She hasn't run sub 2:20 since over 7 years and yet she talks like it's going to be no problem for her. Sounds to me like someone needs a reality check.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/jan/16/paula-radcliffe-london-2012-mo-farah
She hasn't run sub 2:20 since over 7 years and yet she talks like it's going to be no problem for her. Sounds to me like someone needs a reality check.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/jan/16/paula-radcliffe-london-2012-mo-farah
With EPO anything is possible.
That would still be 2 minutes off her PB. I think she can do it.
SimpleJack wrote:
With EPO anything is possible.
Article says she trains in Kenya with Mo. Why would she stay at altitude if she takes EPO?
I dunno, there was just a long thread on letsrun about Kara Goucher's allegedly defeatist attitude. People here get criticized for having modest aspirations. People here get criticized for having lofty aspirations. People here get criticized, period.
SimpleJack wrote:
With EPO anything is possible.
Yanqui wrote:
I dunno, there was just a long thread on letsrun about Kara Goucher's allegedly defeatist attitude. People here get criticized for having modest aspirations. People here get criticized for having lofty aspirations. People here get criticized, period.
So critical. I don't approve.
I really, really would like to hear the goals you set for yourself in running. Judging by this thread I assume they are very modest and probably on the weak side and that is one reason you are not a more competetive runner.
Yanqui, this is just flat wrong. Why so negative?
Kidding...you're absolutely right. Cheers!
unfortunately, this goal is disconnected with reality.
ggg wrote:
unfortunately, this goal is disconnected with reality.
How? She's run those times before. She would know how realistic or not those goal are more than us, wouldn't she?
time and place wrote:
SimpleJack wrote:With EPO anything is possible.
Image:
http://i43.tinypic.com/deqm88.jpg
I guess she would know better than anyone.
SimpleJack wrote:
With EPO anything is possible.
time and place wrote:
Image:
http://i43.tinypic.com/deqm88.jpg
SimpleJack wrote:
I guess she would know better than anyone.
That's quite definite proof that she thinks EPO is the key to success.
Nutella1 wrote:
She hasn't run sub 2:20 since over 7 years and yet she talks like it's going to be no problem for her. Sounds to me like someone needs a reality check.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/jan/16/paula-radcliffe-london-2012-mo-farah
OP: It sounds like you have a lame office job, and have not done anything great. Paula is a great being; great beings set high goals.
Your reality is that you are a loser.
and Deena said she was going to win the trials. Aging athletes sometimes still have the heart but are clueless when it comes to judging their fitness.
well said Paula is an icon, an inspiration and tougher than at least 99% of the guys on here.
fuzzy logic wrote:
and Deena said she was going to win the trials. Aging athletes sometimes still have the heart but are clueless when it comes to judging their fitness.
So your conclusion is that they are clueless? Nothing else could have gone wrong?
Paula needs to run a 2nd marathon to know what times she'll run in before the olympics. Berlin was not good. Paula was 3:46 off 2:20:00. Paula won't drop 3:46 in London.
meredith wrote:
well said Paula is an icon, an inspiration and tougher than at least 99% of the guys on here.
Paula is a tougher guy than most of that 99% of the guys.
fuzzy logic wrote:
and Deena said she was going to win the trials. Aging athletes sometimes still have the heart but are clueless when it comes to judging their fitness.
Exactly. Deena and Paula are the same age, too. But Paula is sure dedicated to her sport; not too many mothers would miss their own child's 5th birthday!
