[Other Sport] Paula Radcliffe denies cheating after she is "effectively implicated"...

[Garry Nelson's teacher]

At last a plausible explanation why she beat me by 2 hours in the 2005 London Marathon. I suspected it at the time but felt that articulating my suspicions might come across as sour grapes!

 

[Albion in the north]

For me Paula Radcliffe has been one of the most disappointing athletes. Obviously incredibly talented.
Not won anything for "Team GB" since early 2000s but has managed to peak when massive sponsorship money has been involved. I.e. 2004, 2008 23rd and DNF in Olympics but managed to win New York Marathon both years.
Just my opinion, and not a very educated one at that.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

For me Paula Radcliffe has been one of the most disappointing athletes. Obviously incredibly talented.
Not won anything for "Team GB" since early 2000s but has managed to peak when massive sponsorship money has been involved. I.e. 2004, 2008 23rd and DNF in Olympics but managed to win New York Marathon both years.
Just my opinion, and not a very educated one at that.

You're correct on the very last point.

 

[Albion in the north]

You're correct on the very last point.

I think you'll find the facts are correct.
Opinion is just that. Yours no more or less valid than mine.
No need to be personal.

 

[Garry Nelson's teacher]

I don't think Paula is guilty and I certainly hope she isn't. But I'm getting a bit p****** off with the BBC coverage on this matter. When we had the World Championships I was one of those who thought that the coverage/demonisation of Justin Gatlin went a bit over the top - particularly Steve Cram's contribution. There is a kind of BBC orthodoxy that prevails among the team that commentates and analyses - among them Paula R.
Then yesterday Steve C was asked about the Paula issue and almost had a go at the reporter for even asking. It's as if the sainted ones who speak through the beeb are above criticism or even questioning and yet they can exercise huge editorial judgement on just about everyone else.
These are (were) great athletes and have forgotten more about the sport than the likes of me could ever remember - but I for one (and perhaps I'm alone in this) am getting a bit uncomfortable with the style of coverage.

 

[piersa]

Her legacy has been tainted by bullschit. A real shame. Clearly innocent.

 

[Tommy Tradlles]

I think you'll find the facts are correct.
Opinion is just that. Yours no more or less valid than mine.
No need to be personal.

Your facts are not correct. Paula Radcliffe won the 10,000 meters gold medal at the 2005 World Championships.

 

[Tommy Tradlles]

I don't think Paula is guilty and I certainly hope she isn't. But I'm getting a bit p****** off with the BBC coverage on this matter. When we had the World Championships I was one of those who thought that the coverage/demonisation of Justin Gatlin went a bit over the top - particularly Steve Cram's contribution. There is a kind of BBC orthodoxy that prevails among the team that commentates and analyses - among them Paula R.
Then yesterday Steve C was asked about the Paula issue and almost had a go at the reporter for even asking. It's as if the sainted ones who speak through the beeb are above criticism or even questioning and yet they can exercise huge editorial judgement on just about everyone else.
These are (were) great athletes and have forgotten more about the sport than the likes of me could ever remember - but I for one (and perhaps I'm alone in this) am getting a bit uncomfortable with the style of coverage.

The BBC's coverage of athletics is entirely biased towards home athletes. However, Gatlin failed two drugs test and Radcliffe hasn't failed any. She should be asked to prove her innocence as there isn't any reasonable grounds, at this current time, to doubt her integrity.

 

[dazzer6666]

For me Paula Radcliffe has been one of the most disappointing athletes. Obviously incredibly talented.
Not won anything for "Team GB" since early 2000s but has managed to peak when massive sponsorship money has been involved. I.e. 2004, 2008 23rd and DNF in Olympics but managed to win New York Marathon both years.
Just my opinion, and not a very educated one at that.

Point taken and understood, but for me there is a fine line between 'disappointing' and 'desperately unlucky', particularly when it comes to something like marathon running where the training takes a quite horrendous toll on the body at the elite level (140 miles a week at altitude anyone ??) and the risk of injury is so great, and you are so susceptible to a minor ailment (bad stomach, head cold etc) blowing your chances. I tend to think she has been more on the side of desperately unlucky with injury and illness coinciding with the one-day-in-4 year opportunities to run a perfect olympic race not happening. I imagine it takes more than cash to motivate someone to train for months and months to run a massive marathon WR - I just hope it was all down to training and nothing illegal.

She 'jogged around' the London marathon this year as a kind of farewell to the fans, having again had massively disrupted training (and being over 40 now). Her time qualified her for Rio next year.

 

[Surf's Up]

Her legacy has been tainted by bullschit. A real shame. Clearly innocent.

What is a bull's chit?

