Radcliff loses Lottery Funding.

About time too!

As does Mara Yamauchi, Marlon Devonish, Mark Lewis-Francis and Rhys Williams.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/athletics/19946927

It's irrelevant with Radcliffe anyway given that lottery funding is means tested so she hasn't actually seen a penny from the lottery for many years.

Good

Let's hope it does MLF some good. He still has the talent and losing the NLF could be the kick up the rear he needs.

It's a bit harsh on Rhys Williams who recently won the European Champs.

I'm sure she'll get funding from kleenex after all the crying when she doesn't win. Getting a bit tediuos now Paula...

You know that was over 4 years ago the last time that happened?

Its a shame Phillips Idowu didn't miss out too.

I'm not sure I understand why Idowu losing or not losing his funding should impact on your life at all.

Again, it's not like he receives that much money from it these days anyway.

He gets £75000

That buys a lot of bling!

He might even get a couple more Tattoos!

75k lottery funding?

The top level is only about 25k and that's means tested.

I hope it is means tested and I hope he doesn't get a penny of it.

If he doesn't get any of it, it means he's making enough money from the sport as it is, so I reckon your schadenfreude is slightly misplaced.

It's always interesting how people seem always make up the amount of money athletes receive from the lottery when they have an axe to grind with certain individuals.

I think its time he stopped taking sponsors money under false pretences and hang up his jewellery and head bands seeing as he doesn't really perform anymore.

But that's between him and his sponsors. If they continue to sponsor him, they must feel themselves that he has something to offer.

He had a bad year last year due to injury, but before that, he's got gold or silver in the four major championships he competed in. It's not that bad really, he still has 'top 8 potential' or even 'medal potential' which is the criteria for funding.

djlovesyou wrote:But that's between him and his sponsors. If they continue to sponsor him, they must feel themselves that he has something to offer.

He had a bad year last year due to injury, but before that, he's got gold or silver in the four major championships he competed in. It's not that bad really, he still has 'top 8 potential' or even 'medal potential' which is the criteria for funding.

I agree. If he'd been fit he'd have medalled at the Olympics. He's still a major talent.

Sad to see him in such poor form the only day (morning of course) I got to see the Athletics

Do the top athletes really need this type of funding, though ? It must be peanuts when compared with endorsements from private sponsors.

Babario wrote:Do the top athletes really need this type of funding, though ? It must be peanuts when compared with endorsements from private sponsors.

The medical back-up may matter most.

The medical back-up is very important for these athletes, but it's interesting that the two athletes mentioned most in this thread have both gone their own way when it comes to medical matters too.

Although Radcliffe stated that UKA medical support was excellent and important to her, she's has had her own personal medical team for a lot of years now.