OMG, I totally wish Paula Radcliffe gets caught/outted.

Do you understand 1/2 of what you post?

J.R. wrote:

If you understand 1/2 of what I have posted, than you're not as dumb as I thought.

Was told at a young age if she even tried drugs she would have a much greater chance of being addicted.

That's a pretty stupid comment - do you even understand the difference between psychoactive drugs and PEDs?

Paual didn't use an altitude tent. The story is a work of fiction by certain people involved in that business.

If it get repeated enough, you can be sure that Tyrannosaurus Rexing/Sir Lance a-lot will be one of those reapeating it.

thanks babe :D and thanks for your support today. It means more than you know.

jonesy johnson wrote:

Not Ron Hill wrote:

There are certain athletes where the consequences of being caught taking drugs, outweighs the benefits of the enhanced performances and money resulting from participating.

One such is Paula, a national heroine.

She is not stupid, what sort of a life would she have in Britain, were it ever revealed she wasn’t clean when racing?

And where would she have to go, which country in the world, could she end up in where fingers wouldn’t be pointed - what a life.

How is this different for Lance Armstrong?

Perspective.

In track less than 10% dope.

In cycling, less than 10% are clean.

This is like the difference between business ethics in the US or UK versus the business ethics in China or India.

Its cultural, doping or ethics.

iloveu wrote:

thanks babe :D and thanks for your support today. It means more than you know.

You're welcome. Sorry I spelt your name wrong, it's cold here, ran hard, need more carbs.

She did and she does use a tent

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/07/sports/07iht-train_ed3_.html

hairnose wrote:

jonesy johnson wrote:

How is this different for Lance Armstrong?

Perspective.

In track less than 10% dope.

In cycling, less than 10% are clean.

This is like the difference between business ethics in the US or UK versus the business ethics in China or India.

Its cultural, doping or ethics.

Nope. The rules prohibit doping in cycling. So this is not analogous to different ethics.

here we go again.... wrote:

Paual didn't use an altitude tent. The story is a work of fiction by certain people involved in that business.

Links/sources?

In track less than 10% dope.

In cycling, less than 10% are clean.

Source?

I call BS - you just pulled those stats out of your arse.

Moronic wrote:

here we go again.... wrote:

Paual didn't use an altitude tent. The story is a work of fiction by certain people involved in that business.

Links/sources?

How do you read this:

The way that the hypoxic tent manufacturers want you to read it? Or can you read between the lines?

here we go again... wrote:

Moronic wrote:

Links/sources?

How do you read this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/07/sports/07iht-train_ed3_.html

The way that the hypoxic tent manufacturers want you to read it? Or can you read between the lines?

what?? So that article written by Christopher Clary in the NYTIMES was a plant/set-up by the evil hypoxic tent manufacturer industry? Or....was an honest article containing direct quotes from Radcliffe to the author writing the story??

If the former, surely you should be able to dig up some quotes from Radcliffe claiming that she never, EVER used the tents (as you claim), and that she was misquoted in that article? Or.....should we just take your word for it?

You still need a LOT more carbs, because your brain appears permanently depleted of glucose.

oh this is sweet. I just tweeted (first time ever using twitter, just signed up for the sole purpose of asking this question) the author of the disputed article, asking him if the quotes were direct from Radcliffe to him (as they obviously appeared to be). And he said YES.

Go to

https://twitter.com/christophclarey

.

Click on "view conversation" between "4evafitfreak" (was just making up random name for purpose of asking this question, can change if I desire to stay on twitter, and no, my real name is not the one listed either [Derrick Smith]). It goes like this:

Tweets

35m Derrick D Smith ‏@4evafitfreak

@christophclarey Your 2001 article on altitude tents: those are direct quotes from Ms Radcliffe to you, correct?

12m Christopher Clarey ‏@christophclarey

@4evafitfreak yes

Hide conversation Reply Retweet Favorite

7:45 AM - 22 Jan 13 · Details

So once again: Was Radcliffe lying about her use of the tents? Or was/is the author lying? Or........

are are you just a typical letsrun whack job who can't accept reality?

SHE USED THE TENTS. Probably helped her a ton. Completely legal, but I don't see that big of a difference between huffing synthetic air that causes the body to passively produce more rbc's and injecting a hormone that is exactly the same was what your body already produces.

TR, if people are not going to accept direct quotes from Paula Radcliffe in the NY Times as evidence that she has used an altitude tent, then nothing short of videotape will suffice and even then they would find a way to deny it. They know as well as you do that she has employed the device and are merely trolling like maniacs. Don't waste your time.

She doesn't talk about using tents in her preparation in those quotes. Did you even read them?

here we go again... wrote:

She doesn't talk about using tents in her preparation in those quotes. Did you even read them?

Sure, there is no quote that says: "I, Paula Radcliffe, under penalty of perjury declare that I have used artificial altitude tents before." You got me there.....

BUT.... she describes them as being "not as comfortable as a double bed" and defends their use 100%, and the author states Radcliffe told him that she " feels no burden about having used an altitude tent on occasion, most recently for several days before she won the world cross-country title in March".

But I am sure she was just describing the comfort of them based on what she heard, and that the author just pulled that part about her telling him that she used one before the 2001 XC WC's out of his ass, you know, just to conspire against her.

Yes, you are quite the deluded little troll.

Now go get some carbs before you pass out.

here we go again... wrote:

Moronic wrote:

Links/sources?

How do you read this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/07/sports/07iht-train_ed3_.html

The way that the hypoxic tent manufacturers want you to read it? Or can you read between the lines?

So let me get this straight, Radcliffe over the years has made millions from official endorsements and, like all high profile/high earning athletes, protects the use of her name, but she and her management and legal team has allowed the hypoxic tent manufacturers/sellers to use it. Also, allowed them and dozens of others over the years to say she's actually used them when, according to you, she hasn't. You're an idiot.

She was talking about the ethics of using a tent versus the unethical use of EPO. So she tried an altitude tent and decided not to use it again because she wanted to stick with altitude training, which by the way she says doesn't alter her blood phsyiology. But to you that means she uses an altitude tent?

Her words are being misrepresented. And by you too, which is what I expect from you.

Look, here's the real deal about Paula. She is from a lower class background in a second world country. She went to a low level college where she studied the easiest subjects. She is not attractive. All this adds up to a person with bleak income prospects. Her only way out of that northern english ghetto was sports. The only way for her to be the best at sports was doping.

Her supporters claim that she trained harder and had more willpower than every human in history. That is an insult. If she is such a perfectionist, then why didn't she make even a token effort to get rid of the head bobbing and flailing arms? That alone would have got hr down to 2:12.

She cheated. It is obvious. Jeez, wake up and face the facts.