Paula Radcliffe to run london marathon in April

Page 6 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
paula ran faster than anyone ever thanks to grit and determination.............please move along..........nothing to see here

Mark L

what's that?.........at the first sign of adversity sweet paula bursts into tears............
 
Re:

ebandit said:
paula ran faster than anyone ever thanks to grit and determination.............please move along..........nothing to see here

Mark L

what's that?.........at the first sign of adversity sweet paula bursts into tears............
You know who else defiantly claimed being clean, dope-free, took lie detector tests, attacked anyone claiming her performances were suspicious? Marion Jones. She broke down in tears while confessing to only doping for a short time with BALCO. Just that short time...

If you hang around these IOC sports long enough you see the same stories replayed. IOC is probably putting some pressure on to keep the list hidden.

If Ms. Radcliff was clean, publishing her test data would end the controversy. Somehow, I don't think that's going to happen... ;)
 
Re:

SkyTears said:
Guys i have a list with 100 cyclist names that produced dodgy testing results but never been folowed up.

It has 1 italian, 1 colombian, 1 spanish and 1 british high profile riders on it.

p.s. if you have such thing show it or stfu. i have something big in my pants to, come and check my show.
this is so funny :D
 
Paula Radcliffe did not really have a suspicious trajectory. I remember watching her win the World Junior XC Championship by a distance. I doubt very much that she was juiced then. Under those circumstances, until the list is revealed and subject to scrutiny, I don't think there's much to suggest that she is a doper. She has been a vehement anti-doping spokesperson for years....unlike most cyclists and the "I've never tested positive" types.
I think it's fine to question her but I think too many clinic assumptions are being made. The sneery stuff about her defecating in the gutter doesn't edify the discussion much either.
 
Dec 7, 2010
8,773
2
0
Re:

armchairclimber said:
Paula Radcliffe did not really have a suspicious trajectory. I remember watching her win the World Junior XC Championship by a distance. I doubt very much that she was juiced then. Under those circumstances, until the list is revealed and subject to scrutiny, I don't think there's much to suggest that she is a doper. She has been a vehement anti-doping spokesperson for years....unlike most cyclists and the "I've never tested positive" types.
I think it's fine to question her but I think too many clinic assumptions are being made. The sneery stuff about her defecating in the gutter doesn't edify the discussion much either.
Someday you will look back on this post and think how naive beliefs in an athlete will make you post things that otherwise might not seem logical. Time will tell but stats say that these endurance athletes today are doped up full bore.
 
Maybe I will. I'm always willing to be proven wrong. I'm guessing that I know a good deal more about track and field than you do though. Just guessing mind. I could be wrong there too.
Oh, and I am pretty well aware that a good many of today's endurance athletes are blood doping in some way or other. My belief that Radcliffe was straight does not preclude that.
I'm extremely suspicious of Mo Farah for instance....although I reckon he has been "bending the rules" rather than doping with EPO.
 
You are the one bringing nationality into it, and laying bare your bigotry, not me. Farah is British. I don't believe Froome to be clean for one minute .... he's British (sort of). If you're going to have a pop at me, you'd better find some more secure ground than that.
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
0
0
Re:

armchairclimber said:
You are the one bringing nationality into it, and laying bare your bigotry, not me. Farah is British. I don't believe Froome to be clean for one minute .... he's British (sort of). If you're going to have a pop at me, you'd better find some more secure ground than that.
yeah I'm sure you'd come up with the same horseshit excuses if Radcliffe was Kenyan.
 
May 26, 2010
28,144
2
0
Re:

armchairclimber said:
Maybe I will. I'm always willing to be proven wrong. I'm guessing that I know a good deal more about track and field than you do though. Just guessing mind. I could be wrong there too.
Oh, and I am pretty well aware that a good many of today's endurance athletes are blood doping in some way or other. My belief that Radcliffe was straight does not preclude that.
I'm extremely suspicious of Mo Farah for instance....although I reckon he has been "bending the rules" rather than doping with EPO.
There are simple questions to be asked.

How does a clean athlete beat Nations where they have national doping programs funded by governments?

How does a clean athlete beat the likes of Balco's athletes who are taking PEDs that there is no test for?

How many Balco's are there out there fabricating new PEDs that are undetected? We know there are over 100 variations of EPO and not all can be tested for?

Why believe an athlete when they dont release information to show they are transparent?

How does a clean athlete beat doped ones when the international federations are more interested in how the sport makes money rather than anti doping?
 
