Paula Radcliffe to run london marathon in April

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jul 17, 2012
2,051
0
0
ray j willings said:
Does anyone here think Radcliffe will win in april?
No. She's aiming for a time of 2:30-2:40, depending on how her foot holds up and probably won't even be in the elite race. She might do well in the over 40s, though!
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Wallace and Gromit said:
The European Court of Human Rights - http://merlin.obs.coe.int/iris/2002/7/article3.en.html

One section is interesting re burden of proof: "In 1998, the jury found that the article contained defamatory allegations and found that McVicar had not proved that the article was substantially true."
again, who says they applied the law correctly...
there is room for error in every court room, but you knew that.
I think what you're trying to say is that we have to accept the ruling because the European Court of Human rights says so, not that the ruling itself is necessarily correct.
 
Wallace and Gromit said:
No. She's aiming for a time of 2:30-2:40, depending on how her foot holds up and probably won't even be in the elite race. She might do well in the over 40s, though!
There have been some very good performances by
British women aged 40 plus in the past including:
Priscilla Welch 2:26.51 in 1987
Joyce Smith 2:29.42 in 1982
 
Jul 26, 2012
524
0
0
Wallace and Gromit said:
The European Court of Human Rights - http://merlin.obs.coe.int/iris/2002/7/article3.en.html

One section is interesting re burden of proof: "In 1998, the jury found that the article contained defamatory allegations and found that McVicar had not proved that the article was substantially true."
Of course he couldn't prove his article was substantially true. Christie saw to it that McVicar was barred from producing his evidence as I've tried to explain. His main witness was blocked from appearing. The article in fact wasn't a libel. It was true and the publication of true facts cannot by definition amount to libel. Remembering back, the whole case became a farce after the judge, naively, failed to grasp what 'Christie's lunchbox' was all about. It was Christie himself who brought the matter up. He drew the court's attention to the notion of his lunchbox, cleverly positioning it as an unfair racial sterotype and thus distracted both judge and jury from his other, wholly unnatural physical attributes. McVicar was outsmarted from start to finish.
 
Jul 17, 2012
2,051
0
0
sniper said:
again, who says they applied the law correctly...
there is room for error in every court room, but you knew that.
I think what you're trying to say is that we have to accept the ruling because the European Court of Human rights says so, not that the ruling itself is necessarily correct.
On the one hand, the original trial judge declared key evidence inadmissible, a decision that was confirmed by the UK appeal court and the European Court of Human Rights.

On the other hand, we have some anonymous internet keyboard warriors of no known legal training saying that the evidence should have been admitted.

If it's all right with you, I'll go with the view of the experts!

There's doubt about many things in life, but I've never read anything from you expressing doubt over a positive test for PEDs, even though the science behind the tests acknowledges that there is a chance (albeit a very small one) of a false positive, so it seems strange that you should now be highlighting the doubts that exist in the legal system! Actually, not so strange given that the result of this particular legal case didn't result in confirmation of doping.
 
Jul 17, 2012
2,051
0
0
zebedee said:
Christie saw to it that McVicar was barred from producing his evidence as I've tried to explain.
Indeed. But my point in that under the legal framework prevailing at the time, this was correct, a view supported by the UK appeal court and the ECHR.

Per the ECHR judgement, both sides were invited in June 1996 to exchange statements, evidence etc. by April 1997. The trail was listed to start on Monday 15th June 1998.

McVicar didn't present the specific evidence to Christie's legal team that he wanted to use until 3pm on the Friday before the trail was listed to commence and as such was declared inadmissible. Allowing opposing parties the time to respond to evidence is a key element of ensuring a fair trial, so it doesn't seem unreasonable that the evidence was declared inadmissible.

I strongly suspect that if you were due in court on Monday and evidence against you was only presented on the preceding Friday despite the other side having had months to prepare their case, then you'd be asking your legal team to have it declared inadmissible. And this is the key point here - if you'd be happy for established rules to be set aside in one case then you'd logically have to be happy for them to be set aside when this would be to the detriment of you or one of your nearest and dearest.

You'll note that I have not passed any judgement on the potential veracity of McVicar's case. (FWIW, I've never liked Christie and share your views on the reasons for his success.) I'm only interested here in the legal process. It's not my fault or Christie's fault that McVicar shot himself in both feet.
 
Jul 26, 2012
524
0
0
The fact he was barred from introducing evidence was entirely a matter of his case preparation (lack of it) rather than anything to do with the quality of his evidence.

Why don't you read the background rather than make foolish remarks?
 
