Everesting

Lachlan got stripped from his record, problems with the elevation data on Strava: https://cyclingmagazine.ca/sections/news/why-lachlan-mortons-everesting-world-record-might-not-be-legitimate/

And the Hells500 post on FB:

Why Lachlan Morton’s Everesting Record may not be legitimate, and how we’re working to ensure it doesn’t happen again
On June 14, Lachlan Morton rode 42 laps of 'The Back Side of Rist' in what was seemed to be a new record for the fastest Everesting. Doubts have since been cast on whether Morton completed the required elevation gain. We often note discrepancies between recording devices (even when riders are using a backup device to record an Everesting they can be a few hundred metres apart). GPS devices can be affected by rain, changes in atmospheric pressure, tree cover and the units themselves can often under- or over-report elevation.
With that in mind, when adjudicating an Everesting attempt, we base our calculations on repeats of a given segment or section of road rather than looking at the ride’s total elevation gain. If we are able to understand the segment gain, and then the laps required are a simple product of the height of Everest (8,848m/29,029ft) divided by the segment/section gain.
When we check a reported segment gain in Strava (the segment itself) we’ll look for ‘saw-toothing’ in the profile which is a giveaway of a poorly formed segment, and one that would give an artificially inflated figure. We use some additional software to run a check on the Strava segment data. If we are looking for additional verification we next conduct a sense-check against the Strava mapping topographic lines.
We apply the same formula to all of our entries in the hall of fame, including both regular riders and those who appear to have set new records. As an estimate, we would see under- or over-reporting of data from devices in probably 10% of all submissions, and this is why we will check the elevation gain from repeats of a verified Strava segment over what the head unit will show.
For the vast majority of riders inspired to take on this challenge, that is a perfect way of both simply understanding and calculating how many laps to complete of a chosen local hill to ascend the height of Everest.
One thing we never anticipated when creating this challenge for our crew was that it would one day be raced by riders at the top level of the sport. In fact, ironically, this challenge was set up as the antithesis of racing! That said, we appreciate and respect that whilst completion is the driving factor for the vast majority of participants, the appeal of setting new records for Everesting has clearly taken hold - and so we’ll need to adapt to that.
Rather than retroactively applying additional rigor to our approval methodology after a new record is claimed, we feel that a fairer method is to pre-approve segments for record attempts. As mapping data varies in accuracy from country to country (and indeed the exact height of Everest itself is still a matter of some debate!) we will - to the best of our ability with the resources to hand - agree on a set elevation gain prior to an attempt.
Unfortunately we will never know how the situation may have differed if Lachlan had the independent segment analysis to hand pre-attempt. As painful as it is, we stand by our community’s decision to recategorise this as a (very large) Everesting Basecamp listing, which means Keegan Swenson is restored at the top of the Everesting leaderboard. We believe the new measures we have put in place to pre-qualify segments using independent data will prevent this from happening again.
The Hells 500 crew.