No doubt. Here we have two of the very few people on LR with the best reputations and the highest credibility, spouting off lies and relentlessly bashing one of the icons of our sport, and supporting each other doing it. What an embarrassment.
No doubt. Here we have two of the very few people on LR with the best reputations and the highest credibility, spouting off lies and relentlessly bashing one of the icons of our sport, and supporting each other doing it. What an embarrassment.
common wrote:
Avocado's Number wrote:Mr. Cabral did not call Paula Radcliffe an "idiot and an analphabetic." You are simply wrong about that, although I can understand how one might misread his comment in such a manner.
But even if he has been disparaging of Paula, I don't see why he needs to apologize to you or anyone else on this thread. And after reading through all of the comments of all of the posters on this thread, I don't think that he is the one who needs to be "call[ed] out on his embarrassing, a$$hole behavior."
Respectfully, here is Mr. Cabral's exact quote:
You know what ? The top talented runner got good heart function, strong lactate, good muscles to run over distance body and legs.
But he/she can be a idiot and an analphabet, can have no idea how to speak.
Paula is great runner but she isn´t an intelectual.
Whhat is wrong is the day the public opinion considers that a great runenr can be comepetent to be President, to be from the Olympic committee, politics, deputee etc, when his/her credentials is that he/she was a greast runner.
There were a number of heated exchanges that are no longer a part of the thread because Mr. Cabral has been abusing his moderator privileges and deleting those replies. So, the evidence is very much one-sided in favor of making it appear that Mr. Cabral is being unfairly accosted by a few of us in this thread. That is simply not the case. Mr. Cabral has been crafting the thread with his selective deletions, and it looks like he has been successful in making himself appear to be the victim.
And it looks like he convinced you, a lawyer and an intelligent person, that he is somehow justified in his actions. Sad.
My call for an apology is for two reasons: 1) His abuse of moderator privileges, and 2) His almost libelous description of Paula Radcliffe as an EPO cheat, as well as his tasteless and patently false description of her as an analphabet and an idiot.
How you can support his calling her those things, while criticising me for describing his behavior as obnoxious, boorish, misogynistic, and yes, a$$holish, escapes my understanding. I've had disagreements with you in the past, but always respected you, and sometimes even came around to your way of thinking. It disappoints me to know that you can be turned by such obvious misrepresentations, to the point where you read right past the very line (...an idiot and an analphabet) that Mr. Cabral wrote, and which you made the center of your reply to me.
If you're going to call me out, please be accurate in your representation of me, both for your own benefit as well as for the benefit of others.
Again, you are simply wrong. I did not "read right past the very line (...an idiot and an analphabet) that Mr. Cabral wrote." Rather, I read Mr. Cabral's post a number of times, and he did not call Paula an "idiot and an analphabetic." As I said, I can understand how one might misread his comment in such a manner, but you are incorrect. Mr. Cabral was pointing out, rightly, that "a top talented runner" (male or female, hence the "he/she," and not referring specifically to Paula) "can be" (not necessarily "is") an "idiot and an analphabetic," and "can have" (not necessarily "has") "no idea how to speak." He followed up that correct statement with his remark, two lines later, about what he perceived to be an unfortunate tendency for public opinion to link athletic excellence with political or administrative competence. His comment about Paula in that post was limited to his observation (which others can certainly dispute) that she is not an intellectual.
I am not defending Mr. Cabrel's views about Paula's intellect or any suggestions that he may have made about use of synthetic or exogenous EPO by Paula. My personal impression is that she is a smart woman who would not engage in such practices, although I don't purport to have any inside information on those matters.
I'm not sure what misrepresentations you believe that I have made about you.
common wrote:
Again, respectfully, you're being quite selective in your quotes. From the same article:
The International Association of Athletics Federations is concerned that the pacemakers will not finish the race after completing their jobs. It is expected that the last pacemaker will drop out at 25 miles."We will have to look at this because there will be some raised eyebrows," said Istvan Gyulai, the secretary of the IAAF. "This is not against the rules as such but it's not in the spirit of the sport to have men, with no intention of finishing the race, pacemaking women."
