Yet Another Cycling Forum
Off Topic => The Pub => The Sporting Life => Topic started by: sg37409 on 24 April, 2015, 08:58:31 am
-
Program on R5 last night on Paula Radcliffe, it was pretty good. They had folk on incl Seb Coe saying how she's the greatest womens distance runner in history, seemingly based on her record breaking London marathon run in 2002, citing how the mens records been broken many times, but Paula put the womens out of sight. Also that she'd brought womens athletics forward by a quantum leap, which I didnt notice.
Cant think she's the greatest in history but I wouldnt know who is/was. No olympic medals at 3 attempts. I've always been a fan of hers, and enjoy hearing her speak, but the program seemed a bit of a love-in just before the London marathon
-
I think she's by far the greatest female distance runner. Granted, she has been very unlucky with the Olympics. She was brave to start Athens with a bad stomach bug, it happens, and we would all have done it I'm sure after 4 years of focus. Surely the most devastating day ever for her. She was the best in the world that day, it just went horribly wrong. That's marathon running. And she was injured and was never in a position to win in 2008.
Noone has even got close to Paula's fastest marathon times, she took female marathon running to a whole new level. Seems a long way off being broken. I hope she has a great run on Sunday, and is able to enjoy it. I'm sure she'll get amazing support. I get emotional just thinking about that run in 2002!
-
I don't trust the doctors she keeps using. It would be interesting to know her current and past blood values, now she will no longer be racing.
-
LWAB's comments are interesting - and could apply to many. But in any case, I don't think Paula could be called the greatest unless you speak specifically of marathon running. Have a look at Tirunesh Dibaba's palmares:-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tirunesh_Dibaba
-
Although I'm a fan, I hadnt realised how her records have stood for so long. If the equivalent had happened in cycling I'd immediately assume PEDs were involved somewhere along the lines.
But then, she's always been a vocal and outspoken critic of drug users, I remember her anti-EPO banner.
I'll be cheering her on on Sunday.
-
Of course cyclists have never denounced doping while doing so themselves.
-
LWAB's comments are interesting - and could apply to many. But in any case, I don't think Paula could be called the greatest unless you speak specifically of marathon running. Have a look at Tirunesh Dibaba's palmares:-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tirunesh_Dibaba
LWAB and the other sceptics can look at Paula's frozen blood samples for years to come.
Yes, she's clearly the greatest marathon runner (of either gender IMHO).
Its hard to compare between distances, but its pretty easy to double up across 5k & 10k - marathon runners dont have another event to easily diversify into. Meanwhile her WR is SOOOO far out of the park, noone at the shorter distances has come close to such a performance.
And if marathon running isnt the pinnacle of distance running, I don't know what is!
-
Bob Beaman is a sporting great (For just one leap into a sand-pit) and Paula Radcliffe, for nothing more than being the current women's world record holder in the marathon with her time of 2 hours 15 minutes and 25 seconds, is a great.
She took big chunks out of the World record, to the point where she could have credibly run in the men's event.
Mo Farah takes 2:08:20 to get round.
Olympics are dependent on luck and timing as much as talent. Athletes tend to have 2 great Olympics in them.
If you a lucky then you will start to peak at your first Olympics and won't have faded too much four years later. If you are unlucky with timing, or illness, then your peaks may forever be out of step with the Games.
Anyway, she's a great. 13 years and counting.
-
Of course cyclists have never denounced doping while doing so themselves.
I'm rather suspicious of her holding three minutes over the best Kenyans who, themselves, are widely suspected of doping. I'd love to give Paula the benefit of the doubt but, as the old saying goes, if it seems too good to be true..
-
Of course cyclists have never denounced doping while doing so themselves.
I'm rather suspicious of her holding three minutes over the best Kenyans who, themselves, are widely suspected of doping. I'd love to give Paula the benefit of the doubt but, as the old saying goes, if it seems too good to be true..
So how would you define a "Sporting Great"? Someone who is the best, but not by some Tewdric-defined margin that is "too good to be true" ?!?
(this could get like code-breaking - if you have a massive advantage over the enemy, be careful not to rub their nose in it :P )
-
Bob Beaman cheated because he chose not to compete at sea level.
-
Of course cyclists have never denounced doping while doing so themselves.
I'm rather suspicious of her holding three minutes over the best Kenyans who, themselves, are widely suspected of doping. I'd love to give Paula the benefit of the doubt but, as the old saying goes, if it seems too good to be true..
So how would you define a "Sporting Great"? Someone who is the best, but not by some Tewdric-defined margin that is "too good to be true" ?!?
(this could get like code-breaking - if you have a massive advantage over the enemy, be careful not to rub their nose in it :P )
aka "The Sergei Bubka Ultimatum". Bubka knew he could annihilate the world record but took care to do so in small increments so as to attract more appearance money.
-
@ mattc
"it's pretty easy to double up at 5000 and 10000." That's some statement. There will usually be heats in the 5000 and a double champion will usually have run at least 3 races in a week or so. Dibaba has done this LOADS of times. Paula has won the OCCASIONAL race throughout her career. She has run so hard that she often breaks. She is a great athlete but I don't think she is the greatest. Not that it really matters.
