Radcliffe is at it again.

laurentian

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

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 -

Ah! misunderstood - that would have been wrong as intimated in my post . . . have one back

Ben6899

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

I am drowning in a tsunami of irony. Quick, throw me a lifebelt!

Pross

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.

Except as pointed out her selection hasn't denied anyone as there was no-one else with an A standard who would have been allowed in. Why do people keep overlooking this fairly important point?

VmanF3

Ben6899 wrote:

I am drowning in a tsunami of irony. Quick, throw me a lifebelt!

round of applause for getting the post - well done....!

mattshrops

so if you were her and got picked you'd do exactly as she did . so quite frankly stfu.

Shame she wont be there to shove it down some throats. One of our finest ever athletes -and only picked cos she still was our best at the time of selection.
1+1=2 capisce?

Yellow Peril

and let's face it she had a scat fest on live TV whilst running a race which is quite ironic bearing in mind you can't even write the word Shoot on this forum.

daviesee

Drawn back in again dammit!

Pross wrote:

Except as pointed out her selection hasn't denied anyone as there was no-one else with an A standard who would have been allowed in. Why do people keep overlooking this fairly important point?

Freya Murray has been called in as a replacement. Therefore there was someone else who was allowed in.

Yellow Peril

daviesee wrote:

Drawn back in again dammit!

Pross wrote:

Except as pointed out her selection hasn't denied anyone as there was no-one else with an A standard who would have been allowed in. Why do people keep overlooking this fairly important point?

Freya Murray has been called in as a replacement. Therefore there was someone else who was allowed in.

As long as she hasn't spent the last few weeks eating pies.

laurentian

daviesee wrote:

Drawn back in again dammit!

Pross wrote:

Except as pointed out her selection hasn't denied anyone as there was no-one else with an A standard who would have been allowed in. Why do people keep overlooking this fairly important point?

Freya Murray has been called in as a replacement. Therefore there was someone else who was allowed in.

Just to reinforce the point re: lack of alternatives, Freya Murray has only ran a marathon once before.

mattshrops

laurentian wrote:

daviesee wrote:

Drawn back in again dammit!

Pross wrote:

Except as pointed out her selection hasn't denied anyone as there was no-one else with an A standard who would have been allowed in. Why do people keep overlooking this fairly important point?

Freya Murray has been called in as a replacement. Therefore there was someone else who was allowed in.

Just to reinforce the point re: lack of alternatives, Freya Murray has only ran a marathon once before.

And did she get the A standard? Or the B. Clue =B :roll:

Cleat Eastwood

mattshrops wrote:

laurentian wrote:

daviesee wrote:

Drawn back in again dammit!

Pross wrote:

Except as pointed out her selection hasn't denied anyone as there was no-one else with an A standard who would have been allowed in. Why do people keep overlooking this fairly important point?

Freya Murray has been called in as a replacement. Therefore there was someone else who was allowed in.

Just to reinforce the point re: lack of alternatives, Freya Murray has only ran a marathon once before.

And did she get the A standard? Or the B. Clue =B :roll:

Yes, maybe - but there was someone else - which was the point of the OP. Gawd - now lets stop this nonsense and save our energies for when Cav does the co-commentating at the track.

staringatthesea

There was also Jo Pavey with the A standard, although once Claire Hallissey was selected above her she focussed on the track and is now running the 5000 and 10000. The UKA (Uk athletics, governing body) set their A standard of 2.31 higher than the IAAF A standard, so there was also potential leeway for Louise Damen to run too if it came to it.

But anyone who knew anything about athletics knew Radcliffe would break down again. I think she was indulged a bit by UKA because of who she was. To be fair to her she's been keeping Freya Murray in the loop with her injuries so she is well prepared. And she may only have run one marathon previously but she is no flash in the pan and has a real future in the event. Her coach wasn't bad either. Anyone heard of Steve Jones?