Re:

armchairclimber said:
Paula Radcliffe did not really have a suspicious trajectory. I remember watching her win the World Junior XC Championship by a distance. I doubt very much that she was juiced then. Under those circumstances, until the list is revealed and subject to scrutiny, I don't think there's much to suggest that she is a doper. She has been a vehement anti-doping spokesperson for years....unlike most cyclists and the "I've never tested positive" types.
I think it's fine to question her but I think too many clinic assumptions are being made. The sneery stuff about her defecating in the gutter doesn't edify the discussion much either.
The only reason her trajectory could look normal is by comparing it to her compatriots like Froome and Wiggans. Farah too as he lays out to set WRs outdoors. In 2001, when she was definatly a 10k runner by this point, she runs her best 1500m, andher best HM time. She was pure middle distance before that, but somehow improved on those cedntials by training as long distance. You don't get better moving farther away from specificity.

No one mirrors her trajectory in terms if magnitude. Yes, they make a neat little graph, but that graph is wider than anyone else, spanning a range of distances and performances unmirrored by any other athlete, clean or dirty.

The current crop of marathon elites are career marathoners. It's not some race they do as the age, they are cropped to marathon specific training from a young age (young professionally, 20ish). Yet somehow this miler found the light in plyometrics and lowerbody weights.
 
Re:

armchairclimber said:
Paula Radcliffe did not really have a suspicious trajectory. I remember watching her win the World Junior XC Championship by a distance. I doubt very much that she was juiced then. Under those circumstances, until the list is revealed and subject to scrutiny, I don't think there's much to suggest that she is a doper. She has been a vehement anti-doping spokesperson for years....unlike most cyclists and the "I've never tested positive" types.
I think it's fine to question her but I think too many clinic assumptions are being made. The sneery stuff about her defecating in the gutter doesn't edify the discussion much either.
Actually there is only one assumption being made- that race radio was telling the truth. Which is not exactly a major leap to take.
 
Re:

armchairclimber said:
You are the one bringing nationality into it, and laying bare your bigotry, not me. Farah is British. I don't believe Froome to be clean for one minute .... he's British (sort of). If you're going to have a pop at me, you'd better find some more secure ground than that.
You are kinda right that sceptic was out of line going straight to the nationality card there. Your posting history does not deserve it.

However I do find your "farah is British" quote strange. Did you think your comment was critical of farah?
You said you don't believe he takes epo but instead is merely "bending the rules". In my book that is about as pro farah a comment as you could make. Even the forums biggest brit homer martinvickers, who strongly believed and argued that brits don't dope as much as everyone else threw farah to the wolves.(though admittedly, only as a way of asking for posters to focus on him and not froome and Wiggins)

If farah can dominate like he has last few years by merely bending the rules a little, even coming close to the 1500 wr, then that means he's doing it all on talent.

I don't get it. Brailsford himself said something like if I cheat or Monday I'll cheat on Tuesday, meaning, that jf you cheat you go all in. Why would athletes only bend the rules a little? What's the point of doing it only a little. That way your taking the same risks as an actual cheater but getting almost nothing from it.

And I don't consider it a remotely brave nor critical position. Feels like a weak compromise - oh I don't want to believe the guy is doping but people will mock me if I say he's clean so let's just say he bends the rules.

Its braver to just say he's clean. If any athlete actually only took a few puffs of cough medicine they are clean in my book. If farah never took real drugs and just "bent the rules" as far as I'm concerned he's clean and one of the greatest athletes in history. I have no time to go after people for taking worthless meaningless shortcuts worth a few tenths of a second when world sport is so polluted with people transforming themselves into superhulks.

This is about the real drugs that make a real difference.
 
Re: Re:

Benotti69 said:
armchairclimber said:
Maybe I will. I'm always willing to be proven wrong. I'm guessing that I know a good deal more about track and field than you do though. Just guessing mind. I could be wrong there too.
Oh, and I am pretty well aware that a good many of today's endurance athletes are blood doping in some way or other. My belief that Radcliffe was straight does not preclude that.
I'm extremely suspicious of Mo Farah for instance....although I reckon he has been "bending the rules" rather than doping with EPO.
There are simple questions to be asked.

How does a clean athlete beat Nations where they have national doping programs funded by governments?

How does a clean athlete beat the likes of Balco's athletes who are taking PEDs that there is no test for?

How many Balco's are there out there fabricating new PEDs that are undetected? We know there are over 100 variations of EPO and not all can be tested for?

Why believe an athlete when they dont release information to show they are transparent?

How does a clean athlete beat doped ones when the international federations are more interested in how the sport makes money rather than anti doping?
What marathon runners did conte dope at balco.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
can i do my gordostoun muscular christianity post or is it getting old hat? ok, i wont do it then.

run like chariots of fire paula. run paula run
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
Re:

armchairclimber said:
Paula Radcliffe did not really have a suspicious trajectory. I remember watching her win the World Junior XC Championship by a distance. I doubt very much that she was juiced then. Under those circumstances, until the list is revealed and subject to scrutiny, I don't think there's much to suggest that she is a doper. She has been a vehement anti-doping spokesperson for years....unlike most cyclists and the "I've never tested positive" types.
I think it's fine to question her but I think too many clinic assumptions are being made. The sneery stuff about her defecating in the gutter doesn't edify the discussion much either.
what was the catchment of the World Junior Championship?

was it really the W O R L D ???

the pool of athletes entering such competitions is smaller than what you believe.

