Why we should love Paula

Rick Broadbent fo the TimesOnline

When Paul Gascoigne cried during the World Cup semi-final in 1990 they were the tears of a clown. On a sporting vista of anodyne robots and PR speak, Gazza was all red raw emotion and red-rimmed eyes. People loved him for his weakness.

The public perception was different when Paula Radcliffe cried during the Olympic marathon in 2004. She was fatuously damned as a quitter and self-pitying. Of course, Gazza's tears were the product of self pity, as he realised he would not play in the World Cup Final should England overhaul West Germany, but that was forgotten. Gazza's crimes since then have been manifold, but he is mostly forgiven. He is a damaged figure, plagued by mental illness and the flipside of fame, and there is a nagging thought that, somehow, we who idolised him are partly responsible.

I have nothing against Gazza, but the way he has been rehabilitated while Radcliffe remains a divisive figure is puzzling. On Sunday Radcliffe ran the New York Marathon when not fully fit. At the end she succumbed to tears of disappointment and pain. Then the knives came out.

Those posting messages at the foot of the race report in The Times were split into two distinct camps. One group hailed her as the owner of just about the most astounding world record in sport, while the other said she should quit. "Diddums," wrote one detractor.

The photograph of her in the throes of despair at the end did not help, but there is absolutely no rational reason to peddle the notion that Radcliffe should hang up her running shoes. Yes, she has been savaged by injuries, but it is only a year since she won the New York Marathon. Anybody who retains that sort of ability should be championed rather than hastened towards the retirement home.

Even on Sunday, with a problem behind her left knee, she was fourth. Admittedly, it was not the strongest field, but that is still the sort of finish that all other British runners, Mara Yamauchi aside, can only dream about.

It is time the critics learnt to love Paula Radcliffe and it is a mystery why some do not. We do not have the world's best footballers, rugby players or cricket players. An Englishman has not won one of golf's majors since 1996. Despite the huge coverage he gets, Andy Murray has still to win a grand-slam event. We have had two Formula One champions in the past two seasons, but there will always be a subjective element to any appraisal of a sport where people drive different cars.

Even the most cynical should have been won over by Radcliffe's display at the Olympics last year. In truth Radcliffe should not have been there. She suffered a stress fracture of the left femur less than three months beforehand and was told it was Mission Impossible. She refused to believe it and worked like a dervish. It all backfired. She struggled home in 23rd and there were more tears.

That was a truly heroic effort in a field where superlatives are bandied about frivolously. Radcliffe carried on, risking serious injury, partly because she knew the criticism that would have been unfairly levelled at her by armchair archers had she not. It was the same on Sunday. Her friend and the New York race director, Mary Wittenberg, told her she did not need to compete. Radcliffe said she had to. "And she knew she could not drop out once she started," Wittenberg said.

Others revealed that Radcliffe had been deeply concerned about her fitness in the build-up. She had talked it down in the build-up so that the field would not "leg it." If she was being disengenuous it certainly paled alongside the bare-faced lies spoken by football managers on an almost daily basis.

There were tears on the Friday morning, before she met the media, and more on Sunday after the race. Self-pity? Perhaps, but marathon runners do not get many chances. Radcliffe took a huge gamble in Beijing because she knew it would be four years before she had another. In that period Andy Murray will have had the chance to win 16 grand-slams titles. Lee Westwood will have had a shot at 16 Majors plus a couple of Ryder Cups. A few months before Radcliffe's tears in Beijing, John Terry cried as Chelsea lost the Champions League final. He was not pilloried, despite having a chance to win the same thing the following year.

Radcliffe, by contrast, has not had an injury-free year since 2005. In the last four years she has run only two marathons when fit - in New York in 2007 and 2008. Imagine being the world's best at something and having such infrequent opportunities to show it. You might be driven to tears yourself.

The other thing that is hard to fathom when it comes to Radcliffe's more fervent critics is that she has none of the hubris, truculence or arrogance that comes with certain other sports stars. She is just very nice. Some say she is obsessed, as though that is a flaw in a sportswoman who wants to be the best. I'm sorry, but you do not set a world record for the marathon by playing at it. And anyway, as one figure in the sport said in New York at the weekend, how many other sportswomen who are intent on winning gold in London are planning to have a child beforehand? There is a bigger picture for Radcliffe.

Radcliffe has simply been unfortunate. Had the 2004 and 2008 Olympic Games taken place two months later, she might well be a double Olympic champion now. By the time she gets to London she is likely to be the underdog. And this being Britain, that will probably be the time when she finally gets the luck and love she deserves.