-
One marathon is 40k!!!
OK, I know what you mean: easy isn't really the right word! What I am sayingnis that the best 5k runner in a given week in history is very often at least Top3 in the 10k. Marathon runners don't tend to get a fallback event (and they would be pretty fu ... fatigued after racing 40km to compete again that week).
And no, it really doesn't matter :-)
-
Cheers, matt! Just been to watch my local cricket team beat another local team - the professional getting 89 (no) of the 126 required. Beer and warm nurses, sunshine and moonshine - a great day. And Paula got round in a time that I almost managed myself thirty odd years ago. Well done her! She is certainly a great (I am not)!
Peter
-
Several factors come into play here.
1. She's a Brit.
2. She's done well.
3. She's good in front of a camera
4. She has the public sympathy vote.
5. The BBC has lost a lot of live sport, but it's retained the London Marathon and the like.
= She ticks all the right boxes so the Beeb (and others) are going to promote her whenever possible.
Is she a great? People will argue their own favourite but in this obese, car dependant society we live in, if it encourages people off their bums and into the fresh air I'm happy to call her a great.
-
Several factors come into play here.
1. She's a Brit.
2. She's done well.
3. She's good in front of a camera
4. She has the public sympathy vote.
5. The BBC has lost a lot of live sport, but it's retained the London Marathon and the like.
= She ticks all the right boxes so the Beeb (and others) are going to promote her whenever possible.
Is she a great? People will argue their own favourite but in this obese, car dependant society we live in, if it encourages people off their bums and into the fresh air I'm happy to call her a great.
Agree with all of this. Not the greatest of all time but yep, a great. Bit of a shadow over her achievements as she put records so far out of sight over other dopers, but might be because Im so sceptical having followed cycling in the last X years.
-
Regret I too fall into the sceptics camp. She does seem a lovely person but any sporting record based on a performance leap, especially at that point in doping history, has to be considered questionable.
Whenever a sporting achievement is called incredible by other sportspeople, it is because it is indeed incredible.
There is of corse the possibility she ran clean and beat all those dopers running on juice at the time. In which case she becomes another casualty of folk like Armstrong.
-
I'm also sceptic but think she was possibly running on extra of her own juice, not EPO.
Unbelievable performances are often unbelievable. She was also competing against, and beating, known doped Kenyans.
Similar story with Seb Coe. Blood doping was not illegal when he was running - see Moser's hour record and the US track cycling team at the 84 Olympics.
-
Regret I too fall into the sceptics camp. She does seem a lovely person but any sporting record based on a performance leap, especially at that point in doping history, has to be considered questionable.
Whenever a sporting achievement is called incredible by other sportspeople, it is because it is indeed incredible.
There is of corse the possibility she ran clean and beat all those dopers running on juice at the time. In which case she becomes another casualty of folk like Armstrong.
She didn't have a sudden leap, she had a gradual improvement. 2 18, 2 17, 2 15 over a period of two years.
-
Agree with all of this. Not the greatest of all time but yep, a great.
I don't think there can be a greatest of all time in any sport, just greats of their time and greats for all time.
Ever seen a replay of Olga Korbut's legendary floor routine lately? It looks like a school kid doing roly-polys by today's standards but she's clearly a "great".
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingrid_Kristiansen
-
Agree with all of this. Not the greatest of all time but yep, a great.
I don't think there can be a greatest of all time in any sport, just greats of their time and greats for all time.
Ever seen a replay of Olga Korbut's legendary floor routine lately? It looks like a school kid doing roly-polys by today's standards but she's clearly a "great".
This. Training techniques, understanding of sports psychology, physiology and er. science ( ;)) have come on leaps and bounds. But I bet there were some great runners in Ancient Bablylon. We have a long history but we love using the phrase 'all time great' without considering people who competed outside of the last century at the most - usually much less.
-
Agree with all of this. Not the greatest of all time but yep, a great.
I don't think there can be a greatest of all time in any sport, just greats of their time and greats for all time.
I can't remember who said it, but when discussing who was the World's Greatest Batsman, the reply was "you can't separate the top six". That is probably true of most sports at any given moment, but I think there would be few people who would argue that Don Bradman wasn't the greatest batsman of all time, even though Graham Gooch scored more runs.
I suspect that there is rarely, at any specific moment, one competitor in his/her field who is clearly the best in the world.
-
In a rare moment of talking sense Bernie Ecclestone once said that there could be a million Michael Schumachers in rural China but as long as they're riding bicycles rather than driving racing cars we'll never know.
-
Of course cyclists have never denounced doping while doing so themselves.
I'm rather suspicious of her holding three minutes over the best Kenyans who, themselves, are widely suspected of doping. I'd love to give Paula the benefit of the doubt but, as the old saying goes, if it seems too good to be true..
So how would you define a "Sporting Great"? Someone who is the best, but not by some Tewdric-defined margin that is "too good to be true" ?!?
(this could get like code-breaking - if you have a massive advantage over the enemy, be careful not to rub their nose in it :P )
aka "The Sergei Bubka Ultimatum". Bubka knew he could annihilate the world record but took care to do so in small increments so as to attract more appearance money.