So, 1) it was within the letter, but perhaps no the spirit, of the rules, and 2) the IAAF's explicit concern was that the pacers would not finish the race, which was rendered moot when this happened:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_azxYbwGhY#t=0m47For those who can't be bothered to watch the video, it shows the pacer running within 20 seconds of the finish line, but does not show him finishing the race. Sorry, you'll have to take Paula's own words as evidence to the fact that he did finish:
The last 800m were great because the density of the density of the crowd and the volume of the noise rush you on to the finish line. I was also racing Christopher (Kandie) all the way to the finish too, and though he had to follow the blue men’s finish line and I the green women’s one, I remember being genuinely annoyed that he beat me and finished half a second ahead of me. The clock stopped at 2.15.25, almost 2 minutes faster than my Chicago record, my last mile covered in under 5 minutes. That confirmed my feeling that the windy conditions and the arrival of my period in Chicago had taken their toll on my performance. In my eyes, it was a fair reflection of the form I was in and how hard I had worked.
Now, as far as what "ample documentation" there is, one would probably have to get that from the governing body itself, the IAAF, from Dave Bedford, Director of the London Marathon, and from Paula herself. I don't know that it is posted online, but I'm quite sure it's documented. Do you doubt that it is?
Ms. Ndereba disagreed with the way that the race was set up by the Director. That is her right. She threatened to boycott the race. That is her right. She then chose to run the race, and she chose to cash the checks she was given in payment for her appearance and her 2nd place finish. Well earned, and congratulations to you Ms. Ndereba.
The lady she doth protest too much. And only when it suits her. I won't resort to calling her names for her self-interested actions, as Mr. Cabral did to Paula.
If we can dispense with the deletion of replies to this thread, you might get more truth than you care to read, Avocado.
Are you disagreeing with something that I said?
I still don't see the "ample documentation" that "Paula herself protested the use of pacers at the 2003 London Marathon." And yes, I do doubt that it exists. The article that I linked to was consistent with my understanding of the events that led up to that race. In particular:
-Paula sought to change the format of the London marathon, which had held separate men's and women's races for something like twelve years, by requesting that the men's and women's races be mixed together so that she could use male runners to help her run faster.
-The organization rejected her request to combine the men's and women's races, but instead proposed male pacemakers in an otherwise all-women's race.
-Paula supported the use of male pacemakers to assist her in an otherwise all-women's race.
-Paula did not retract her support for the use of male pacemakers in an otherwise all-women's race, even after being made aware of the objection voiced by Catherine Ndereba, who had accepted the invitation to run London before the proposal of male pacemakers in the otherwise all-women's race.
-Long before the race, Paula was fully aware that IAAF officials questioned the propriety of the proposed pacemaking scheme.
You may think that Paula's conduct was entirely appropriate, and you may think that Paula's recent disclaimers and other comments about the use of male pacemakers are accurate. If so, we may have a difference of opinion that is unlikely to be bridged.
common wrote:
So, Avocado, you're just going to drive by and call me a liar? I've shown you very clearly that Mr. Cabral did indeed write the words you claim he did not.
1. I didn't call you a liar. I said that you were wrong, not that you were wrong intentionally. In fact, I acknowledged how one might simply have misread Mr. Cabral's statement.
2. I didn't claim that Mr. Cabral did not write the words "idiot" and "analphabetic." I asserted that he didn't call Paula Radcliffe an "idiot" and an "analphabetic." You haven't shown me otherwise.
You are a lawyer, aren't you. I haven't seen a paragraph parsed to within an inch of its life like that since university. Sincerely, my hat is off to you for coming up with that interpretation of what Mr. Cabral wrote. It's certainly within the realm of possibility that your interpretation is what he intended, but his meaning was clouded by the combination of Portuguese grammar and a limited command of English.
If that is what he intended, it certainly begs the question: why delete 20+ replies, including some of his own? Why continue to make further negative statements, adding credibility to my interpretation? At what point does Mr. Cabral take responsibility for writing in a way that can be misunderstood, as opposed to the reader taking responsibility for misunderstanding?
If I call your wife some degrading, hurtful word in Portuguese, does it make it any less hurtful that I referred to her as "she", and I have a very limited ability to communicate in the language? I wouldn't think so, but apparently you do, Avocado. I suspect you'd hit me just as hard, and probably wouldn't hem and haw trying to decide how to respond depending on if I meant your actual wife, wives in general, or just any randomly selected woman.
I'm not sure where you came to the conclusion that I feel you have misrepresented me. Perhaps replies are being deleted again? I've read back through the thread and the only reference to misrepresentation I can find is that which Mr. Cabral has done by deleting a full third of the original content of the thread.
Finally, if you feel you aren't defending Mr. Cabral's statements concerning Paula Radcliffe, I can't stop you from feeling so. However, your reasoned perception is not nearly the same as a reasonable person's perception, which is that Antonio Cabral said those things about Paula Radcliffe, meant them, and then tried to delete, deceive, and dance around his own words when he was called out. You could do better than to throw in with the likes of "him".
Thank you for the respectful reply.
Here is what I consider "ample" documentation to support my understanding of what happened to set up London 2003:
Mixed Race Considered
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/athletics/2579559.stm
Ndereba Angered by Pacemakers
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/athletics/london_marathon_2003/2935057.stm
Radcliffe Denied by IAAF
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/athletics/2851349.stm
Radcliffe Recieves Pace Support
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/athletics/london_marathon_2003/2911129.stm
Radcliffe Smashes Record
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/athletics/london_marathon_2003/2943913.stm
=====================
My meaning in stating, "Paula herself protested the use of pacers at the 2003 London Marathon" is that Paula's stated preference was to participate in a mixed race, specifically a single, mass start, mixed race. Indeed, in 2003, that was the only race format in which the IAAF would ratify a World Record! Isn't that a neat twist? Perhaps "protested" is too strong a term for your liking?
I would further clarify that Paula's stated preference was to compete against the other men in the mixed field. This implies that given a choice, she would prefer not to run with male pacers, but would prefer to race against male racers. I wold also add that the London Marathon sought to change their own race format, independently of Paula's wishes, in order to regain the World Record designation that was held by Chicago. Mr. Bedford had his own motives separate from Paula's.
The IAAF proposed male pacers, and Paula weighed her options versus her goals, and accepted their offer. You're trying to imply she is making a choice between two options, and she is choosing male pacers. Not true. She wanted to be a in fully mixed race, and would have run that way given the choice.
That she didn't retract her support for the direction of the race because a chief rival balked is not of concern to me. You neglect to mention that the rest of the invited field voiced no objections.
I agree that Paula was aware that the IAAF was not going to validate a record set in a race with male pacers--unless those pacers were going to finish the race. Which they did. Which is why the IAAF ultimately ratified the World Record of 2:15:25, and upheld it as a Women's Marathon World Record without question for over eight years, until inexplicably changing their collective mind somewhere about mid-summer.
I agree, we probably have more of a difference in interpretation than in the availability of facts. I do find it interesting what facts you choose to disclose and those which you omit. Clearly, we're both biased in favor of our outcome. Cheers.
common wrote:
You are a lawyer, aren't you. I haven't seen a paragraph parsed to within an inch of its life like that since university. Sincerely, my hat is off to you for coming up with that interpretation of what Mr. Cabral wrote. It's certainly within the realm of possibility that your interpretation is what he intended, but his meaning was clouded by the combination of Portuguese grammar and a limited command of English.
It really wasn't a matter of "coming up with that interpretation of what Mr. Cabral wrote." I had read his comments a number of times, and was confident that you had misinterpreted that particular statement. I understood how you may have interpreted the statement in the way that you did, and I understood how his uneven command of English may have contributed to your assessment of the statement.
I did find it a bit odd that he volunteered his views about Paula's intellect as being "ordinary" and "vulgar" (a term that is most commonly used in modern English in a very different and highly perjorative sense). At the very least, it seemed unnecessary as a response to some comments about how she may have come across in interviews. Perhaps there was something more behind his remarks. But that would be true of most remarks on this thread.