If you know you are going to be protected, you may as well issue motherhood statements on anti-doping to build your positive Q-rating. If anything, it goes to evidence proving her behaviour on the spectrum of psychopathy
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
Re:

armchairclimber said:
Maybe I will. I'm always willing to be proven wrong. I'm guessing that I know a good deal more about track and field than you do though. Just guessing mind. I could be wrong there too.
Oh, and I am pretty well aware that a good many of today's endurance athletes are blood doping in some way or other. My belief that Radcliffe was straight does not preclude that.
I'm extremely suspicious of Mo Farah for instance....although I reckon he has been "bending the rules" rather than doping with EPO.
here we have a dichotomy on PEDs v clean performances.

We know the PEDs give material advantage, minimum few percent. We know Olympic events are determined by less than 1% on time. We know the best marginal gains Brailsford regime, is merely the rounding error on a comprehensive doping program.

So, if a clean athlete sets a world record, they must be a few percentage points better than any other athlete on the start line.

The Olympic athletes ARE ALL off the bell curve. They are all a good half dozen standard deviations from the mean, on their native genetics.

So, these athletes, who are already half-dozen standard deviations from mean in their natural genetic talent, who are now doping, we have some once in a millennium athlete, whose native genetics trump the talented athletes who dope?

you sure about this?

sounds a bit bullsh!t
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
Re: Re:

The Hitch said:
Benotti69 said:
armchairclimber said:
Maybe I will. I'm always willing to be proven wrong. I'm guessing that I know a good deal more about track and field than you do though. Just guessing mind. I could be wrong there too.
Oh, and I am pretty well aware that a good many of today's endurance athletes are blood doping in some way or other. My belief that Radcliffe was straight does not preclude that.
I'm extremely suspicious of Mo Farah for instance....although I reckon he has been "bending the rules" rather than doping with EPO.
There are simple questions to be asked.

How does a clean athlete beat Nations where they have national doping programs funded by governments?

How does a clean athlete beat the likes of Balco's athletes who are taking PEDs that there is no test for?

How many Balco's are there out there fabricating new PEDs that are undetected? We know there are over 100 variations of EPO and not all can be tested for?

Why believe an athlete when they dont release information to show they are transparent?

How does a clean athlete beat doped ones when the international federations are more interested in how the sport makes money rather than anti doping?
What marathon runners did conte dope at balco.
I know why this does not happen, but run with me in this thought experiment.

lets forget about the potentially prohibitive cost for this thought experiment,

lets say a hypothetical clean elite athlete (as I said, thought experiment, hypothetical it is), this hypothetical athlete, instead of pissing into two jars, pissed into four jars, two for him, and gets them sent to the same WADA certified lab, so he can see his results and markers, and what a clean athlete is. Because I dont believe the testing that Garmin does is of the hypothetical clean athlete.

This clean athlete is not testing to manage his bio-parameters, he is happy to see, or she is happy to see his or her cortisol go up and down and other blood markers. The athlete does not take any vitamins or other supplements like whey protein or creatine or glutamine. They just eat fresh food. Lets say they are vegetarian too. Maybe dairy of fish for B-12 and the fish oil. Then they see the results of what the clean olympic calibre athlete's urine and blood markers look like. not this Garmin nonsense
 
BTW heres the podium from the '92 junior xc race.

Paula Radcliffe United Kingdom 13:30
Wang Junxia China 13:35
Lydia Cheromei Kenya 13:43

I don't know why people assume athletes under the age of 18 are protected or immune from doping. I would put my hand to the fire that Junxia was knee deep in state sponsored PEDs, and Cheromei (who tested positive later in her career) would take whatever pill whatever agent gave her for a shot to be a star, given the state of female talent development at the time.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Re:

More Strides than Rides said:
BTW heres the podium from the '92 junior xc race.

Paula Radcliffe United Kingdom 13:30
Wang Junxia China 13:35
Lydia Cheromei Kenya 13:43

I don't know why people assume athletes under the age of 18 are protected or immune from doping. I would put my hand to the fire that Junxia was knee deep in state sponsored PEDs, and Cheromei (who tested positive later in her career) would take whatever pill whatever agent gave her for a shot to be a star, given the state of female talent development at the time.
great post.
the "he/she was good as a youngster already so nothing to see here" argument needs revision.
and so does the view that youngsters only get doped in China/East Germany ,and third world countries.
 
