• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

Paula Radcliffe

I think it validates Radcliffe's refusal to share her blood data. It'll just lead to every science of sport blog man and his dog perpetuating a discussion that may or may not be valid. It shames me that I'm having to write may or may not. If she's guilty, throw her to the 'wolves'. If it's unproven, then she's innocent and it's an unfair discussion.
 
I think it validates Radcliffe's refusal to share her blood data. It'll just lead to every science of sport blog man and his dog perpetuating a discussion that may or may not be valid. It shames me that I'm having to write may or may not. If she's guilty, throw her to the 'wolves'. If it's unproven, then she's innocent and it's an unfair discussion.

I think that's a slightly unfair representation of the blog, and their specific comments. I think they make neutral and sensible statements, and also the strategy they present about how PR could have (and could still) managed the situation is fair.
 
I think that's a slightly unfair representation of the blog, and their specific comments. I think they make neutral and sensible statements, and also the strategy they present about how PR could have (and could still) managed the situation is fair.

It might be unfair, but they're still discussing something that, in the absence of incriminating data, should not be up for discussion. Whatever their intent, sentiment or self-serving-production-of-an-article-to-further-promote-their-blog-at-the-expense-of-a-big-name-in-the-sport ;-), their opening gambit is to go after the explanations she gave when, as I argued above, she should never have had to give them in the first place.

If it's unfair on anyone, it's unfair on Paula Radcliffe.
 
It might be unfair, but they're still discussing something that, in the absence of incriminating data, should not be up for discussion. Whatever their intent, sentiment or self-serving-production-of-an-article-to-further-promote-their-blog-at-the-expense-of-a-big-name-in-the-sport ;-), their opening gambit is to go after the explanations she gave when, as I argued above, she should never have had to give in the first place.

Yeah I get that - the data shouldn't have been leaked to the press,* and the select committee shouldn't have mentioned her. But that is in the past, and now we're in the situation where PR gives half-explanations which don't help her situation. Those half-explanations mean everyone dusts off their GCSE biology textbooks and starts professing to be an expert at interpreting complex and partial data.

You say absence of incriminating data - but that's the issue here. Some people see these data as incriminating.













* Unless you think whistleblowers are a good thing. In the grand scheme of things to blow your whistle about, sports doping is quite low down.
 
Back
Top