Paula third Mo wins

Paula has been away from the sport too long. She has zero chance of ever returning to sub 2:23 shape.

Deena too.

That 10k time is slower then 2:20:00 pace. I thought she won because the field has only GB runners.

It's good news that she's actually running and not nursing some injury. 33.19 suggests her general fitness is quite good, the olympics is 14 months away. Her rate of improvement will be great once she enters the specific training next year after spending this year building her base.

"For me it was a bit of a disaster," said Radcliffe, who holds the 10km world record with a time of 30min 21sec set in 2003. "We set off and I didn't feel great and couldn't stay with Jo. I could see her, so I was thinking, 'Don't panic, just hold it, things will warm up a little bit,' but then at 4km I just started to go backwards.

"I think my fourth to fifth kilometre was terrible and then I stopped looking so I don't know what the time was after that, but it wasn't good. I've got a tear in one of the discs in my back which has meant I can't go on the track, but I thought I was going to be fine on the road. It's sciatic pain and I just lose power in my legs. I'm beginning getting treatment on it and I thought I'd be OK. It wasn't particular sore in the race, it just felt like I didn't have any power out there."

the olympics is next year wrote:

It's good news that she's actually running and not nursing some injury. 33.19 suggests her general fitness is quite good, the olympics is 14 months away. Her rate of improvement will be great once she enters the specific training next year after spending this year building her base.

When I read this comment, I thought of Time magazine's cover story this week, which deals with the human inclination toward arguably irrational optimism.

I thought that this race, with its rather weak domestic field, was a set-up for Paula, who would ease through in something near 32 minutes for a comfortable win over Pavey. But 33:19 is, as Paula said, a disaster. Even taking into account the possibility that the times on both the men's and the women's sides reflected slow course conditions, Paula's place in the weak women's field must be discouraging to her. Look at the results:

1. Jo Pavey 32.22

2. Gemma Steel 32.48

3. Paula Radcliffe 33.17

4. Justina Heslop 33.20

5. Hollie Rowland 33.58

6. Hannah Whitmore 34.07

7. Alyson Dixon 34.22

8. Getenesh Tamirat 34.48

9. Juliet Doyle 34.46

10. Susie Bush 34.54

I'm sure that people will come up with a variety of reasons for her poor performance (including her back problems), but it's hard to rationalize a 33:19 after months of seemingly solid training.

I agree the race was set up for her to win without Mary Keitany.

1. Mo Farah 29.15

2. Mehretab Solomon (ERI) 29.37

3. Andrew Lemoncello 29.38

4. Phil Wicks 29.41

5. Mark Warmby 29.50

6. Josh Lilly 29.52

7. Ben Tickner 29.53

8. Ben Whitby 29.56

9. Stephen Scullion 29.57

10. Kojo Kyereme 30.01

Paula was only 104th the standard was not great but it was deep. A lot of people are talking about the course being 200m or so long according to Garmins etc

Looking at results only Mo Farah in the top 100 ran a negative split and he was obviously cruising the first half. The 8th and 9th ks were long according to some of the guys that ran.

Still a poor run by Paula but I would say it was worth a 32:45.

#2 Osha Paar 2011-05-30 16:24

Eleri, Radcliffe has been a fading force for some time now.

She rarely races. Pulls out of more races than she runs in. Has a poor record in the Olympics.

Also a whole new generation of Kenyans and Ethiopians have emerged while she has been away. The Radcliffe of 7/8 years ago would have coped with them easily but not now.

I don't have a problem with Paula going to London 2012 but she needs to tone down the "i'm going for gold" stuff.

She clearly isn't going to be a contender. Today's peformance showed that.

Hey Paula got my Mo Jo working but it just don't work on you

kevin half wrote:

I don't have a problem with Paula going to London 2012 but she needs to tone down the "i'm going for gold" stuff.

That must be a relief for her. I heard her participation was in doubt when she heard that you might have a problem with it.

It is sad that someone with the resume of Paula needs to talk about totally unrealistic goals in an attempt to make herself newsworthy.

It is kind of funny that her and Kara have become such great friends. Kara does this same thing.

kevin half wrote:

I don't have a problem with Paula going to London 2012 but she needs to tone down the "i'm going for gold" stuff.

Paula knows that she's done. But she knows that from now until London 2012 she can make a lot of money with appearances in TV shows etc. She is the only 5 star athlete that the UK has to offer (in the Olympics). She is $$$.

I don't care about her time. We've seen her round into shape ridiculously quickly before.

I'm worried that a woman in her late thirties, a mother no less, is crying at the finish of a training race.

HEADCASE.

You nailed it.

Her great time is past. She may run well but she needs to be realistic.

She went on about back problems. I believe her but then why race?

She cries at finish lines quite a bit, doesn't she?

Over trained IMHO. Needs to reduce miles and get back to running healthy.

But once a runner loses it, if 33:19 can be considered losing it, it can be tough getting your mojo back.

the smartest letsrunner wrote:

I don't care about her time. We've seen her round into shape ridiculously quickly before.

She was not in her late thirties then.