Re: Re:

More Strides than Rides said:
armchairclimber said:
Paula Radcliffe did not really have a suspicious trajectory. I remember watching her win the World Junior XC Championship by a distance. I doubt very much that she was juiced then. Under those circumstances, until the list is revealed and subject to scrutiny, I don't think there's much to suggest that she is a doper. She has been a vehement anti-doping spokesperson for years....unlike most cyclists and the "I've never tested positive" types.
I think it's fine to question her but I think too many clinic assumptions are being made. The sneery stuff about her defecating in the gutter doesn't edify the discussion much either.
The only reason her trajectory could look normal is by comparing it to her compatriots like Froome and Wiggans. Farah too as he lays out to set WRs outdoors. In 2001, when she was definatly a 10k runner by this point, she runs her best 1500m, andher best HM time. She was pure middle distance before that, but somehow improved on those cedntials by training as long distance. You don't get better moving farther away from specificity.

No one mirrors her trajectory in terms if magnitude. Yes, they make a neat little graph, but that graph is wider than anyone else, spanning a range of distances and performances unmirrored by any other athlete, clean or dirty.

The current crop of marathon elites are career marathoners. It's not some race they do as the age, they are cropped to marathon specific training from a young age (young professionally, 20ish). Yet somehow this miler found the light in plyometrics and lowerbody weights.
Gabrisillase has a more spectacular trajectory than Radford, he won world titles or set world records at most distances from 1500m to marathon, Radcliffe did sweet FA at the shorter distances despite your assertion she was a miler, as far as i can remember the shortest distance she was competitive at was 3,000 and that usually resulted in her hopeless kick being exposed.
 
Re: Re:

The Hitch said:
armchairclimber said:
You are the one bringing nationality into it, and laying bare your bigotry, not me. Farah is British. I don't believe Froome to be clean for one minute .... he's British (sort of). If you're going to have a pop at me, you'd better find some more secure ground than that.
You are kinda right that sceptic was out of line going straight to the nationality card there. Your posting history does not deserve it.

However I do find your "farah is British" quote strange. Did you think your comment was critical of farah?
You said you don't believe he takes epo but instead is merely "bending the rules". In my book that is about as pro farah a comment as you could make. Even the forums biggest brit homer martinvickers, who strongly believed and argued that brits don't dope as much as everyone else threw farah to the wolves.(though admittedly, only as a way of asking for posters to focus on him and not froome and Wiggins)

If farah can dominate like he has last few years by merely bending the rules a little, even coming close to the 1500 wr, then that means he's doing it all on talent.

I don't get it. Brailsford himself said something like if I cheat or Monday I'll cheat on Tuesday, meaning, that jf you cheat you go all in. Why would athletes only bend the rules a little? What's the point of doing it only a little. That way your taking the same risks as an actual cheater but getting almost nothing from it.

And I don't consider it a remotely brave nor critical position. Feels like a weak compromise - oh I don't want to believe the guy is doping but people will mock me if I say he's clean so let's just say he bends the rules.

Its braver to just say he's clean. If any athlete actually only took a few puffs of cough medicine they are clean in my book. If farah never took real drugs and just "bent the rules" as far as I'm concerned he's clean and one of the greatest athletes in history. I have no time to go after people for taking worthless meaningless shortcuts worth a few tenths of a second when world sport is so polluted with people transforming themselves into superhulks.

This is about the real drugs that make a real difference.
On the Farah front, I think the likelihood is that Thyroid meds are being used inappropriately but I don't believe him to be blood doping. You are right though, abuse of TUEs is doping and should be called as such.
 
Re: Re:

The Hitch said:
armchairclimber said:
Paula Radcliffe did not really have a suspicious trajectory. I remember watching her win the World Junior XC Championship by a distance. I doubt very much that she was juiced then. Under those circumstances, until the list is revealed and subject to scrutiny, I don't think there's much to suggest that she is a doper. She has been a vehement anti-doping spokesperson for years....unlike most cyclists and the "I've never tested positive" types.
I think it's fine to question her but I think too many clinic assumptions are being made. The sneery stuff about her defecating in the gutter doesn't edify the discussion much either.
Actually there is only one assumption being made- that race radio was telling the truth. Which is not exactly a major leap to take.
Agreed re. Race Radio, though I don't think his word should always be taken as gospel. Even if her name is on the list, I think that further scrutiny of the what/why/where is required before the assumption that she is doing is made.

Personally, I think that the reason that Radcliffe has been so vocal as an anti-PED campaigner is because she really does feel wronged: that she should have won more during her career and that she was beaten by cheats along the way. She has always been quick over long endurance events, she has just been unable to convert that ability into major championship medals. Dave Bedford was similar (admittedly in a much much slower era).
 
If it was her on the list, and I see absolutely no reason why RR would make that up, its not like he's had a grudge against her, than as far as Im concerned, she waived any right to "benefit of the doubt" by a) covering it up in the first place, and b) unleashing a team of lawyers to kill the story when the lies were exposed for a second time.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS