Radcliffe is at it again.

2

Comments

  • mattshrops
    mattshrops Posts: 1,134
    Except it only counts for the last 12 months.
    If you did that time in 1947 you aint going :wink:
    Death or Glory- Just another Story
  • daviesee
    daviesee Posts: 6,386
    Dabber wrote:

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

    2:37:00 A Standard actually. 2:43:00 B Standard.

    I blame the BBC. :evil:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/olympics/17814272
    Still. It makes a change from Wikipedia or Wiggle. :wink:
    None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.
  • southdownswolf
    southdownswolf Posts: 1,525
    but her time of 2hr 23min 46sec in the Berlin Marathon Sept 2011 counts :roll:
    http://www.stuartmole.co.uk/
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,597
    The A standard needs to have been achieved within the qualifying period which for the marathon is 1 January 2011 until 8 July 2012. Marathon runners can also qualify by finishing in the top 20 at last years worlds or top 10 in an IAAF gold series event. From what I can tell only 3 British women have made the A standard so to suggest selecting Radcliffe is doing another runner out of a place is completely incorrect.
  • daviesee
    daviesee Posts: 6,386
    Pross wrote:
    From what I can tell only 3 British women have made the A standard so to suggest selecting Radcliffe is doing another runner out of a place is completely incorrect.
    My original assertion was that she was doing another runner out of a position was not based on times but on the assumption that she simply will not complete the distance.
    She has the opportunity to prove me wrong. We will see in a few weeks.
    None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,597
    daviesee wrote:
    Pross wrote:
    From what I can tell only 3 British women have made the A standard so to suggest selecting Radcliffe is doing another runner out of a place is completely incorrect.
    My original assertion was that she was doing another runner out of a position was not based on times but on the assumption that she simply will not complete the distance.
    She has the opportunity to prove me wrong. We will see in a few weeks.

    But it's irrelevant as if she wasn't selected there would not have been anyone else who could have replaced her within the IOC's rules. You can have up to 3 runners as long as they all meet the A standard (or have finished top 20 in last year's worlds or top 10 in a golden series event). Failing that you only get as many as met the standard.

    BTW the 2.12.00 is the men's A standard.
  • daviesee
    daviesee Posts: 6,386
    Pross wrote:
    But it's irrelevant as if she wasn't selected there would not have been anyone else who could have replaced her within the IOC's rules. You can have up to 3 runners as long as they all meet the A standard (or have finished top 20 in last year's worlds or top 10 in a golden series event). Failing that you only get as many as met the standard.

    BTW the 2.12.00 is the men's A standard.
    Fair enough. If only someone had put it like that earlier.
    That's a fairly damning conclusion on the state of our athletes though. :|

    I still say that she is getting her excuses in early.
    None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 43,597
    daviesee wrote:
    Pross wrote:
    But it's irrelevant as if she wasn't selected there would not have been anyone else who could have replaced her within the IOC's rules. You can have up to 3 runners as long as they all meet the A standard (or have finished top 20 in last year's worlds or top 10 in a golden series event). Failing that you only get as many as met the standard.

    BTW the 2.12.00 is the men's A standard.
    Fair enough. If only someone had put it like that earlier.
    That's a fairly damning conclusion on the state of our athletes though. :|

    I still say that she is getting her excuses in early.

    Getting 3 with the A standard is good - many of the field events only have someone with the B standard. The most bizarre policy was the women's 800m where they ignored 3 people with the A standard and selected one person with the B standard instead. It may prove to be a good decision as she was the winner at the trials but it's a real risk. In the men's marathon only one runner met the A standard and another got selected having finished 15th in the Worlds last year. There was even a marathon set up with a pacemaker to try to get some others to meet the A standard. On the whole we are no worse off than many countries, very few have A standard athletes across the board and different countries specialise in different areas. The sprint final would probably be just Jamaica v USA if they were allowed to field as many as they liked but they wouldn't have many in the 10,000m. I'm really looking forward to the 4 x 100m relay, the world record will get smashed if Jamaica get it right.
  • daviesee
    daviesee Posts: 6,386
    So Pross, how does the above tally with your earlier post regarding athletes needing to meet the A standard or finish results in certain races?
    Just asking as this whole who counts for selection is getting baffling.
    None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.
  • daviesee
    daviesee Posts: 6,386
    Thread resurrection.

    Anybody surprised?
    I am not, as I guess you would know. /smug mode.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/olympics/19035570
    None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.
  • Scrumple
    Scrumple Posts: 2,665
    Why do us Brits revel in the failure of our sports people?
  • daviesee
    daviesee Posts: 6,386
    Scrumple wrote:
    Why do us Brits revel in the failure of our sports people?
    Not all failures, just the predictable ones. I was gutted yesterday.
    None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.
  • t.m.h.n.e.t
    t.m.h.n.e.t Posts: 2,265
    Hardly a surprise :roll:
  • Cleat Eastwood
    Cleat Eastwood Posts: 7,508
    haha I've won my bet with Bompington, that means he has to spend a night with Claire Balding. :D
    The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns
    momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.
  • TheEnglishman
    TheEnglishman Posts: 587
    Thing is she's gone. Lifes a bitch. But it moves on.

    Now theres 540 other athletes who are still there competing - lets hear about them. And the up and coming ones who'll need support in future Olympic competitions.
    Please click here to sponsor me on a 100 mile charity bike ride in aid of the MS Society
  • Cleat Eastwood
    Cleat Eastwood Posts: 7,508
    TheEnglishman wrote:
    Thing is she's gone. Lifes a *****. But it moves on.

    Now theres 540 other athletes who are still there competing - lets hear about them. And the up and coming ones who'll need support in future Olympic competitions.


    I think that was the point of the OP, wasnt it, that the up and coming ones were being denied a chance in favour of a blinkered attachment to woman who had tasted success and was perhaps too greedy recognise when her days were over.

    Interesting what someone up there ^^^ said about reveling in failure, maybe its more that were are so starved of stars and glory that we hold on to the past a little bit too long -and put pressure on indivuals to replicate past events- for example we accept Seb Coes lack of a business brain because he was once a mediocre runner and hence put up with c0ck ups in the olympic organisation - in the belief that he will favour the sportsman/rather than business - but sadly the opposite was true.
    The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns
    momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.
  • daviesee
    daviesee Posts: 6,386
    Give her credit where it is due.
    At least this time she pulled out at a time when someone could take her place.
    Well done!
    None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.
  • Scrumple
    Scrumple Posts: 2,665
    You lot are sad arm chair experts who think you know what you are on about.

    You'll be pickingt the England team next, as the managers are so predictably useless.

    Stop whinging and realise she gave everything to be fit and must be gutted to miss out. Once you are slected to be in the Olympics, I'll pay you more attention.

    For now, you are revelling in your own narcissistic self importance and gloating at a tragic broken dream. It isn't like there is talent banging on the door that she is even keeping out.

    Some of you need to be a bit more humble and listen to the speech on "sportsmanship" again.
  • Cleat Eastwood
    Cleat Eastwood Posts: 7,508
    Scrumple wrote:
    You lot are sad arm chair experts who think you know what you are on about.

    You'll be pickingt the England team next, as the managers are so predictably useless.

    Stop whinging and realise she gave everything to be fit and must be gutted to miss out. Once you are slected to be in the Olympics, I'll pay you more attention.

    For now, you are revelling in your own narcissistic self importance and gloating at a tragic broken dream. It isn't like there is talent banging on the door that she is even keeping out.

    Some of you need to be a bit more humble and listen to the speech on "sportsmanship" again.

    Not sure I get what you're saying - are you saying that for the sake of her dream, even though she is clearly unfit she should be allowed to compete ?.
    Past glories don't guarantee future success. Sportsmanship is all well and good, but reality is a more unforgiving judge - even Radcliffe has realised this - the reality is, whther through injury or no, she just ain't good enough.
    The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns
    momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.
  • Scrumple
    Scrumple Posts: 2,665
    It isn't her fault she is no longer the world best...

    So, unlikely to be a world beater, like Brad, and more likely to be like our other nearly men (Tim Henman et al) you have decided to consign her to the tip. We love to see people fall from grace here in England.

    Not good enough or not she is still better on her day than the other pool of talent and is a person who deserves a go (and some respect for trying) due to what she has achieved for her sport.

    As a role model, it is pathetic to watch you express glee at pointing out she is no longer the "best" and then joy at the fact she wont get a shot at trying to compete.

    It is your collective celebration of a personal tragedy that is pathetic despite you trying to package it up as a "favour to the nation" that she has been forced to pull out.
  • Cleat Eastwood
    Cleat Eastwood Posts: 7,508
    Who's celebrating - I couldnt care less whether she competes or not. So are you honestly saying that because she is no longer the best we should all be quiet about and not voice our opinions. She has pulled out of the olympics - it isnt a tragedy, a catastrophe or life changing problem. If this fact haunts you then you need seriously to reorganise your priorities - ok, I'll say it quietly - "Paula Radcliffe is no longer the best".

    Her glory days are gone, over, buried - why should someone be allowed to enter because they were once teh nations favourite? Will her competitors be so understanding. It's sport, the plaudits go to the stronger, the fastest, she is now neither - sorry to send you to bed disconsolate but thats the truth that even Radcliffe has admitted. Life moves on, get used to it.
    The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns
    momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.
  • Yellow Peril
    Yellow Peril Posts: 4,466
    I missed the news on this. Did she have a foot injury or did her head eventually wobble off?
    @JaunePeril

    Winner of the Bike Radar Pro Race Wiggins Hour Prediction Competition
  • jim453
    jim453 Posts: 1,360
    Cleat Eastwood wrote:
    Who's celebrating - I couldnt care less whether she competes or not. So are you honestly saying that because she is no longer the best we should all be quiet about and not voice our opinions. She has pulled out of the olympics - it isnt a tragedy, a catastrophe or life changing problem. If this fact haunts you then you need seriously to reorganise your priorities - ok, I'll say it quietly - "Paula Radcliffe is no longer the best".

    Her glory days are gone, over, buried - why should someone be allowed to enter because they were once teh nations favourite? Will her competitors be so understanding. It's sport, the plaudits go to the stronger, the fastest, she is now neither - sorry to send you to bed disconsolate but thats the truth that even Radcliffe has admitted. Life moves on, get used to it.

    Life's certainly moving on apace for Bompington - Balding'll be on her way around to his now. Shouldn't imagine he'll be getting used to it, mind.
  • laurentian
    laurentian Posts: 2,568
    Cleat Eastwood wrote:
    Who's celebrating - I couldnt care less whether she competes or not. So are you honestly saying that because she is no longer the best we should all be quiet about and not voice our opinions. She has pulled out of the olympics - it isnt a tragedy, a catastrophe or life changing problem. If this fact haunts you then you need seriously to reorganise your priorities - ok, I'll say it quietly - "Paula Radcliffe is no longer the best".

    Her glory days are gone, over, buried - why should someone be allowed to enter because they were once teh nations favourite? Will her competitors be so understanding. It's sport, the plaudits go to the stronger, the fastest, she is now neither - sorry to send you to bed disconsolate but thats the truth that even Radcliffe has admitted. Life moves on, get used to it.

    But that's got nothing to do with it!

    Saying she was "once the nations best" implying that she was unworthy of selection is BS!. Go out, have a look, do some research, check the facts, then come back and tell us who, at the time of olympic selection was a better choice.

    By any tangible (and most sports deal with the tangible) measure, Radcliffe should have been one of the people to represent the country in the Marathon. KJust because she's no longer the best in the world, doesn't mean she's not the best we've got. Have a look at some of the other selections - they do not pick "the nations favourite" they pick the athlete that they believe will deliver the best result (cf Dwain Chambers or Kenney vs Hoy or Beckham)

    At the 11th hour, she declared herself unfit and the reserve (ie the athlete they believe will deliver the next best result) took her place. Its not the first time its happened in sport, it won't be the last.

    Just because the scenario fits your prejudice or prediction (however tongue-in-cheek), it doesn't make your prejudice right.
    Wilier Izoard XP
  • daviesee
    daviesee Posts: 6,386
    laurentian wrote:
    they do not pick "the nations favourite" they pick the athlete that they believe will deliver the best result (cf Dwain Chambers or Kenney vs Hoy or Beckham)
    The point of my OP was that I did not think that she would finish. If she can't finish, she is not the best pick.
    Time has proven my opinion to be correct.
    PS - There is no joy in this, just history repeating itself.
    None of the above should be taken seriously, and certainly not personally.
  • Cleat Eastwood
    Cleat Eastwood Posts: 7,508
    laurentian wrote:
    Cleat Eastwood wrote:
    Who's celebrating - I couldnt care less whether she competes or not. So are you honestly saying that because she is no longer the best we should all be quiet about and not voice our opinions. She has pulled out of the olympics - it isnt a tragedy, a catastrophe or life changing problem. If this fact haunts you then you need seriously to reorganise your priorities - ok, I'll say it quietly - "Paula Radcliffe is no longer the best".

    Her glory days are gone, over, buried - why should someone be allowed to enter because they were once teh nations favourite? Will her competitors be so understanding. It's sport, the plaudits go to the stronger, the fastest, she is now neither - sorry to send you to bed disconsolate but thats the truth that even Radcliffe has admitted. Life moves on, get used to it.

    But that's got nothing to do with it!

    Saying she was "once the nations best" implying that she was unworthy of selection is BS!. Go out, have a look, do some research, check the facts, then come back and tell us who, at the time of olympic selection was a better choice.

    By any tangible (and most sports deal with the tangible) measure, Radcliffe should have been one of the people to represent the country in the Marathon. KJust because she's no longer the best in the world, doesn't mean she's not the best we've got. Have a look at some of the other selections - they do not pick "the nations favourite" they pick the athlete that they believe will deliver the best result (cf Dwain Chambers or Kenney vs Hoy or Beckham)

    At the 11th hour, she declared herself unfit and the reserve (ie the athlete they believe will deliver the next best result) took her place. Its not the first time its happened in sport, it won't be the last.

