On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 15:03:35 EDT, you wrote:
>
>I'm glad you think it's a lame excuse.. Jacobs is proabbly the toughest
>female distance (and probably male, too) the US has had since Slaney.
>So i don't know if i'd say she's not tough enough.
>
>The fact that she's 37 and probably won't get another chance is irrelevant.
>Some people have something called pride. Maybe Jacobs didn't feel like she
>was capable of running (due to he sickness) up to her capabilites. [I'm
>assuming that she felt she win or at least medal based on what she's said in
>the press since Seville) So if she she doesn't feel capable of these things
>why should she take part?
>
>she could dig deep all she wants but if it's not there it's just not there.
>
>--kebba
You guys are totally missing the point of Malmo's
"Blessing in disguise" comment.
Malmo is sitting back with tongue firmly planted in cheek,
laughing at you. [btw, try to laugh with your tongue planted in
your cheek sometime- you need a multi-tasking tongue :-)
All this talk about how tough Jacobs is, and how effectively
she could compete while sick, versus her American replacement...
...you need to take a step back....think the old 'can't see
the forest for the trees' axiom....
[hint: what have we been discussing the last three weeks about
the reason for a higher-than-usual withdrawals by distance runners,
with sickness/injury/fitness/etc/etc being the usual cover story, with
some anecdotal independent observations of sore hamstring, tender knee,
snotty nose, increased sneezing, and so on?
Stuff that didn't stop the American distance runners in '64. ]
[hint two: decompose the phrase "blessing in disguise" :
what could be worse for Jacobs by staying on the start list instead
of dropping off the start list?
...the answer ain't embarassment by a poor performance in a qualifying
heat...that's not so bad, not for a mature 37-year-old...
contemplate this unspoken thought by Jacobs: "my Sacramento American
Record hasn't been ratified yet...is there anything that might
jeapardize that?"
RT
