We want to share an important update with our Betfair Community users.
Over the coming months, the Betfair Community platform will be winding down. The final active day for the platform will be December 21st. From December 22nd, users will no longer be able to access the platform.
Your discussions, insights, engagement, and, most importantly, feedback have helped shape the platform and guided innovation. Your feedback continues to be important to us, and we will continue to listen via our dedicated feedback channels, as well as through product testing and innovations.
To share your feedback and experience, visit: https://support.betfair.com/app/home
Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 180 comments are related to the topic:
Paula Radcliffe BBC news interview
Paula Radcliffe BBC news interview
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 180
|
By:
No evidence to even suggest she's a cheat
have you been paying attention? |
|
By:
I have to say that I've long been a consistent advocate of Radcliffe's to the point that my stance has been if she was at it then I could no longer retain any interest in the sport because it must be completely riddled. However, I'm deeply uneasy about what has come out and indeed her explanation for it. Yes it is quite true that altitude training can affect the result but my understanding is that the levels are set at a sufficiently high enough level to take into account natural fluctuations with a degree of margin. I continue to hope she is clean but now I hope whereas before I was reasonably sure.
|
|
By:
Two of her 'suspicious' tests were illegal after being taken too quickly after the race, one was marginally above expectation after running in 30°c heat
|
|
By:
oh yes the heat, well known cause for failing dope tests
 |
|
By:
You're not meant to take blood straight after intense exercises for a reason which is why they were not valid and especially when the body is over heated in warm weather.
|
|
By:
no way shes doping,look how skinny she is ffs
|
|
By:
GoBallistic
The athlete with the highly suspect blood parameters according to two of the world's leading blood profile experts (they say that on three occasions her profile was so abnormal that there was only a 1000-1 chance of being natural). This is what she says: “I welcome further investigation if it is necessary. However, multiple experts having already concluded contemporaneously and following the Sunday Times’ articles that there is simply no case to answer. I think it hard to think of two such contradictory statements nor indeed an easier way of validating them. If she is telling the truth where do you get your 1000-1 comment from? |
|
By:
blood passports are a new science, but if you cant boost your blood at altitude then there is no
point putting in the training as for 1000/1 shots .....they get busted everyday on here |
|
By:
Eeternaloptimist 08 Sep 15 23:34
I think it hard to think of two such contradictory statements nor indeed an easier way of validating them. If she is telling the truth where do you get your 1000-1 comment from? From the original Sunday Times article. "On three occasions during their career the athlete's test results were so abnormal that there was only a one in a thousand chance that they were natural". Their source is Ashenden and Parisotto the two anti-doping experts who analysed the thousands of tests of all the athletes. You can google their CVs. Everyone can make their own minds up about which experts to believe. I would argue that Ashenden and Parisotto would be independent and are happy to put their names / careers to the results |
|
By:
lance is laughing his head off
|
|
By:
Due to conditions not being consistent for every race the marathon is an event where you are going to get a wider range of times.
|
|
By:
You can have an exceptional marathon runner who on one particular day is mentally and physically in perfect conditioning and the course and weather and some other factors were also optimum for producing a record head and shoulders above anything witnessed before. There is no comparison with other events in this respect.
|
|
By:
paddletoe was Paula Radcliffe's world record all downhill hill then? (with a tailwind)
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
she was a BBC babe
 |
|
By:
amazing some dont see emperor has no clothes.
Say it aint so joe  |
|
By:
It did not mean she was racing down a hill. Just that course and weather must be factors. And that mentally on that one particular day she could find something inside to keep her going.
|
|
By:
on that one particular day she could find something inside to keep her going.
 |
|
By:
And when conditions for the marathon are never the same and the event is not run that often in varying degrees of favourable conditions the sample size is so small that it can produce one out of the ordinary performance.
|
|
By:
What do people think of her body language when she has talked about this?
|
|
By:
similar to lance Armstrong paddletoe I guess.
|
|
By:
I don't think she would be able to deceitfully protest her innocence in the same way Armstrong did as their personalities are different. If she was willing to give some interviews which were not just prepared statement I think that would be a good sign she has nothing to hide.