 

[Albion in the north]

Point taken and understood, but for me there is a fine line between 'disappointing' and 'desperately unlucky', particularly when it comes to something like marathon running where the training takes a quite horrendous toll on the body at the elite level (140 miles a week at altitude anyone ??) and the risk of injury is so great, and you are so susceptible to a minor ailment (bad stomach, head cold etc) blowing your chances. I tend to think she has been more on the side of desperately unlucky with injury and illness coinciding with the one-day-in-4 year opportunities to run a perfect olympic race not happening. I
imagine it takes more than cash to motivate someone to train for months and months to run a massive marathon WR - I just hope it was all down to training and nothing illegal.

She 'jogged around' the London marathon this year as a kind of farewell to the fans, having again had massively disrupted training (and being over 40 now). Her time qualified her for Rio next year.

Totally agree with you about the whole training regime and when to peak.
And I've never thought that she was guilty at all of doping , just feel that she chose to peak at other events than the olympic marathons. Maybe it was a contractual thing.

 

[dazzer6666]

Totally agree with you about the whole training regime and when to peak.
And I've never thought that she was guilty at all of doping , just feel that she chose to peak at other events than the olympic marathons. Maybe it was a contractual thing.

Possibly......although looking at her reaction to the Olympic failures,always seemed to be pretty devastated. I imagine her aims were to peak for the majors and the Olympics, just didn't work out that way. Her WR is up there with Bob Beamon's long jump though in terms of setting a whole new standard, and she proved it wasn't a one-off with a couple of back-up races. She has done very well out of the deals though, has to be said........

 

[piersa]

What is a bull's chit?

No idea, but bullschit is a way of escaping censorship.

 

[symyjym]

For me Paula Radcliffe has been one of the most disappointing athletes. Obviously incredibly talented.
Not won anything for "Team GB" since early 2000s but has managed to peak when massive sponsorship money has been involved. I.e. 2004, 2008 23rd and DNF in Olympics but managed to win New York Marathon both years.
Just my opinion, and not a very educated one at that.

Nah, she doesn’t even come close to the disappointment of Tim Henman. At least she won some things, and currently holds the marathon record.

 

[Pavilionaire]

If I was a clean medal-winning athlete I'd WANT to be tested and my results made public.

I heard her interview this morning and felt she was being incredibly naïve. As has been said earlier, the Lance Armstrong case is seminal because people trusted him too and he lied, now you don't know who you can trust and who you can't. I think Mo Farah did the right thing in publishing his data. People will always have their doubts about her now, she should realise that.

 

[Stat Brother]

If I was a clean medal-winning athlete I'd WANT to be tested and my results made public.

I heard her interview this morning and felt she was being incredibly naïve. As has been said earlier, the Lance Armstrong case is seminal because people trusted him too and he lied, now you don't know who you can trust and who you can't. I think Mo Farah did the right thing in publishing his data. People will always have their doubts about her now, she should realise that.

What Lance did was write the blue print on 'how to get away with cheating'.

What you have to, say, do, act.
How you train, where you train.
Explaining the wins and the loses.
Deflecting the media, stop the suspicion.

Obviously that manual eventually became 'how not to get away with cheating'.
Yet here we have 2 of Britain's highest profile athletes following in Lance's footprints.

It's brilliant that she stood track side and placarded her position back in 2001.
That's doing exactly what Lance never did, 1-0 TeamPaula.

But this isn't going away so clean athletes have to get out ahead of the juggernaut, now isn't the time for naivety.

(I've not listened to the interview, hence not being able to reference it)

 

[Indurain's Lungs]

What Lance did was write the blue print on 'how to get away with cheating'.

What you have to, say, do, act.
How you train, where you train.
Explaining the wins and the loses.
Deflecting the media, stop the suspicion.

Obviously that manual eventually became 'how not to get away with cheating'.
Yet here we have 2 of Britain's highest profile athletes following in Lance's footprints.

It's brilliant that she stood track side and placarded her position back in 2001.
That's doing exactly what Lance never did, 1-0 TeamPaula.

But this isn't going away so clean athletes have to get out ahead of the juggernaut, now isn't the time for naivety.

(I've not listened to the interview, hence not being able to reference it)

As people have pointed out, at the moment it is Radcliffe saying -

"My data would prove my innocence, its not even slightly suspicious"

"Will you release the data?"

"No, I don't have too, I'm innocent"

 

[Stat Brother]

As people have pointed out, at the moment it is Radcliffe saying -

"My data would prove my innocence, its not even slightly suspicious"

"Will you release the data?"

"No, I don't have too, I'm innocent"

A whole new spin on the situation

Is it naivety or arrogance that makes someone think that answer is acceptable?

 

[Megazone]

As people have pointed out, at the moment it is Radcliffe saying -

"My data would prove my innocence, its not even slightly suspicious"

"Will you release the data?"

"No, I don't have too, I'm innocent"

Well, that pretty much says it all.