Paula Radcliffe heresy? Should she have run at all?

Question

I'm not sure of my thoughts on this one myself.

Paula had the injury, was unable to train properly as demonstrated by her result and at the end she said felt like she was running on one leg. She and her trainer must haveknown this before. Should another runner have had the opportunity to compete and experience the olympics? - the reserve was Hayley Haining or if not her then a young athlete coming through (if they qualified of course),who may be at the next olympics or even 2016.

Answer 1

I think you will find that Paula has been able to hack it at the highest level. 1st in the World Champs for the Marathon and twice 1st in the World Half Marathon champs. Current world record holder at the marathon set in London and 10k world record holder.

Her last win was last november in the NY Marathon.

All these races prove she has been the best in the world. The Athens marathon was one race. Last weeks was another. She didn't win but its a fine line between success and failure. Another couple of weeks of training may have made the difference but who knows before the event.

As to whether she should have run last week - she was picked by the selectors and still finished as the 2nd fastest british woman.

Its quite easy to sit at home and complain and knock people for what they have or havent done.

For the majority in this country the most strenuous thing they will do this week is walk to the pub where they have a moan about how rubbish some athlete or other is.

These people are the real embassasment

Answer 2

I think radcliffe should have put her hands up when she knew she wouldn't be competitive and let Hailey run after all she has been there so for me it was being pure selfish not to let Hayley run 23rd stopped twice Hayley would have gained the experience and British women's distance  would have been the better for it and why didn't the commentators comment on that ohhhhhhhhh yesssssssssss a rule for Dwayne another for golden girl

Answer 3

Today she was the 23rd fastest woman marathon runner in the world.... isn't that a good enough reason to be there? If you don't enter then there is no chance of winning, and the other GB runners - very good runners at that - arn't quite at olympic winning standard yet.There was a risk that Paula would pull up with injury, do badly or.... even win and I think that is a risk worth taking

Answer 4

Like you, I'm not sure either.

On the one hand, she is the fastest British woman at the marathon, the current record holder, and has a string of impressive victories.

But on the other hand, she had clearly not fully recovered from her injury.

Part of me thinks that after her Athens experience, the selectors felt somehow obligated to give her the nod, but they will have also borne in mind that Paula at her best is more than capable of delivering a gold.

I've heard the argument about sending another woman instead and giving them the chance elsewhere.  Unfortunately, even though they can meet the qualifying standard, the fact is we don't have anyone else with a realistic prospect of medalling.  Good experience for the future yes, but UK Sport and the government set a high target for medals in Beijing (41).  Though we look set to surpass it, many (myself included), thought it unrealistically high.

In that context I can understand why the selectors wanted Paula.  For her, I think it has become something of an obsession.  I understand that she would have retired had she won gold, but is now talking about competing in 2012.  Though it's home soil, I think at 38 she will be a little too old to mix it up with the best in the world.  She's had a glittering career, but I think since it only comes round once every four years, Olympic champion is one title that will elude her.

Answer 5

No, she shouldn't have been there.

She wasn't even fit enough to be there for the opening ceremony so why would she be able to run 26 miles.

GB had a woman come in 6th and another only a couple of places behind Radcliffe and she was actually knocked over and injured. I think she deserves more admiration than Radcliffe and the sixth place runner deserves more praise.

But no, it'll all be about poor Paula and how she never gets to win a gold, as if she's entitled to or something, and I really hope she doesn't embarrass herself and her country again in London 2012.

Answer 6

The answer as she herself admitted is that she probably shouldn't have been running. But the bravery and determination of Paula is to be admired. The olympics has always been about heart and competitiveness something she undoubtedly demonstrated. 23rd in a world quality field when unfit and running the last 10k on one leg is frankly an amazing achievement and just shows her quality.

Answer 7

This has gone on way to long. Paula should not be competing anymore. She is not good enough. She is constantly plagued with injury, and should never have been entered for the olympics. It is at the expense of other younger, fitter athletes, who are being withheld from developing because Paula wants olympic glory.  

Answer 8

Why anyone would want to go to the Olympics in Beijing is beyond me anyway.  I like the irony that they have had to fill the empty seats with students.  Did the invite say "Dear student please come to Tienanmen square"

Answer 9

she wanted to proove to herself that she could finsh and get over athens! she is a brilliant and talented athelete! she was the second british women and everyone should remember that she has had a stress fracture and has not been able to train on the road. also in the last couple of years she did have a baby and has got other commitments !! well done paula

i think you did fab

:) x