stoneman 9:24 Wed Sep 9
Paula Radcliffe.
|
|
Protesting a bit too much for my liking.
|
|
|
Replies - Newest Posts First ( Show In Chronological Order)
stewie griffin
12:41 Mon Sep 14
Re: Paula Radcliffe.
|
"She came across as very desperate over the weekend and i did actually cringe for her at one point as she was almost falling over her words. "
To be fair, she's always like that. Has a whiny, wobbly tone to her voice.
|
Russ of the BML
12:39 Mon Sep 14
Re: Paula Radcliffe.
|
Mace66 12:36 Mon Sep 14
Exactly. There are times in life when, despite huge provocation and pressure, you have to play it cool. Her response should've been blunt, no fuss and to the point.
It appears our athletes are not managed or advised very well.
|
Mace66
12:36 Mon Sep 14
Re: Paula Radcliffe.
|
" Seeing her and Farah squirming and breaking down on TV "
She came across as very desperate over the weekend and i did actually cringe for her at one point as she was almost falling over her words.
|
Russ of the BML
10:24 Mon Sep 14
Re: Paula Radcliffe.
|
Marston Hammer 5:24 Thu Sep 10
She gives that statement - people moan that she's not saying enough
She gives a long statement - protesting too loudly
Exactly. So you do what you have to do with as minimum effort and fuss. She can't win so you make your response brief and to the point.
Seeing her and Farah squirming and breaking down on TV over stuff that did not in any way directly make allegations to them was pathetic.
|
Razzle
11:59 Fri Sep 11
Re: Paula Radcliffe.
|
Paula Radcliffe is a great of British Athletics.
We do like to try and rubbish successful people in this country.
Little bit like Rooney...The history books will show him as Englands highest goal scorer like it or not.
|
Vexed
8:50 Thu Sep 10
Re: Paula Radcliffe.
|
One of her readings was 114.x.
She has only allowed certain blood results to be published which is interesting. Probably hasn't got the excuses worked out for the other readings yet.
|
Vexed
8:46 Thu Sep 10
Re: Paula Radcliffe.
|
whufcroe 8:11 Thu Sep 10
No evidence? How did she get on that list then?
How much evidence do you think the authorities have on dopers usually then?
|
,
8:46 Thu Sep 10
Re: Paula Radcliffe.
|
I see Floyd Mayweather has upset the Nevada State AC over carrying out an IV procedure without permission.
|
Sven Roeder
8:44 Thu Sep 10
Re: Paula Radcliffe.
|
The blood reading is expressed as a number (I AM NOT A DOCTOR).
The normal reading is ok if its 103 or under.
The normal reading after altitude training is about 111.
Her reading after altitude training was something like 109.
These are approx. figures from what SOME BLOKE ON SKY said.
|
Fivetide
8:42 Thu Sep 10
Re: Paula Radcliffe.
|
There are margins of allowance for oxidisation etc.... It'll all come out one way or another. Either way there will be plenty of public emotional breakdowns no doubt. As per usual.
|
Vexed
8:38 Thu Sep 10
Re: Paula Radcliffe.
|
The point i was trying to make was that the effects of altitude training are well known and therefore shouldn't show up as anomalous.
But Radcliffes have shown up as potentially iffy. But its because of altitude training. Really?
|
SurfaceAgentX2Zero
8:17 Thu Sep 10
Re: Paula Radcliffe.
|
So Vexed, because you don't understand the process whereby altitude training affects the results of a test, she must be guilty?
Blimey!
|
Big Dave
8:15 Thu Sep 10
Re: Paula Radcliffe.
|
Altitude training is legitimate. Some people live at higher altitudes!
|
Marston Hammer
8:15 Thu Sep 10
Re: Paula Radcliffe.
|
whufcroe 8:11 Thu Sep 10
|
whufcroe
8:11 Thu Sep 10
Re: Paula Radcliffe.
|
Is there any evidence she's cheated? NO
Simple as
|
Sven Roeder
8:04 Thu Sep 10
Re: Paula Radcliffe.
|
That's the point of altitude training isn't it?
Makes you work harder so that when you return to normal altitude your body is still working at this higher rate ..... some may regard that as a 'natural' way of doping.
The effect after competing is you'd imagine some sort of effect of a MAJOR output of energy affecting your readings for a while.
Guys like Farah train most of the time but how often do they race and really exert themselves?
A handful of times a year if that.
Presumably the training load and build up for a major race is different to say a footballer who might play week after week for 9 months.
Maybe Radcliffe was right when she said she was reluctant to release the results as people WOULDNT UNDERSTAND THEM.
|
Vexed
7:51 Thu Sep 10
Re: Paula Radcliffe.
|
Results within two HOURS of competition are deemed invalid. Two weeks would mean most athletes would rarely be able to give a valid sample.
Altitude training, that old chestnut. Been rather overused over the years but you'd have thought We'd understand the effects enough to know what it does to blood and that I might make you look like a doper. Yet they still do it. Strange eh? And it only seems to push some athletes into the suspect category, even stranger.
|
Marston Hammer
7:25 Thu Sep 10
Re: Paula Radcliffe.
|
Yes Sven, 100% guilty.
|
Sven Roeder
6:43 Thu Sep 10
Re: Paula Radcliffe.
|
I assume the recent link repeats the explanation I saw on Sky
She has 3 readings above the 'normal' level
Two are after she was training at altitude and are within the range for athletes who have done that.
The other is high as it was taken immediately after she ran a half marathon and is within a range given that exertion. They said something about results within a couple of weeks of competition are usually excluded because of results like this ....which are perfectly normal.
That about it?
|
tnb
6:37 Thu Sep 10
Re: Paula Radcliffe.
|
If they are using tests that can't differentiate between blood doping and altitude training, then the tests aren't fit for purpose.
|
mongo
5:55 Thu Sep 10
Re: Paula Radcliffe.
|
Sounds pretty guilty in that interview.
I doubt many even believed it or cared before she spoke
|
| 