Jul 17, 2012
2,051
0
0
oldcrank said:
There have been some very good performances by
British women aged 40 plus in the past including:
Priscilla Welch 2:26.51 in 1987
Joyce Smith 2:29.42 in 1982
Thanks. I remember both names though had forgotten just how fast they were. I'm surprised no-one has come along to accuse them of doping to achieve those performances!
 
zebedee said:
The fact he was barred from introducing evidence was entirely a matter of his case preparation (lack of it) rather than anything to do with the quality of his evidence.

Why don't you read the background rather than make foolish remarks?
Is anyone arguing otherwise? Certainly W&G doesn't seem to be?

Back to Radcliffe - so from what I can tell she was on the list for suspicious blood values, but was pregnant at the time, and used that as an excuse - which on the face of it is not a ridiculous excuse. Does anyone who knows about these things have any insight into how the effects of pregnancy might affect blood passport values? I know you produce a whole lot more blood, but don't know what the extra volume does to the specifics.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
RownhamHill said:
Is anyone arguing otherwise? Certainly W&G doesn't seem to be?

Back to Radcliffe - so from what I can tell she was on the list for suspicious blood values, but was pregnant at the time, and used that as an excuse - which on the face of it is not a ridiculous excuse. Does anyone who knows about these things have any insight into how the effects of pregnancy might affect blood passport values? I know you produce a whole lot more blood, but don't know what the extra volume does to the specifics.
i dont know if it is known to what extent the dates overlap/coincide, if at all.
 
Jul 17, 2012
2,051
0
0
zebedee said:
The fact he was barred from introducing evidence was entirely a matter of his case preparation (lack of it) rather than anything to do with the quality of his evidence.
That's somewhat disingenuous. McVicar had from June 1996 (two years before the trial started!) to introduce his evidence, so he was not barred from introducing evidence. He simply introduced the evidence he wanted to use too late for it to be considered properly before the trial started, so its admittance would have resulted in an unfair trial.

The evidence may have been the best, most compelling ever, and personally I think it's a shame McVicar didn't line his ducks up so that it could be tested in court.
 
Jul 26, 2012
524
0
0
Wallace and Gromit said:
Indeed. But my point in that under the legal framework prevailing at the time, this was correct, a view supported by the UK appeal court and the ECHR.
The legal framework still largely prevails today. Cases like McVicar's eventually led to some reform of libel law.

I realise how taxing it must be for you to engage with a mere keyboard warrior. However, you're another who barks up the wrong tree. I don't question the appropriateness or otherwise of the court's decision. One respects that. That is the law. But that's all irrelevant to me, regrettable though the outcome was. The case to me is interesting first, because I came across a couple of the individuals connected to it and came to an appreciation of just how widespread doping was in sport. More importantly, because it provides an interesting perspective on how the law as applied can be manipulated to get an outcome diametrically opposite to the basic truth. The law can act as an ***. Christie wasn't libelled. Even a humble keyboard warrior can, with hindsight, judge that what McVicar wrote was substantially true and moreover that publication was in the public interest.
 
Jul 26, 2012
524
0
0
Wallace and Gromit said:
That's somewhat disingenuous. . .
Really? I expressed a view consistent with the facts you highlight; that McVicar came to grief because of a lack of case preparation. I see no disingenuity in that.
 
Wallace and Gromit said:
On the one hand, the original trial judge declared key evidence inadmissible, a decision that was confirmed by the UK appeal court and the European Court of Human Rights.

On the other hand, we have some anonymous internet keyboard warriors of no known legal training saying that the evidence should have been admitted.

If it's all right with you, I'll go with the view of the experts!

There's doubt about many things in life, but I've never read anything from you expressing doubt over a positive test for PEDs, even though the science behind the tests acknowledges that there is a chance (albeit a very small one) of a false positive, so it seems strange that you should now be highlighting the doubts that exist in the legal system! Actually, not so strange given that the result of this particular legal case didn't result in confirmation of doping.
You have a shockingly naive faith in the omniscience and omnipotence of the legal system

Judges don't become experts on a subject just by getting the case. They have been wrong millions of tines. Especially in professional sport where se have seen dozens of cases where people caught red handed got let off.

More importantly though, what you are doing is arguing from authority not merit. As in saying that the more senior person must be right and not the one with the most convincing argument. Which is strange in this case because the judge doesn't seem to have been any kind of authority on doping in the first place.

Ps do you actually think Christie was clean?
 
Jul 17, 2012
2,051
0
0
zebedee said:
Really? I expressed a view consistent with the facts you highlight; that McVicar came to grief because of a lack of case preparation. I see no disingenuity in that.
Sorry - I should have clarified that it was your claim that McVicar was barred from introducing evidence to which I was referring. This is obviously not true. It was just introducing it the Friday before the court case started on the Monday having had two years to introduce it that was barred. (And reasonably so.)
 
Jul 17, 2012
2,051
0
0
The Hitch said:
You have a shockingly naive faith in the omniscience and omnipotence of the legal system

Judges don't become experts on a subject just by getting the case. They have been wrong millions of tines. Especially in professional sport where se have seen dozens of cases where people caught red handed got let off.