Yelena Isinbayeva. Broken world records 28 times. IIRC, often when there was a big cash prize offered for a new record.
-
I suspect that there is rarely, at any specific moment, one competitor in his/her field who is clearly the best in the world.
Very true.
But when someone knocks 3 minutes off a 2-hour-something record, and it remains totally out of reach for 12 years, that IS one of those rare occasions.
-
In a rare moment of talking sense Bernie Ecclestone once said that there could be a million Michael Schumachers in rural China but as long as they're riding bicycles rather than driving racing cars we'll never know.
Well yes, ... sort of ...
They are only _potential_ Michael Schumachers. Its also probably true to say there are quite a few elite athletes who could be world champs in a different sport - had they gone down that path.
But sport is about beating everyone else that bothers to turn up*. that is very much a key part!
*not to mention making the necessary sacrifices ... etc ...
-
Daughters boyfriend is/was a university rugby player, and was scouted for various teams as well as - strangely - weightlifting. Trains seriously now but not for pro sport.
Anecdotal but he reckons a huge number of the 'elite athletes' he trains with in various gyms and teams are on the juice, and that it is actually just normalised behaviour for serious sportspeople who take competition seriously and want to win.
Of course such anecdota is meaningless but it supports my own view that sport, even at amateur levels, once serious, is a business in which winning is the goal and the end justifies the means.
I would certainly have juiced even as a Mamil racer if only I had followed up on forays into coaching, but hadn't got the underlying ability nor the easy access/funds.
I think the 'clean sport' idea is a sort of idealistic fantasy projected by believers in an ideal onto people who earn a living by winning and need to do whatever is needed to win. Supported by the businesses that use that ideal to sell stuff to the believers of course.
-
Whilst I remain hugely sceptical about the cleanliness of athletics, or even most sports, I think the occasional "out of the blue" performance is certainly possible. As mrcharly has said, Paula Radcliffe's improvements were incremental and she didn't suddenly become so fast. I think you can have a day when "it all just comes together". Unfortunately, for many, this may happen in training, rather than in an event. I have my own little example: before my kneee finally succumbed to an old rugby injury, I used to be a keen and reasonable, if unremarkable runner. I had a hilly training loop which used to take me about 36 minutes, depending on the conditions underfoot. I always ran it as hard as I could. One day, I'd had some particularly good news and, elated, I went out for my loop. I ran 3 minutes (nearly 9%) faster than ever before. I never got near that again.
I continue to believe that remarkable performances are possible, without assistance. I continue to believe that Paula is not the greatest distance runner there has been up to now.
-
I don't trust the doctors she keeps using. It would be interesting to know her current and past blood values, now she will no longer be racing.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/athletics/33990503
"Keep blood data private"
To be clear though, she is backing the anti-doping agencies stance.
-
To be clear though, she is backing the anti-doping agencies stance.
True, but rumours abound about a retired marathon runner and a superinjunction (https://mobile.twitter.com/search?q=%23superinjunction&s=tyah)...
-
LWaB may have hit the nail on the head earlier. There is much talk of Paula being the one with 'suspicious' blood values. Her 2:15 marathon time is better than qu junxia's 1500 wr, which was not believed clean and has only recently been broken (actually pretty well taken apart) by Genuine Dibaba. The records in women's athletics are by and large a long way out of reach of current, more scientifically trained, athletes and Paula's is the best. That has to raise questions.
I hope that she is clean, but if not I hope it comes out soon and those of us that doubt, but want to give the benefit, are given a straight answer. The backlash could well be worse than Lance.
For what it's worth, I think that athletics currently, probably, has a more widespread and deeper doping culture than cycling..
-
Should have added, if she was clean she is genuinely a great. Her best times are far ahead of anyone else. The 4th fastest time ever, and first not set by Paula was 2:18:xx by Limit Shobukova, and that has recently been removed on the basis of biological passport evidence of doping.
This is why there are doubts.
Are you looking forward to Gatling vs Bolt...
-
Are you looking forward to Gatling vs Bolt...
In an arms race I'll take a machine gun over a crossbow any day.
(http://legslarry.org.uk/BikeStull/coat_48.png)
-
To be clear though, she is backing the anti-doping agencies stance.
True, but rumours abound I am helping spread the rumour about a retired marathon runner and a superinjunction (https://mobile.twitter.com/search?q=%23superinjunction&s=tyah)...
FTFY !
-
In a rare moment of talking sense Bernie Ecclestone once said that there could be a million Michael Schumachers in rural China but as long as they're riding bicycles rather than driving racing cars we'll never know.
Mark Twain, IIRC, had a short story where a man newly arrived in heaven sees a parade of the greatest military leaders. Those at the front are people he has never heard of, the equivalent of Mr L's cycling Chinese, who never had a chance to demonstrate their greatness.
-
In a rare moment of talking sense Bernie Ecclestone once said that there could be a million Michael Schumachers in rural China but as long as they're riding bicycles rather than driving racing cars we'll never know.
Given that he's taken his coat and presumably left the thread, I think I can safely point out that I've checked a few rural Chinese phone directories and suspect that the number of Michael Schumachers to be a lot less than that.
-
Paula Radcliffe 'categorically denies' cheating (http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/athletics/34190297)
Dejavu.
Following updates on this thread, I looked into womens marathon times and records of her performances. Unbelievable.
-
Unbelievable.
Because?
Don't leave us guessing!
-
Correct me if I'm wrong but I seem to remember something about Chinese distance athletes getting times that were significantly faster than others were getting. They then disappeared but never failed any tests. Commentators during a race talked about the female runner being on target for a fast time but nowhere near the wr. He said it was a disgrace the wr still.stood because it couldn't be beaten by the other clean athletes. IIRC it was a 5k or other distance track event and Radcliffe was competing bravely. It was about the time of her protest I reckon.
I only mention the above because now we're talking about Radcliffe's time being so much better than every other runner's times. What is really the difference? Perhaps she was clean, perhaps not but very clever about it. I prefer the clean option.
BTW if she had a progression to this time that doesn't rule out cheating just that cheating (if she was) resulted in a gradual improvement that kept going beyond what her clean self would have managed. Smooth improvement but doesn't mean she must be clean, just clever about cheating. Note I think she was clean and will keep that thought until proven otherwise.
BTW Michael Johnson got a wr so much better than his opponents were capable of. His record stood for a very long time. That didn't mean he must have cheated at the time. The long jump wr lasted a long time. Indeed many other wr in sports have stood for some time. That alone doesn't mean they're all cheats.
IMHO Radcliffe isn't great just good in her event in her time. Her world best time (can't be a world record because each marathon route varies due to ascent, etc) will be beaten no doubt in s few years, even if it's longer doesn't make her great imho.
I only hold the title of great for very few people. Steve Redgrave, Matthew Pinsent, Hoy, Wiggins, Michael Johnson, Ed Moses, Pele, etc are some I'll accept the title of great about. Radcliffe hasn't won everything in her peak competing time, she's never dominated her event completely for many years and just one truly impressive race that has put the event WL so far out of the current competitors reach for a bit doesn't make her a great imho. I still greatly admire her record, performances and attitude to races. One hero indeed but no great.
PS just heard BBC news had a piece on that parliamentary.committee where doubts on her were expressed using parliamentary privilege to prevent legal action. She's released a 1700 word response.
-
You're not thinking of Chinese swimmers, are you, TPMB?
http://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/news/doping-whispers-were-true-surrounding-china-swimmers-at-94-world-championships/
-
I'd forgotten about the swimmers, but it's Ma Junren's runners on the "shrooms and turtle blood diet" diet that sprung to mind.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong but I seem to remember something about Chinese distance athletes getting times that were significantly faster than others were getting. They then disappeared but never failed any tests. The chinese claimed they were eating 'caterpillar fungus. The general view was EPO and no testing. Lance never failed any tests. WADA admits that they miss most dopers. Testing is actually carried out by the national federations, hence some countries give their athletes an easy ride - historically these have included China, East Germany, Kenya, Jamaica and pre 88 Olympics USA (where positive results were used to warn competitors that they might test positive!)Commentators during a race talked about the female runner being on target for a fast time but nowhere near the wr. He said it was a disgrace the wr still.stood because it couldn't be beaten by the other clean athletes. IIRC it was a 5k or other distance track event and Radcliffe was competing bravely. It was about the time of her protest I reckon.The protest was against Yegarova. Paula wasn't competing in that race. If you look at female WRs most of them have stood, completely unthreatened for a long time. It raises suspicions now if anyone gets close - not an allegation, but look up womens 1500m times and think about how Genzebe Dibaba shattered a, presumed, drug enhanced WR that no else has got near.
I only mention the above because now we're talking about Radcliffe's time being so much better than every other runner's times. What is really the difference? Perhaps she was clean, perhaps not but very clever about it. I prefer the clean option.I'd like her to be clean, but the difference to the nearest clean runner is staggering - see my comments above.
BTW if she had a progression to this time that doesn't rule out cheating just that cheating (if she was) resulted in a gradual improvement that kept going beyond what her clean self would have managed. Smooth improvement but doesn't mean she must be clean, just clever about cheating. AgreeNote I think she was clean and will keep that thought until proven otherwise.
BTW Michael Johnson got a wr so much better than his opponents were capable of. His record stood for a very long time. That didn't mean he must have cheated at the time. The long jump wr lasted a long time. Indeed many other wr in sports have stood for some time. That alone doesn't mean they're all cheats.Agree, but that's why anyone shown to cheat must be dealt with. The doubt now sticks to all and they likely deprive clean athletes of income and fame
IMHO Radcliffe isn't great just good in her event in her time. Her world best time (can't be a world record because each marathon route varies due to ascent, etc) will be beaten no doubt in s few years, even if it's longer doesn't make her great imho.The problem is that her wr may beyond even the clean female outliers and so not be broken.
I only hold the title of great for very few people. Steve Redgrave, Matthew Pinsent, Hoy, Wiggins, Michael Johnson, Ed Moses, Pele, etc are some I'll accept the title of great about. Radcliffe hasn't won everything in her peak competing time, she's never dominated her event completely for many years and just one truly impressive race that has put the event WL so far out of the current competitors reach for a bit doesn't make her a great imho. She holds the fastest times in history - 3 or 4 plus several others and people don't race a lot of marathonsI still greatly admire her record, performances and attitude to races. One hero indeed but no great.
PS just heard BBC news had a piece on that parliamentary.committee where doubts on her were expressed using parliamentary privilege to prevent legal action. She's released a 1700 word response.
To be clear, I hope she was clean but have to have some doubt. It's a bit like Usain Bolt - there is bolt, then there are a group of others then a third group. All the second group are tainted - Bolt is the only untainted 100m runner down to about the 31st or 32nd fastest time ever run and the WR holder. Possible, but you have to look at it in a questioning manner.
With Paula, the thing that makes me wonder is that she went after athletes who were suspect (Yegarova etc). Lance only went after people who accused him. I find it hard to comprehend that behaviour if she was dirty, but some clarity would be good.
Also worth noting her response tot he Sunday Times when challenged - 'I'll sue you and, unlike with Lance, you won't be getting any of it back' (paraphrase - look up Paul Kimmage on Twitter)
Mike
-
Nope, it was a track event that the commentator questioned how they could let the existing WR stand because it was so far clear of what other athletes managed. I'm certain it was a Chinese athlete too but that was many years ago so my memory could be faulty over nationality. The main point was a clear record cast doubts back then just as it does now, but that doesn't prove bb7 anything. Without proof things have to stand, even enhanced records as distasteful as that may be.
-
To be clear, I hope she was clean but have to have some doubt. It's a bit like Usain Bolt - there is bolt, then there are a group of others then a third group. All the second group are tainted - Bolt is the only untainted 100m runner down to about the 31st or 32nd fastest time ever run and the WR holder. Possible, but you have to look at it in a questioning manner.
With Paula, the thing that makes me wonder is that she went after athletes who were suspect (Yegarova etc). Lance only went after people who accused him. I find it hard to comprehend that behaviour if she was dirty, but some clarity would be good.
Also worth noting her response tot he Sunday Times when challenged - 'I'll sue you and, unlike with Lance, you won't be getting any of it back' (paraphrase - look up Paul Kimmage on Twitter)
Mike
The trouble with this view - which is not entirely unreasonable, in terms of gut feelings - is that a clean athlete is stuffed both ways.
- If they lose - well tough, don't whine about it. (should have cheated!)
- If they win - they have to avoid some undefined criteria of being just too good. Otherwise people like yourself will keep expressing doubt. And don't forget it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove yourself clean. Just impossible.
Can you actually say what an athlete has to do to meet your standards?
[sorry to be so arsey about this, but this is the crux of the matter!]
-
To be clear, I hope she was clean but have to have some doubt. It's a bit like Usain Bolt - there is bolt, then there are a group of others then a third group. All the second group are tainted - Bolt is the only untainted 100m runner down to about the 31st or 32nd fastest time ever run and the WR holder. Possible, but you have to look at it in a questioning manner.
With Paula, the thing that makes me wonder is that she went after athletes who were suspect (Yegarova etc). Lance only went after people who accused him. I find it hard to comprehend that behaviour if she was dirty, but some clarity would be good.
Also worth noting her response tot he Sunday Times when challenged - 'I'll sue you and, unlike with Lance, you won't be getting any of it back' (paraphrase - look up Paul Kimmage on Twitter)
Mike
The trouble with this view - which is not entirely unreasonable, in terms of gut feelings - is that a clean athlete is stuffed both ways.
- If they lose - well tough, don't whine about it. (should have cheated!)
- If they win - they have to avoid some undefined criteria of being just too good. Otherwise people like yourself will keep expressing doubt. And don't forget it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove yourself clean. Just impossible.
Can you actually say what an athlete has to do to meet your standards?
[sorry to be so arsey about this, but this is the crux of the matter!]
I get this and agree, it's rubbish. The clean athlete gets stuffed every which way. But it's because there are enough people that will cheat and the incentives are so great that they do, not because us non-elite decide not to suspend disbelief. When enough cheat then they don't even think that it's cheating anymore - see Lance - or they conclude that it's only cheating if you (do enough to) get caught.
If there were no voices calling for clean sport and, consequently raising doubt, then there would be no real incentive for the governing organisations to test at all - athletics income, to some extent, relies on record breaking. The difficulty is that doping is actually much easier to do than to detect with sufficient certainty. Blood doping is much harder to reliably identify than finding traces of Stanozolol or Nandrolone in the subject's urine because there is variation for all sorts of valid reasons.
This operates on a group of people that are all, by definition, all outliers. Potential WR winners are quite probably less predictable and normalised than the wider population. Each is 'the outlier' in their event. So suspicion or doubt is natural and reasonable, but not proof, and it's not so much what does an athlete need to do to meet my standards. I just want them to compete clean and fairly and to be confident that the culture of the game and testing regimes mean that I know what I am watching.
So, probably not really disagreeing at all.
Mike
-
Weasel words from MP Jesse Norman http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34195458 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34195458). It was quite clear from his statement who he was implicating and to say otherwise today is disingenuous.
I'm guessing that "parliamentary privilege" means he can't be sued under the terms of a superinjunction, but I hope Paula goes after The Sunday Times. If she wins she won't have to pay it back in 10-years time like Larry did (like Mike, I also enjoyed a wry smile at Kimmage's tweet).
Actually, Paul's tweeted that she doesn't have any kind of injunction. It would be a bit ironic if all the references were to someone else...
-
Not directly related to Paula, but this seems the best place to post these links about the IAAF's latest woes
Lamine Diack arrested on corruption charges
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/nov/04/lamine-diack-investigation-iaaf-corruption-doping (ftp://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/nov/04/lamine-diack-investigation-iaaf-corruption-doping)
IAAF doctor and doping cover ups
http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/dec/11/iaafs-most-senior-anti-doping-official-dr-gabriel-dolle-leaves-job (ftp://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/dec/11/iaafs-most-senior-anti-doping-official-dr-gabriel-dolle-leaves-job)
Not surprising, but still drives me mad
-
Don't expect it to get any better with Seb Coe as the president of the IAAF.
-
Don't expect it to get any better with Seb Coe as the president of the IAAF.
I don't. As ex member of the Fifa ethics committee things aren't looking good.
-
Don't expect it to get any better with Seb Coe as the president of the IAAF.
I don't. As ex member of the Fifa ethics committee things aren't looking good.
And now we await the WADA report with bated breath... Seb's chance to prove what he is made of
(https://tonireavis.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/pigpen.jpg?w=640)
Image reposted from tonireavis
-
So, as I understand it this says that the Russians have been at it for years, and they should be banned from international competition until they sort themselves out.
-
So, as I understand it this says that the Russians have been at it for years, and they should be banned from international competition until they sort themselves out.
A bit more than that really. Although this looks at Russia. That's the only nation in scope at present. The report goes on to say that there are other nations with similar problems, that there was corruption at the highest levels in the sport, that other sports are also affected. Oh and the 2012 Olympics were 'effectively sabotaged'.
Fwiw,Kenya admitted to having issues with doping control I'm the last few days as well...
-
"It goes without saying that this is all a conspiracy orchestrated by Amerika and the fascists in Kiev" - V Putin, Moscow
-
What Paula has said in interviews:
I am truly shocked by these allegations and it is important that the sport proves itself clean
(paraphrasing).
What Paula actually wanted to say:
Every time one of those doping bitches beat me I want the medal back and they should be forced to take picolax and stand in front of the press for 4 hours.
-
What Paula has said in interviews:
I am truly shocked by these allegations and it is important that the sport proves itself clean
(paraphrasing).
What Paula actually wanted to say:
Every time one of those doping bitches beat me I want the medal back and they should be forced to take picolax and stand in front of the press for 4 hours.
Or alternatively:
"Shit. I broke the world record right in the middle of all of this. How long have I got before they come for me? Better get some tears ready."
-
What Paula has said in interviews:
I am truly shocked by these allegations and it is important that the sport proves itself clean
(paraphrasing).
What Paula actually wanted to say:
Every time one of those doping bitches beat me I want the medal back and they should be forced to take picolax and stand in front of the press for 4 hours.
Or alternatively:
"Shit. I broke the world record right in the middle of all of this taking over 3 minutes out of the very doped Lilia Shobukova. How long have I got before they come for me? Better get some tears ready."
-
I think yesterday's revelations have changed the game, given they are merely the tip of the pyramid. The whole sports establishment has been implicated, not just Russia. Coe has said things that sound like blatter at his finest in denial, given that as number 2 in what was clearly a corrupted criminal organisation it is hard to imagine he was so incompetent as to be unaware of the bribery and corruption all around him.
Nobody should believe on trust anything that athletes earning huge sums of sponsorship dependent on winning says, as is becoming clear.
Believing Paula is a act of faith in the face of other more obvious choices. How long before the British cycling successes of the Hoy era start to smell too?
-
They already do.
Geert Leinders.
-
"Shit. I broke the world record right in the middle of all of this taking over 3 minutes out of the very doped Lilia Shobukova. How long have I got before they come for me? Better get some tears ready."
Either Paula was doping, in which case two doped up athletes raced each other and one took 3 minutes out of the other.
OR Paula wasn't doping, in which case she thrashed someone doped to the eyeballs.
In either case she is the better athlete.
-
The only difference between me and Vasily Alexeev was that I couldn't afford his drugs bill. When I hit Munich [1972 Olympics] I'll weigh in at about 340, maybe 350lb. Then we'll see which are better - his steroids or mine.
-
"Shit. I broke the world record right in the middle of all of this taking over 3 minutes out of the very doped Lilia Shobukova. How long have I got before they come for me? Better get some tears ready."
Either Paula was doping, in which case two doped up athletes raced each other and one took 3 minutes out of the other.
OR Paula wasn't doping, in which case she thrashed someone doped to the eyeballs.
In either case she is the better athlete.
This is the argument that if everyone dopes then it is a level playing field and OK. If the public accepted that all athletes are doped, we could enjoy such things as the Olympics, Rugby World Cup, and so on honestly, as the freak shows they are. Like 'World's Strongest Man' or Wrestling and Stallone movies - they wouldn't be mistaken for real life and when the deformed and deranged competitors are crippled or die of drug related side effects we could accept it as the cost of the entertainment. It is all rollerball already but people think it is 'sport'.
I suspect that the huge money factory of sponsorship based on phoney life affirming fantasies of people transcending through determination would evaporate. Sports and sportspeople are held up as a model for human endeavour and achievement - a model which increasingly looks like a shabby scam to sell overpriced 'trainers' and dangerous fatty food and sugar laden drinks, or phoney nationalist nonsense.
Under this view Lance Armstrong was robbed. Maybe he was - he believes he was the rightful winner and perhaps history will end up acknowledging that.
-
"Shit. I broke the world record right in the middle of all of this taking over 3 minutes out of the very doped Lilia Shobukova. How long have I got before they come for me? Better get some tears ready."
Either Paula was doping, in which case two doped up athletes raced each other and one took 3 minutes out of the other.
OR Paula wasn't doping, in which case she thrashed someone doped to the eyeballs.
In either case she is the better athlete.
Just like the Lance Armstrong situation then? Except Paula's a nicer person so it doesn't matter so much. ;)
-
"Shit. I broke the world record right in the middle of all of this taking over 3 minutes out of the very doped Lilia Shobukova. How long have I got before they come for me? Better get some tears ready."
Either Paula was doping, in which case two doped up athletes raced each other and one took 3 minutes out of the other.
OR Paula wasn't doping, in which case she thrashed someone doped to the eyeballs.
In either case she is the better athlete.
Just like the Lance Armstrong situation then? Except Paula's a nicer person so it doesn't matter so much. ;)
Hardly like it; unless you have some evidence against Paula?
-
Repeated use of dodgy doctors doesn't raise your eyebrow?
-
Repeated use of dodgy doctors doesn't raise your eyebrow?
Plenty people overlooked that in LA's case, until it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was a dirty athlete.
In all of this, you have to feel sorry for the clean athletes who haven't been protected by the doping authorities.
-
Repeated use of dodgy doctors doesn't raise your eyebrow?
Plenty people overlooked that in LA's case, until it was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was a dirty athlete.
In all of this, you have to feel sorry for the clean athletes who haven't been protected by the doping authorities.
I think the essence of the emerging picture is that 'clean' athletes might be rather less common that most of us might have thought or want to believe, and that the incredible performances by athletes over the years ought to be regarded with much less of a benefit of doubt. Time and again it has emerged that incredible performance is exactly that. Individuals and teams that outperform other, known dopers, are flying in the face of human physiological capability. The apparent sincerity of sportspeople simply shouldn't be taken at face value.
-
"Shit. I broke the world record right in the middle of all of this taking over 3 minutes out of the very doped Lilia Shobukova. How long have I got before they come for me? Better get some tears ready."
Either Paula was doping, in which case two doped up athletes raced each other and one took 3 minutes out of the other.
OR Paula wasn't doping, in which case she thrashed someone doped to the eyeballs.
In either case she is the better athlete.
Just like the Lance Armstrong situation then? Except Paula's a nicer person so it doesn't matter so much. ;)
Hardly like it; unless you have some evidence against Paula?
Nothing to do with Paula - it was the assertion that she was the better athlete, and the implication that it didn't matter if she doped or not, she was still better.
50 years ago my wife was going out with a Belgian guy. His brother was a cyclist. His brother was open about "doping". Why are we so surprised? Armstrong seems to have been pilloried because he was a thoroughly unpleasant individual. He lied about doping, yes. So what. What would you expect? So did the (IMO) majority of all the other cyclists of that era. I believe most of the current crop are lying too. I still enjoy the spectacle.
I was wondering about one of my son's heroines last evening - triathlete Chrissy Wellington. Who knows. And why, exactly, do we care?
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bl-zrYCCAAAWxlI.png:large)
-
"Shit. I broke the world record right in the middle of all of this taking over 3 minutes out of the very doped Lilia Shobukova. How long have I got before they come for me? Better get some tears ready."
Either Paula was doping, in which case two doped up athletes raced each other and one took 3 minutes out of the other.
OR Paula wasn't doping, in which case she thrashed someone doped to the eyeballs.
In either case she is the better athlete.
Or a better doper.
-
Different folk will respond differently to doping. For some it will have a minimal effect. For others the effect will be quite substantial.
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bl-zrYCCAAAWxlI.png:large)
....or you could interpret that graph to say that with or without doping, performance results for the last 45 years are all within 10%
But then you wouldn't have a story or a theory.
-
The theory that athletics is clean isn't a very good one, though.
-
It's all about the trend, the deviation from the trend in 1992, the return to the trend in 2000, and the lack of the return to the trend in 2005->2013.
The biological passport is like the 50% haematocrit level, it allows doping within parameters.
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bl-zrYCCAAAWxlI.png:large)
....or you could interpret that graph to say that with or without doping, performance results for the last 45 years are all within 10%
But then you wouldn't have a story or a theory.
The thing I notice about that graph is that almost every Olympic year there is a trough. The two exceptions are 1980, when the USA and various other nations boycotted the Games, and 2000, when EPO detection was established.
-
Radcliffe's marathon WR was set in one of the troughs.
I'm sure she was clean though.
-
...I suspect that the huge money factory of sponsorship based on phoney life affirming fantasies of people transcending through determination would evaporate. Sports and sportspeople are held up as a model for human endeavour and achievement - a model which increasingly looks like a shabby scam to sell overpriced 'trainers' and dangerous fatty food and sugar laden drinks, or phoney nationalist nonsense...
Sebastian 'Nike' Coe, ex Tory MP will fix it all, thobutt.
-
...I suspect that the huge money factory of sponsorship based on phoney life affirming fantasies of people transcending through determination would evaporate. Sports and sportspeople are held up as a model for human endeavour and achievement - a model which increasingly looks like a shabby scam to sell overpriced 'trainers' and dangerous fatty food and sugar laden drinks, or phoney nationalist nonsense...
Sebastian 'Nike' Coe, ex Tory MP will fix it all, thobutt.
He delivered an excellent olympics. I think his challenges will be (amongst many others) loving the sport too much to rip it apart which is what it needs imho. Also he's seen as an elite brit so will face a lot of challenges being accepted by many, although theres nobody which would please everyone. (he didnt help himself at all, re his nike sponsorship)
-
Russia's athletics federation has been provisionally suspended from international competition - including the Olympic Games - for its alleged involvement in widespread doping.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/34811896
-
Although Coe has been forced to reverse his position on Russia, his history and business interests strongly suggest he is part of, and an enabler of, the problem - rather than part of a solution. He was visiting with and lauding the very same Russians only a week before the damning report.
His period as number 2 in the IAFA shows him repeatedly defending the dopers through denials which at best look like a man wearing self imposed blinkers, or possibly a woeful level of ill informed incompetence, or an alternative less palatable interpretation. It is inconceivable he was unaware of his bosses wholesale criminal activity, or the evidence passing his desk routinely of athletes dodgy results, and national institutional corruption.
Meanwhile his international consultancy is at the heart of the commercialisation that drives doping, and relies on schmoozing the senior players and athletes doing it. His conflict of interests in this is glaring.
He is the perfect man to run damage limitation and whitewash for sure, in part because he has skilfully managed his own PR to appear rather different to the above picture. He is for instance admired for delivering the London dopers olympics, despite it having been apparently sabotaged by dopers and inadequate testing.
-
Although Coe has been forced to reverse his position on Russia,
snigger.
I can hear your clenched teeth grinding, Tigerr!
Getting you to praise anything Coe does would be like getting blood from a stone, wouldn't it?
;D
-
Well, multimillionaire sports commercialisation consultant and successful hardline Tory politician Coe did a good job as figurehead of the London Olympics, and famously ran faster than arch rivals, to the delight of the tabloids as he was 'nicer' than them.
Multimillionaire Monaco based tax exile and corporate motivational speaker Paula Radcliffe was another well managed favourite, specialising in the projection of a 'normal woman' brand.
-
Coe has just announced that he's to resign from his position at
Pikey Nike.
-
::-)
Not before time. Its left a stubborn stain though.
-
And Paula is declared cleAn.
-
And Paula is declared cleAn.
By a dirty athletics federation.
-
And Paula is declared cleAn.
By a dirty athletics federation.
She was officially* clean already - no declaration was required.
I say "officially" because of course someone MIGHT produce evidence to the contrary. But that hasnt happened yet. She MAY have got away with devious high-tech skullduggery, but we cannot know. Sport doesnt use positive vetting - athletes don't need a "Not A Cheat" certificate before entering events.
That's how sport works. Good luck changing that!
-
Good to see Paula coming out so strongly in defence of Coe as the report is published.
Described in the report as the senior member of a committee which could simply not have been unaware of the extensive doping in Russia and elsewhere, that was not fit for purpose, Coe still insists he is the man to clean up the poop he managed to miss being laid on the carpet in front of him, despite the stink in the room. As the guardian puts it he was in the position of the audit director of Enron who took a salary without seemingly looking at the books.
That individual is now doing time of course.
Paula's incredible performances were on his watch - so he holds the key to her tax-exile lifestyle. A revalation of PEDs would bring her conference inspirational career, and his own membership of the good and great, to a halt. No surprise on the mutual fandom.
-
Good to see Paula coming out so strongly in defence of Coe as the report is published.
Described in the report as the senior member of a committee which could simply not have been unaware of the extensive doping in Russia and elsewhere, that was not fit for purpose, Coe still insists he is the man to clean up the poop he managed to miss being laid on the carpet in front of him, despite the stink in the room. As the guardian puts it he was in the position of the audit director of Enron who took a salary without seemingly looking at the books.
That individual is now doing time of course.
Paula's incredible performances were on his watch - so he holds the key to her tax-exile lifestyle. A revalation of PEDs would bring her conference inspirational career, and his own membership of the good and great, to a halt. No surprise on the mutual fandom.
Sorry but I think you do Paula a disservice here. She may be naive in supporting Coe ( generally considered a slime ball by those competing in the same era) but there is nothing in her pedigree or development that shows the sort of improvement gained where drug use has been an issue. It's only at the marathon where she excelled - how often did she fail on the track? It's easy to forget that in any one era someone will be the best!