by the BCA is enough evidence for me. That said, this is a matter of opinion and I'm trying to get a better handle on why others question whether the run was legit.
For me, the facts don't add up if this was all a hoax and the video was doctored to hide a miss or a foul, because:
1) given how unprepared John's team was for the release of the record setting run were it to occur, one must presume that the run caught them all off guard.
2) if they spent the period immediately following the alleged run doctoring/editing the video, they would have had plenty of time to come up with a marketing plan for release and marketing of the run.
3) given that John's team appears to have had no intention to market the run, what was the motive? Has anybody gained from this run financially? The BCA, which has not used the run in any way in its marketing of pool, certainly had no financial interest in signing off.
A couple of other thoughts.
Who is to say what the rules are governing an exhibition or even what an exhibition is?
All ball fouls?
We have seen Mosconi play an exhibition without using the all-ball fouls rule in a match with Caras. If the kind of foul that wouldn't be a foul unless this rule was in effect were to be found on careful inspection of the video, would it invalidate the run?
Consultation?
Some have commented that shots may have been discussed along the way. If one or more positions were discussed with others who were present, does it invalidate the run?
Was this Really an Exhibition?
Some have taken note that the run began well before the poolroom was open to the public. A case can, therefore, be made that it wasn't an exhibition run at all. Is a run that was only partially available for view by the general public really an exhibition run?
It's all very confusing. While I'm fully satisfied of the run's legitimacy, I don't want to be dismissive of those who are suspicious, but if it turns out that this was all a hoax and that the BCA endorsed a run that wasn't legitimate, it will be a sad day in our sport's history.
Finally, I don't feel that John's continuing delay of releasing the video to the general public should be viewed as making it more likely that there are issues with the run. The video belongs to John and his team and it is their right to handle its release (or non-release) as they choose.
Conclusion
While I believe the run happened, I cannot be dismissive of those who still question its validity. They raise some valid questions, and what's wrong with them insisting on more evidence?