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

Does rojo really think most pro athletes are clean? How can he think that world leaders are clean?

Who did Lance beat that was clean? Name one guy.

Props to Pros wrote:

Who did Lance beat that was clean? Name one guy.

You've got to be kidding with that statement

Props to Pros wrote:

Who did Lance beat that was clean? Name one guy.

This is classic.

He beat my friends dad in the Boston Marathon that one time. That's at least one person.

Props to Pros wrote:

Who did Lance beat that was clean? Name one guy.

All of them. The problem is there aren't any clean guys he didn't beat.

Josh,

Can you please stop making every thread about me? If you want to email me, my address is

robertjohnson@letsrun.com

.

On to this thread. I believe that Weldon has said that if Paula tests positive, he will shut down the site.

I will admit statistically her record is absurd compared to other women. But the fact that she has been so outspoken her entire career against doping and to have seen her work so hard for the one week we spent with her, we are 100% believers she is clean. I think very few people are ALL IN in terms of doing everything to be good and she is one of them.

Consider this.

1) 2:15 seems absurd but it shouldn't be.

Women's running still isn't as deep as it should. There are way fewer elite women and then there are even way fewer that are doing mega high mileage.

I had a runner at Cornell - Sage Canaday - with the same PBs basically. He was a 14:35/29:47 guy and he's run 2:16. No one is stunned by that. Paula is a 14:29/30 flat person - so basically the same PRs.

No one will be stunned by a 2:15 when people like Dibaba start doing it.

2) If she was doped, then please tell me why she wouldn't have dominated at the 10k distance as well? She consistently got crushed. To me, the biggest thing if one is doped is they'd have a lot in reserve for the kick. Not her.

There are two possibilities:

A. Paula Radcliffe is dirtier than Lance Armstrong ever was, or;

B. Drugs don't help performance to any significant degree and all drug testing is a shame.

Rojo, you still haven't answered my question from a few days ago. Is it possible for a woman to run under 2:15:25 and break Paula Radcliffe's record in the marathon without drugs?

If so, then the answer is B.

There have been several threads about Paula. I'm sure she's not worried about the claims. She'd be happy to take any test at any time of the day because she has nothing to hide. Every single close friend and family member would state the same.

I'm sure she's not worried, because she has the brojos and the queen in her corner, and probably the inside track to WADA.

Regarding tests, no she won't. So far there has never been any drug test of Paula Radcliffe that has seen the light of day to the public, and yet all of Armstrong's have been. Makes you wonder huh.

J.R. wrote:

Rojo, you still haven't answered my question from a few days ago. Is it possible for a woman to run under 2:15:25 and break Paula Radcliffe's record in the marathon without drugs?

Yes. Most definitely. I expect it actually to go down in my lifetime - maybe before 2020 even.

If women start moving to the marathon like the men at 19-20.

We'll definitely see Radcliffe's WR beaten before we see a sub-2 hour marathon.

I know it equates to like 13:45 for 5k and 28:45 for 10k but women are supposed to be better at longer distances. Sage Canaday can run 2:16, Paula can do 2:15.

Sorry sage.

In my lifetime I don't think Paula record will be broken I"m only 20 years old. I wass 11 when during 2003 paula record run. I'm exercising and training for surf city 2013.

rojo wrote:

On to this thread. I believe that Weldon has said that if Paula tests positive, he will shut down the site.

I will admit statistically her record is absurd compared to other women. But the fact that she has been so outspoken her entire career against doping and to have seen her work so hard for the one week we spent with her, we are 100% believers she is clean. I think very few people are ALL IN in terms of doing everything to be good and she is one of them.

If you change the gender of the pronoun in the above paragraph, one could have written this about Lance. When one is "ALL IN in terms of doing everything to be good," well, then one may indeed resort to strenuous workouts AND doping.

you would flunk in Logic 101 with this kind of reasoning.

[quote]J.R. wrote:

There are two possibilities:

A. Paula Radcliffe is dirtier than Lance Armstrong ever was, or;

B. Drugs don't help performance to any significant degree and all drug testing is a shame.

------------------------------

Or C. That cycling is different to running in terms of doping. Most top cyclists were born at sea level whereas most top runners were born at altitude. Of course some still dope but there is a difference and none of the top long distance runners have been busted unlike in cycling

One more thing, I don't think Paula''s record is as unbeatable as people think. A lot of the top male runners moved to the marathon but that has not happened on the womens side. Look at the other sub 2:20 girls they are nearly all far slower over 10km than Paula.

If runners like Defar or Dibaba had switched to the marathon a few years ago the record would already be under threat

Of course she could be doping we don't know and that's why the drug cheats ruining the sport should be banned for life

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.

Very much the same with our latest hero, Bradley Wiggins.

I saw him being interviewed with his toddler bouncing on his knee. “How could I look him in the face in the future should I ever be outed as a drug cheat?”

And I believe him.

Similarly, but even more critical for the sport, would be the situation were Bolt ever caught taking drugs.

The sport of athletics would take years to recover from the resulting scandal, if it ever did - and Bolt (and family) would have to leave his beloved Jamaica forever.

Would he ever take that sort of gamble?

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?

How is this different for Lance Armstrong?

Well, for one thing, Paula was already a household name in the UK well before her Marathon WRs. She knew and understood the fame game long before her fame went global.

Lance was pretty much of a nobody, and the TdF was barely covered in the US, if at all, before his multiple "wins" - had he been busted for doping after the 1st or even 2nd win, he could have come back to the US and nobody would have known who he was.

jonesy johnson wrote:

How is this different for Lance Armstrong?

He is an American. He perfectly represents the American ideal in every way.

Why are there so many Paula Radcliffe haters? I don't see anyone questioning the increasing handful of men in the 2:04 neighborhood.

You've got a good point there.