    Just because the scenario fits your prejudice or prediction (however tongue-in-cheek), it doesn't make your prejudice right.

    But thats not scrumples argument - his point of view is that regardless of fitness and ability she should have been considered because of past glories - kind of her chance to bow out gracefully, which, although romantic, is utter cobblers. have some green grinning thing - :mrgreen:
    The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns
    momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.
  • F_I
    F_I Posts: 14
    Typical reaction of people thinking they know what they are talking when really they have no idea about the selection process or the sport at large. Ignoring that, whether you like someone or not you should have a lot more respect for what training and sacrifices all athletes make to get to a position where they can compete in an Olympics.
  • VmanF3
    VmanF3 Posts: 240
    Common Internet Problem or C.I.P.

    Sat at home watching the telly, whilst 'surfing around on the web', you're struck with a thought about something. As you can no longer go to the pub (because it's now a Spar or something and/or you can't afford to go out as much) and come out with these glib remarks about serious issues(sic) to your mates, you consign them to type on various forums.

    In this instance in a pub to your mates, saying most of this would be funny. Talking about roadside dumps and being utterly crap at running and for being a bit of a munter, but in reality, you know and more importantly, your mates know you're talking rubbish and either laugh along with you and join in or just call you a knob.

    On these here interwebs, people challenge the thought, to which the OP or someone else takes issue and before long you have several folks all arguing about what really was a pretty normal thing for someone to say when in a pub surround by people we know.

    I for instance said to my lass when she came in that, "Tom Daley was rubbish today, the useless fecker lost!"

    However, what I actually meant was, Tom Daley didn't have a very good dive, he blew the fourth round attempt which cost them a lot. Damn shame, would have loved him to do better, because he's a really pleasant young fella who has worked damn hard for that through some difficult circumstances. My lass knows that's what I really meant, because we watched that documentary on him the other night. It's unwritten.

    Don't fall victim to this CIP
    Big Red, Blue, Pete, Bill & Doug
  • jim453
    jim453 Posts: 1,360
    VmanF3 wrote:
    Common Internet Problem or C.I.P.

    Sat at home watching the telly, whilst 'surfing around on the web', you're struck with a thought about something. As you can no longer go to the pub (because it's now a Spar or something and/or you can't afford to go out as much) and come out with these glib remarks about serious issues(sic) to your mates, you consign them to type on various forums.

    In this instance in a pub to your mates, saying most of this would be funny. Talking about roadside dumps and being utterly crap at running and for being a bit of a munter, but in reality, you know and more importantly, your mates know you're talking rubbish and either laugh along with you and join in or just call you a knob.

    On these here interwebs, people challenge the thought, to which the OP or someone else takes issue and before long you have several folks all arguing about what really was a pretty normal thing for someone to say when in a pub surround by people we know.

    I for instance said to my lass when she came in that, "Tom Daley was rubbish today, the useless fecker lost!"

    However, what I actually meant was, Tom Daley didn't have a very good dive, he blew the fourth round attempt which cost them a lot. Damn shame, would have loved him to do better, because he's a really pleasant young fella who has worked damn hard for that through some difficult circumstances. My lass knows that's what I really meant, because we watched that documentary on him the other night. It's unwritten.

    Don't fall victim to this CIP

    Thank you so much for educating us as to how best to behave whilst insulting each other/everyone/everything on the internet. Patronising do gooders like you are the most irritating internet problem I can see.

    @ off.
  • johncp
    johncp Posts: 302
    Cleat Eastwood wrote:
    TheEnglishman wrote:
    Thing is she's gone. Lifes a *****. But it moves on.

    Now theres 540 other athletes who are still there competing - lets hear about them. And the up and coming ones who'll need support in future Olympic competitions.


    I think that was the point of the OP, wasnt it, that the up and coming ones were being denied a chance in favour of a blinkered attachment to woman who had tasted success and was perhaps too greedy recognise when her days were over.

    Interesting what someone up there ^^^ said about reveling in failure, maybe its more that were are so starved of stars and glory that we hold on to the past a little bit too long -and put pressure on indivuals to replicate past events- for example we accept Seb Coes lack of a business brain because he was once a mediocre runner and hence put up with c0ck ups in the olympic organisation - in the belief that he will favour the sportsman/rather than business - but sadly the opposite was true.
    If your tongue isn't very firmly in your cheek here, then that has to be one of the dumbest things I've ever read anywhere on the interweb :roll:
    If you haven't got a headwind you're not trying hard enough

Categories