Chit Chat
Paula Radcliffe BBC news interview
|
By:
He will need to analyise the results first.
|
|
By:
SH
She may very well be in the right, she may never have cheated and potential irregularities easily explained. The problem is that she wants her legacy in tact but also wants to decide the scrutiny of the evidence (in part, I believe she has already provided reasonable reasoning, but thats for others to determine) She can not chose whether her legacy remains in tact, tht is determined by the collective given the evidence, being cagey doesnt do her the justice she very well may deserve. There will be people who only see the refusal. |
|
By:
Your last post A_T highlights the point further.
She has already said she is happy for her blood data to be analysed by independent bodies/experts but not released to the public. |
|
By:
She's admitted 3 extreme results and given an explanation for them but is still adamant she won't release all the data.
I think it's a disgrace she has taken this stance. I thought she was guilty as soon as i'd seen the interview and she just continues to dig herself an even deeper hole. I find it hard to believe anyone looking at the current situation trusts she is clean |
|
By:
There's nothing else for it. She's going to have to go on The Jeremy Kyle Show.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
not sure that because someone is super fit that there pr readings would be completely out of sync with any others - if this was the case then surely the medical experts would have qualified their remarks to indicate this
she has supposedly always recognised her public image & been prepared to be open and transparent therefore surely revealing all of the data is in her own best interests whatever else it doesn't bode well for the sport and of the prevalence of cheating within athletics generally - cheating has of course gone on for years for those not able to remember the like of Lasse Viren and others so people shouldn't be overly surprised that it is probably endemic |
|
By:
a very reliable article from her personal physio?
 “Between 2001 and 2008 I worked with her almost exclusively and in that period, I never in my life saw anything but an athlete who deplored and fought against performance-enhancing drugs in sport. She was very against anyone who’d take advantage. Her principles are for clean sport. If your an advocate for clean sport why would you insist test results are hidden in the IAAF cupboard. All official tests athletes take should be published imo They have PR teams that can answer questions. It not like she has to peronally respond to every daily mail reader who posts a comment on twitter |
|
By:
You are right that she should have allowed her results to be made public, but she probably felt that they would be "analysed" by people who had no idea what they were looking at, and concluded that she must be guilty because there were variations, which were caused by a variety of factors (taken just after races, during altitude training, when on period etc).
The release should have been done alongside an expert view to explain any anomalies. A mistake I'm sure she regrets now. As such, it's just turned into a free for all from the "they're all at it" brigade on the internet. Some will always believe her, just as some will never believe her. Unfortunately, we have the platforms now for anyone to state their opinion regardless of whether they know or understand anything or not. Surely the safest recourse, is to uphold the rule of law that someone is innocent until proven guilty? |
|
By:
 |
|
By:
Surely the safest recourse, is to uphold the rule of law that someone is innocent until proven guilty?
flo jo never found guilty of anything, so should be celebrated as an outstanding clean athlete much like Paula? You are finding flo jo guilty by interpreting photos of her and the fact she died at 34 |
|
By:
blood data now revealed.
|
|
By:
Hardly Brendan. Flo Jo stands accused because approaching 30 her performances improved by amazing amounts. That doesn't happen at world level and certainly not in sprint events.
|
|
By:
Some data revealed.
|
|
By:
some?
 |
|
By:
this zazu clown is as thick as a whale omelette
 |
|
By:
this thread is reminiscent of the classic Lance thread on here where his supporters were in denial until the very last
|
|
By:
I heard her husband interviewed on bbc5 live and he came across as very convincing in the reasons why they did want the blood tests revealed.
In 2002/3 when Radcliffe won a marathon and track 5000 and 10000 metre titles within a very short period a French newspaper raised doubts about her. At the time she challenged them to take a blood sample at any time going into her next marathon event and give them persmission to have her bloods freezed so they could be retested again anytime in the future if new science became available. |
|
By:
this zazu clown is as thick as a whale omelette Cry
|
|
By:
I never warmed to her - she won big-money marathons but not many medals for us fat UK nationalist couch-potato critics. However, any test after the extreme conditions of a marathon are bound to be off-scale. Apart from criticising her PR advisors - keep your eyes wide open and look honest - she's done OK. Shame her agent-planned future career is permanently handicapped. You should have been like Mo (birth-place/physically credible) and won the bloody medals. You've got the money already.
|
|
By:
Paula declared innocent by IAAF and UKAD. Free the Radcliffe one!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/34948287 |