More importantly though, what you are doing is arguing from authority not merit. As in saying that the more senior person must be right and not the one with the most convincing argument. Which is strange in this case because the judge doesn't seem to have been any kind of authority on doping in the first place.

Ps do you actually think Christie was clean?
You've obviously not read much of what I've written. I'm not addressing the issue of Christie's doping. (Though as I wrote up-thread, I agree with Zebedee as to the reason for Christie's success as an athlete.)

I was specifically addressing the processes that were followed that led to McVicar's evidence being ruled inadmissible. The potential for fallibility in the trial judge's ruling here is dealt with via the UK Court of Appeal and the ECHR. The appeal judge and the 7-member panel of the ECHR agreed with the trial judge, and on balance, I'll go with their view rather than the view of some folk on the internet who think they might have got it wrong.

Just for the avoidance of doubt: I AM COMMENTING SOLELY ON THE LEGAL PROCESS AND MAKE NO COMMENT ON THE VERACITY OF McVICAR'S CLAIMS.

And just to be sure: I AM COMMENTING SOLELY ON THE LEGAL PROCESS AND MAKE NO COMMENT ON THE VERACITY OF McVICAR'S CLAIMS.

And for the avoidance of more doubt: I THINK CHRISTIE WAS A DOPER.
 
Jul 17, 2012
2,051
0
0
zebedee said:
...That is the law. But that's all irrelevant to me...
That's an outrageous view. The law of the land is sacrosanct. You should be strung up from the nearest tree immediately to teach you a lesson.
 
sniper said:
i dont know if it is known to what extent the dates overlap/coincide, if at all.
No, neither do I, I think I was going on Race Radio's tweets - I'm just interested if anyone has any insight into what you'd expect pregnancy to do to a blood passport.
 
The Hitch said:
You have a shockingly naive faith in the omniscience and omnipotence of the legal system

Judges don't become experts on a subject just by getting the case. They have been wrong millions of tines. Especially in professional sport where se have seen dozens of cases where people caught red handed got let off.

More importantly though, what you are doing is arguing from authority not merit. As in saying that the more senior person must be right and not the one with the most convincing argument. Which is strange in this case because the judge doesn't seem to have been any kind of authority on doping in the first place.

Ps do you actually think Christie was clean?
Let me try one more time to help with this. I back W&G's comments all the way because, as zebedee has been kind enough to agree as well, McVicar lost his case because he did not comply with the rules of procedure, so that his best evidence was not heard. It may have made all the difference to the outcome.

You can think what you like about rules of procedure and about authority in general, but they are a way that was devised to prevent (in this context) new evidence being sprung on the other side with inadequate notice and details. This is not Perry Mason territory.

The fact that the outcome was wrong, that Christie was later proved to be a doper, that McVicar was right all along is only something that can be known (in a legal sense) with hindsight.

As W&G indicated, McVicar had all the time in the world to get his ducks in a row and he failed to do so. It's not necessary to agree with how the court rules are framed to come to this simple conclusion.

If somebody says something about someone else that was damaging within the context of libel law and pleads justification as a defence because it was true but he fails to show it was true he will lose. Simple as that. McVicar failed. Every other argument about this is based on hindsight.

Should he have failed? Not if you look at matters while at the same time disregarding why he failed. Yes if you think he just failed to play the litigation game right.

Nobody has suggested judges or juries are infallible - patently they aren't. Patently they also often don't know the background to every situation - it is for the litigants to enlighten them. But if one finds oneself enmeshed with the law it is desirable to give oneself the best chance. McVicar didn't.

Zebedee produced the link to the Telegraph report. He says he does not disagree with Josha Rozenberg, the author. He would do well, then, to stop trying to confuse hindsight with the legal niceties.

And I wasn't best pleased to be called by him nitpicking, considering the extensive attention given to this by others since I last posted.
 
RownhamHill said:
No, neither do I, I think I was going on Race Radio's tweets - I'm just interested if anyone has any insight into what you'd expect pregnancy to do to a blood passport.
Its certainly going to affect it, and I doubt there is any good research on it to date. The passport has certainly been developed with the science being mostly conducted on male athletes.

HCT and HGB tend to decrease as a pregnancy develops.
HCT normal rnage for a adult (non-athelete) is 35-44
By the 3rd trimester that has dropped to 28-40

(based on http://www.babymed.com/laboratory-values/hematocrit-whole-blood-during-pregnancy , other sites have slightly different normal ranges but the trend is always down)

So maybe a late pregnancy blood value could look like someone has banked a unit or two.

I have no idea if the alleged red flag coincides with the pregnancy or not, just answering the question.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY