Radcliffe is at it again.

daviesee
daviesee Posts: 6,386
edited August 2012 in The bottom bracket
After being a complete failure in the past 2 Olympics and denying young athletes a chance of the experience she is going to fail again.
The excuses have started....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/olympics/18705791
None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.
«13

Comments

  • Cleat Eastwood
    Cleat Eastwood Posts: 7,508
    she is rubbish.

    so is chambers.

    I saw seb on the news yesterday about the chambers incident and he was very diplomatic but you could see he wasnt happy.
    The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns
    momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.
  • BigJimmyB
    BigJimmyB Posts: 1,302
    I'm not normally like this but just looking at Radcliffe annnoys me.

    I saw the haedline on the Beeb and just thought 'So what'
  • RideOnTime
    RideOnTime Posts: 4,712
    To be fair foot injuries are a nightmare to get over...
  • RideOnTime
    RideOnTime Posts: 4,712
    To be balanced, yes she is a bit of a pain in the ar*e...
  • pdstsp
    pdstsp Posts: 1,264
    Bet the road cleaners are pleased.
  • Omar Little
    Omar Little Posts: 2,010
    Is she doing a better athlete out of a place at the games?

    If not then she deserves her place. She might not be as good as she used to be but she is still a very good runner and faster than those who aren't going.
  • daviesee
    daviesee Posts: 6,386
    She may not be denying a better athlete a place but she may well be doing an athlete that will complete the race out of a place.
    She has history. :evil:
    None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.
  • TheEnglishman
    TheEnglishman Posts: 587
    RideOnTime wrote:
    .... a bit of a pain in the ar*e...

    I believe she has a roadside remedy for that.....
    Please click here to sponsor me on a 100 mile charity bike ride in aid of the MS Society
  • t.m.h.n.e.t
    t.m.h.n.e.t Posts: 2,265
    She should have gave up years ago.
  • RideOnTime
    RideOnTime Posts: 4,712
    TheEnglishman wrote:
    RideOnTime wrote:
    .... a bit of a pain in the ar*e...

    I believe she has a roadside remedy for that.....

    harsh, but true...
    why did they ever keep filming.
  • Secteur
    Secteur Posts: 1,971
    pdstsp wrote:
    Bet the road cleaners are pleased.

    :lol:
  • Blancmange
    Blancmange Posts: 103
    RideOnTime wrote:
    TheEnglishman wrote:
    RideOnTime wrote:
    .... a bit of a pain in the ar*e...

    I believe she has a roadside remedy for that.....

    harsh, but true...
    why did they ever keep filming.

    A German director, maybe.
    - Slave to the cadence -
  • TheEnglishman
    TheEnglishman Posts: 587
    Blancmange wrote:
    A German director, maybe.


    A bit scatty, perhaps?
    Please click here to sponsor me on a 100 mile charity bike ride in aid of the MS Society
  • verylonglegs
    verylonglegs Posts: 4,023
    Pain killing injections having no effect...time to call it a day methinks.
  • bompington
    bompington Posts: 7,674
    Cleat Eastwood wrote:
    she is rubbish.
    Yeah, right enough, any of us can run a marathon faster. Oh, hang on, what's that? She holds the world record? Yeah, rubbish, obviously.

    Is there any other country in the world where people are so keen to slag their world-beaters?
  • slowlanejane
    slowlanejane Posts: 312
    Kelly Holmes, from Wikipedia:

    Dame Kelly Holmes, DBE, MBE(Mil.) (born 19 April 1970) is a retired British middle distance athlete. She specialised in the 800 metres and 1500 metres events and won a gold medal for both distances at the 2004 Summer Olympics in Athens. She set British records in numerous events and still holds the records over the 600, 800, 1000, and 1500 metres distances.

    Inspired by Sebastian Coe, Holmes began competing in middle distance events in her youth. She joined the British Army but continued to compete at the organisation's athletics events. She turned to the professional athletics circuit in the early 1990s and in 1994 she won the 1500 m at the Commonwealth Games and took silver at the European Championships. She won a silver and a bronze medal at the 1995 Gothenburg World Championships but suffered from various injuries over the following two years, failing to gain a medal at her first Olympics in Atlanta 1996.

    I interrupt here. Following your logic, OP, she shouldn't have gotten her place at 2000 Sydney Olympics. She won Bronze for the 800m and nothing for the 1500m.

    Should she have then gone onto Athens 2004? What do you think - you're obviously an expert.
  • daviesee
    daviesee Posts: 6,386
    slowlanejane wrote:
    ..........

    Should she have then gone onto Athens 2004? What do you think - you're obviously an expert.
    I am no expert but it is not hard to spot the trend.
    We will see in a few weeks and I will hold my hands up if she proves me wrong.
    An admission of being wrong on t'internet?
    That's how confident I am.
    None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.
  • Cleat Eastwood
    Cleat Eastwood Posts: 7,508
    bompington wrote:
    Cleat Eastwood wrote:
    she is rubbish.
    Yeah, right enough, any of us can run a marathon faster. Oh, hang on, what's that? She holds the world record? Yeah, rubbish, obviously.

    Is there any other country in the world where people are so keen to slag their world-beaters?

    I'll make a bet with you - she wont finish in the top 15.

    She may have been good - now she is rubbish. Comprendre
    The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns
    momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.
  • laurentian
    laurentian Posts: 2,505
    But even if she finishes in the top 30 ahead of any other British runner she's surely justified her selection . . . you have to ask the question, is she the best, or one of the best (not sure how many places are up for grabs), female marathon runners we have? if she is then she should run. If she's not, she shouldn't.

    Paula Radcliffe is the most successful female marathon runner of the modern era. It would be a big call and a wrong cal IMHO to overlook her in favour of a younger, less able, athlete just so the younger one gets "experience"
    Wilier Izoard XP
  • mudcow007
    mudcow007 Posts: 3,861
    but surely just letting her run because she won a few things years ago doesnt seem right?

    is she injured - yes

    will she finish - doubt it

    does she poo on the pavement - yes

    if we have nobody else i would let her run, but just letting her run on previous merit isnt fair in my book
    Keeping it classy since '83
  • daviesee
    daviesee Posts: 6,386
    laurentian wrote:
    Paula Radcliffe is the most successful female marathon runner of the modern era. It would be a big call and a wrong cal IMHO to overlook her in favour of a younger, less able, athlete just so the younger one gets "experience"
    But that's the very point.
    The younger athlete may not win this time but the experience may help her win in future.
    Paula Radcliffe won't win this time, or in the future. Her time has passed.
    It comes to us all in the end. :|
    None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.
  • Daz555
    Daz555 Posts: 3,976
    You pick the best 3 we have for the marathon at the time and if Radcliffe is in that group then she has deserved her place. The selection criteria is also laid out well in advance and they can't just go changing it ad-hoc.

    Radcliffe is of course not going to win this year. Sadly despite being by far Britains greatest ever distance runner (male or female) she will join the likes of Colin Jackson and Steve Cram in the list of "greatest athletes never to win the big one."
    You only need two tools: WD40 and Duck Tape.
    If it doesn't move and should, use the WD40.
    If it shouldn't move and does, use the tape.
  • laurentian
    laurentian Posts: 2,505
    daviesee wrote:
    laurentian wrote:
    Paula Radcliffe is the most successful female marathon runner of the modern era. It would be a big call and a wrong cal IMHO to overlook her in favour of a younger, less able, athlete just so the younger one gets "experience"
    But that's the very point.
    The younger athlete may not win this time but the experience may help her win in future.
    Paula Radcliffe won't win this time, or in the future. Her time has passed.
    It comes to us all in the end. :|

    The Olympic Games is not the place to "blood young talent" ffs!

    The best we've got at the time against the best everyone else has got at the time. The aim, surely, is to get as many as we can as close to the front as we can at the end of the race.
    Wilier Izoard XP
  • daviesee
    daviesee Posts: 6,386
    So wait until they are old to blood them?
    If she was a contender I'd agree but she isn't so I don't.
    If we have anyone near the front it won't be Paula.
    None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,163
    How many British women have achieved the A standard?
  • daviesee
    daviesee Posts: 6,386
    Pross wrote:
    How many British women have achieved the A standard?

    Olympic A Standard = 2:12:00

    Mara Yamauchi PB = 2:12:12, 2009.
    Paula Radcliffe PB = 2:15:25, 2003.
    Claire Hallissey PB = 2:27:44, 2012.

    Therefore, none. :cry:
    None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.
  • Jez mon
    Jez mon Posts: 3,809
    daviesee wrote:
    Pross wrote:
    How many British women have achieved the A standard?

    Olympic A Standard = 2:12:00

    Mara Yamauchi PB = 2:12:12, 2009.
    Paula Radcliffe PB = 2:15:25, 2003.
    Claire Hallissey PB = 2:27:44, 2012.

    Therefore, none. :cry:

    So the olympic standard is faster than the World Record.

    Makes sense...
    You live and learn. At any rate, you live
  • dabber
    dabber Posts: 1,973
    daviesee wrote:
    Pross wrote:
    How many British women have achieved the A standard?

    Olympic A Standard = 2:12:00

    Mara Yamauchi PB = 2:12:12, 2009.
    Paula Radcliffe PB = 2:15:25, 2003.
    Claire Hallissey PB = 2:27:44, 2012.

    Therefore, none. :cry:

    2:12:00 ...... I don't think so.

    2:37:00 A Standard actually. 2:43:00 B Standard.
    “You may think that; I couldn’t possibly comment!”

    Wilier Cento Uno SR/Wilier Mortirolo/Specialized Roubaix Comp/Kona Hei Hei/Calibre Bossnut
  • jim453
    jim453 Posts: 1,360
    daviesee wrote:
    Pross wrote:
    How many British women have achieved the A standard?

    Olympic A Standard = 2:12:00

    Mara Yamauchi PB = 2:12:12, 2009.
    Paula Radcliffe PB = 2:15:25, 2003.
    Claire Hallissey PB = 2:27:44, 2012.

    Therefore, none. :cry:

    What are you talking about?
  • t.m.h.n.e.t
    t.m.h.n.e.t Posts: 2,265
    daviesee wrote:
    Pross wrote:
    How many British women have achieved the A standard?

    Olympic A Standard = 2:12:00 Is actually 2:37:00 A

    Mara Yamauchi PB = 2:12:12, 2009. Is actually 2:23:12
    Paula Radcliffe PB = 2:15:25, 2003. Is correct
    Claire Hallissey PB = 2:27:44, 2012. Is correct
    Therefore, none. :cry:

    Therefore,all three of them

Categories