I like Paula, she's pretty and fast.
common wrote:
Radcliffe Recieves Pace Support
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/athletics/london_marathon_2003/2911129.stm
That article also says that there were 10 pacemakers in the race who certainly weren't all running with Paula.
The quote from Paula is also more equivocal in this article. I don't think too much can be read into the other supportive quotes attributed to her at the time as she had a responsibility to promote the race. It seems like it was primarily David Bedford's initiative as he wanted to have both the men's and women's world records set in London.
Avocado's Number wrote:
Perhaps there was something more behind his remarks. But that would be true of most remarks on this thread.
Perhaps the sky is blue, too. You could probably present an argument that could convince a reasonable person that the sky is actually colorless, and their perception is just a result of years of confirmation bias. It's nice that you finally acknowledged that using a term like "vulgar" to describe someone's intelligence is "unnecessary". That's the closest I'm going to get to, "yeah, you know what, common, he was kind of out of line." I'll take it.
Mr. Cabral obviously has something against Paula. He spent time with her over a 2-3 year period, so it's clearly become a personal matter that is, unfortunately, being aired somewhat passive-aggressively in a public forum.
For my part, I don't know Mr. Cabral or Ms. Radcliffe from Adam. I haven't read any of Mr. Cabral's coaching advice or any of his threads, and certainly won't start any time soon. My only reason for pursuing this thread was that his good reputation preceded him, and I was shocked to see such writing from one of Let's Run's few "foundational" posters. I thought for a while that his account must have been hijacked, but after a few more posts, it was obvious it was really him.
I learned what I wanted to know, and I've made my point. Others can take away from this exchange whatever they like. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind about Mr. Cabral. In my opinion, he's been successful in doing that with his own words.
Antonio Cabral wrote:
I suggest to Paula that instead of protest to drugs that is illegal in sports and it´s unfair really, that she turn on that protest against her own 2:15 Word record, that is also one illegal and one unfair result, done in one competition that the norm is just women-to-woman run, but she was helped by men.
I agree with all these posts by Antonio.
It was easy to see this when PR held up the signs trying to get Yegorova banned, why? Because Yegorova was very EASILY beating PR every time, NOT because Olga Yegorova was doing anything wrong. That was bad sportsmanship at it's worst, at the hands of PR - it was CHEATING - trying to get another runner disqualified, for the ONLY reason that she kept beating you. Nothing else. Therefore I have no use for PR, and with obvious reasoning, that she is a cheat.
So with anything else since then, and probably before, but especially since the signs being held up, then the pacing for the London marathon, and other things (tents etc that are unusual and not everyone has access), when there were many objections from women runners and others. So there is always some taking unusual advantage - but somehow NOT called cheating??? because it is under the table and therefore supposedly not against any rules, but always surrounded by doctors.
common wrote:
My meaning in stating, "Paula herself protested the use of pacers at the 2003 London Marathon" is that Paula's stated preference was to participate in a mixed race, specifically a single, mass start, mixed race. Indeed, in 2003, that was the only race format in which the IAAF would ratify a World Record! Isn't that a neat twist? Perhaps "protested" is too strong a term for your liking?
"Protested" is not too strong a term. It is too wrong a term. But I accept your clarification or amendment of your statement.
I know that it has been reported by third parties that the IAAF would only ratify a world record in a mixed race, but I've never seen any support for that assertion in IAAF rules or policy statements. Rather, IAAF rules have (up until now) simply exempted road races from IAAF's general requirement that women's world records cannot be set in mixed races. Prior to the 2003 race, the London marathon organizers had been seeking to repeal that exemption, which would have given London, with its separate start for the elite women, the edge over its two rivals, Berlin and Chicago, since their "single, mass start, mixed race[s]" would no longer be eligible for women's world records. If, however, you have any IAAF support for your assertion that "a single, mass start, mixed race . . . was the only race format in which the IAAF would ratify a World Record," I'd be happy to take a look at it.
