A month or two back, I placed a posting stating that perhaps the top footballers shouldn't be paid quite so much.
I got quite a 'bashing' - most on this forum were of the opinion that they are deserving of such huge sums - few (apart from myself) thought that they were 'money grabbing'. Some made statements such as 'very few people can do what the top footballers can, if you could play like them, you'd deserve such pay'. In 2003, Paula was the fastest UK athlete over the marathon distance; yes, she was quicker than all the men that year - that is one hell of an achievement.
And yet some believe that Paula Radcliffe is money grabbing ?
I can't see why Paula Radcliffe should be any less deserving; as others have mentioned, a marathon runner can't compete as frequently as those competing over the shorter distances.
I can't agree that she didn't give 'try her best' in the Olympics; an Olympic gold would lead to greater earning power. If she seems to some to be a bit of a 'cry baby' well I'm hardly surprised. She must find it very frustrating when she has run minutes faster over the distance than all of her rivals.
One of the hardest parts of a marathon is just getting to the start line in the best shape to compete. I would suspect that many/most of us have taken part in events when we shouldn't have done so, due to illness or injury.