Radcliffe loses her funding

11 messages
15/10/2012 at 17:03

Paula Radcliffe and Mara Yamauchi both dropped from National Lottery funding.

Various other names there as well.

Seems a bit harsh but as they say, it's all about performance and I guess we know that Paula's not been at the top of her game for a while.

M...eldy    pirate
15/10/2012 at 17:11

I dont know about harsh Mutters ... its a 'job' for both of them, it may be that both have indicated the end of a career and money would be better spent on the younger generation ... the legacy??

15/10/2012 at 17:14

Yeah, I know, but I was just hoping that Paula would have one last hurrah and blow them all away at the next London mara or wherever. You're right though - she's not a realistic prospect for Rio, surely?

15/10/2012 at 17:24
Does she really need it? I mean she's still very well known and should do alright without it with o2 and nike backing her in o2's new app. And I do agree, she hasn't competed or done so well recently and she will leave behind a good legacy. And a world record
M...eldy    pirate
15/10/2012 at 17:32

I wouldnt have thought she was a realistic hope for Rio but who knows ...  I'm not sure how old she is at the mo?

15/10/2012 at 18:14
Paula hasn't been using contraception recently. She's not trying for another baby she's just relying on pulling out at the last minute
Edited: 15/10/2012 at 18:16
15/10/2012 at 18:55

Hardly harsh, a very pragmatic decision.

She is nearly 39 and is unlikely to do much in the future , certainly not by 2016. She has done well out of athletics and has had a good career. The end must come sometime.

15/10/2012 at 21:13

Surely one of the main reasons for funding in the first place is to allow an athlete to be able to train full time, where otherwise that wouldn't be financially viable?

Whether or not Paula has had her day - IMO she has - she must be minted?

15/10/2012 at 21:32

She seems relaxed enough about it: linkety link

 

16/10/2012 at 00:51

"living expenses of up to £26,000" ????!?!?!?

What's that for? A family of four?

16/10/2012 at 10:40

Paula said herself of twitter that she only ever had medical support, and she fully expected to lose that this year. Even with the medical support, even if she had been racing wouldn't have been a great investment - these operations can't come cheap! She has plenty of money and funding from sponsors, plus she could probably get a private medical sponsor if she needed one. She's not going to starve, where as there are a lot of athletes whose prospects at Rio could be greatly improved with even a low level of funding to give them medical support, allow them to race internationally etc... It was the right decision. I think cutting Marilyn Okoro and Michael Rimmer was far more controversial. Their problem is tactics, not injuries or talent, which could be cheaply and easily resolved with good coaching and some sports psychology to stop them getting so nervous and going out like they've been shot....

 

 

Edited: 16/10/2012 at 12:55

We'd love you to add a comment! Please login or take half a minute to register as a free member
11 messages
Previously bookmarked threads are now visible in "Followed Threads". You can also manage notifications on these threads from the "Forum Settings" section of your profile settings page to prevent being sent an email when a reply is made.
Forum Jump  

RW competitions

RW Forums