My source for that statement comes from the article itself, dated 16 December 2002:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/athletics/2579559.stmLondon has staged separate men's and women's races since 1986 and wants records set in women's-only races to be treated in the same way as records set in mixed races.
But the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) and the Association of International Marathons (Aims) currently only ratifies world records set in mixed races.
===
I don't have access to any IAAF documentation or previous policy or rules, so I'm just taking the word of the reporter that this was the policy of the IAAF at the time. If this is correct, which I believe it is, this provides a very helpful context for the machinations of Ms. Radcliffe, Mr. Bedford, and everyone associated with the effort to create a record eligible race at the London Marathon in 2003. They couldn't get the exemption they wanted, so they asked to stage a mixed race. Viewed in this context, I don't see Paula as trying to manipulate the race to her advantage at all. Rather, she was trying to conform to the policies of the time, which was that only mixed races were certifiable.
J.R. wrote:
I agree with all these posts by Antonio.
It was easy to see this when PR held up the signs trying to get Yegorova banned, why? Because Yegorova was very EASILY beating PR every time, NOT because Olga Yegorova was doing anything wrong. That was bad sportsmanship at it's worst, at the hands of PR - it was CHEATING - trying to get another runner disqualified, for the ONLY reason that she kept beating you. Nothing else. Therefore I have no use for PR, and with obvious reasoning, that she is a cheat.
Yegorova tested positive for EPO, but was let off because of a technical error by the testers. To suggest that Yegorova (later caught and banned for manipulation of samples) was doing nothing wrong is nothing short of moronic.
Why did Paula focus on Yegorova and not the Ethiopians, who had been routinely beating her in track championships for years.
trollism wrote:
Yegorova tested positive for EPO, but was let off because of a technical error by the testers. To suggest that Yegorova (later caught and banned for manipulation of samples) was doing nothing wrong is nothing short of moronic.
That is totally wrong. Don't be stupid. It is ironic that you refer to someone else as moronic! Yegorova NEVER tested positive for EPO. And there was no error by any testors. She was simply not positive for EPO, dispute the hysteria caused by the signs.
Why did Paula focus on Yegorova and not the Ethiopians, who had been routinely beating her in track championships for years.
Bad sportsmanship.
Yegorova didn't just beat PR. She ran away from her.
After that, the Ethiopians were "afraid" of PR, only from concern about having more signs held up, nothing else. No surprise, PR suddenly became #1 - but not before that.
Piss off, troll. Yegorova tested positive for EPO in urine, and got off on a technicality because the testers failed to COLLECT a blood sample to corroborate the results of the urine test.
In 2008, she was implicated along with six other Russian athletes of switching out her urine sample with that of another person, manipulating test samples.
J.R. wrote:
Yegorova NEVER tested positive for EPO. And there was no error by any testors.
Wrong. Her urine sample was tested positive for EPO. She escaped punishment because the testers had failed to also take a blood sample.
After that, the Ethiopians were "afraid" of PR, only from concern about having more signs held up, nothing else. No surprise, PR suddenly became #1 - but not before that.
The difficult thing about internet discussions is that you can't tell if the other person really is crazy or just having a laugh.
But the idea that "the Ethiopians" let Radcliffe win because they were afraid they might otherwise be exposed to handwritten cardboard signs is certainly an amusing one regardless.
What exactly they then decided to let her win is less certain as she had already won world championships on the road and in XC before this. But it can't have been on the track either as she never actually won anything major there.
Well, wait now VoR. Gete Wami did seem to be jogging off the last 100m or so at World Cross, and letting Paula win. It was worth it to avoid the dreaded cardboard sign. hahahaha
she pooped in my driveway
swear to god
common wrote:
Yegorova tested positive for EPO in urine
Heh, you can't test positive for EPO in a urine test.
If that was true then there would be no reason for blood tests, not that there's any valid reason for them anyway.
The bottom line is that Yegorova has NEVER tested positive for EPO.
Suposition and hysteria yes. However we've not yet seen any of PR's tests, that were supposedly going to be public.
So don't jump to any unfounded conclusions.