My own feeling is that she is totally clean. |
|
By:
you have a 'feeling' based on her 'personality', but blood doping experts say its 1000/1 chance she is clean based on her blood passport
|
|
By:
@brendanuk1 -- blood doping experts say its 1000/1 chance she is clean based on her blood passport
Is that what they are saying? Abnormal and unclean or doped are not the same things, and as Radcliffe says, there is no context. Jesse Norman, MP who chairs the select committee, seems now to be rowing back slightly. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34195458 |
|
By:
I did not say that Brendan.
|
|
By:
Probably had daily lessons at Nike on how to answer doping questions
Obviously here blood results are completely off the scale otherwise she'd show them. Unbelievable someone can go on about transparency then refuse to show their own stats |
|
By:
I've always liked her so I hope she's clean. But she hasn't helped herself by writing a 170 page defence (what's the saying "thou doth protest too much")
 |
|
By:
I'd be pretty confident she is telling the truth. And i don't see anything wrong with a 170 page defence in the circumstances. It is after all a very complicated subject.
|
|
By:
where is this 170 page defence ?
|
|
By:
athletics was finished long ago I'm afraid, public lost its confidence. Fact they let them back into the sport once they have served a SUSPENSE IS FARCICAL.
|
|
By:
Was Paula given a magic potion that she wasn't aware of what was in it.
|
|
By:
lies,damned lies & statistics
there will always be 'experts' who can give plausible 'explanations' on both sides of the coin would be surprised if this were irrefutably provable either way but now it's out will always be the no smoke w/o fire brigade think her reputation will now be forever sullied in some peoples estimation shame how winning at all costs has besmirched athletics & cycling |
|
By:
Newsnight now
|
|
By:
I havnt followed this story or read this thread, but I have caught bits in the news.
Whatever the rights or wrongs of imperfect tests or potential c heating the position she is now in is pretty clear. She said the other day that all this was besmirching her career. Now she says she refuses to provide the evidence or go back to the committee. Well she might be correct that there are flaws in the system, but I'm afraid you can't have both legacy and opaqueness. If you want legacy then you have to disprove allegations by putting your case forward, that includes the results and how errors might have occurred. What is worrying (not to me because I think athletics is 5hit) is the nature of her defence. You don't finger point in complaint and then go defensive normally unless there's reason to do so. |
|
By:
Paula whining horribly now - of course she's the victim in all this - forgetting that she has brought this on herself with her statement when noone else was interested in an obscure parliamentary hearing. She needs to get herself some new crisis managers. And unlike other athletes she won't release her data - and yet again she's the heroine here standing up for what's right.
|
|
By:
why won't she release her data? "I don't need to. I'm clean". Okaaaay!
|
|
By:
I don't really see what good releasing the data would do. Who would be trusted to interpret it ? The Sunday Times already has the data anyway, doesn't it ?
She can't prove her innocence, people will just point at Lance Armstrong and Marion Jones and say "ah, but they never failed tests". You can see that attitude on this thread. In many peoples eyes, she can only be proved guilty, not innocent. |
|
By:
She was ADVISED by the World Anti Doping Authority not to release her data because of people like you, people who wouldn't understand the results and would jump to the wrong conclusion, and you're not the only one, every one is suddenly a structural engineer when it comes to 911 twin towers collapse, everyone was suddenly Colombo when Madeline McCann went missing, everyone is suddenly a sports scientist when an athlete's blood data is released, everyone adds 2 and 2 and come up with the wrong answer.
|
|
By:
Won't wash I'm afraid. Mo Farah and Jo Pavey published their data - they had nothing to hide - noone expert or not saw anything wrong.
|
|
By:
Won't wash I'm afraid. Mo Farah and Jo Pavey published their data
So do you now believe Farah is a clean athlete ? |