In a message dated 10/24/00 10:00:50 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< This is the sort of arrogance which drives non-Americans absolutely nuts.
The fastest US junior this year has run 10.18. MLF has run 10.10, 10.12 and
10.13, the last of those into a headwind. I fail to see how we should
consider MLF's win 'downgraded'. There is no teenager on the planet who can
touch him, even at their best.
Bear in mind also that the US won precisely two individual medals in the
sprints in Sydney, despite all four competitions being extremely weak by
recent standards. MJ was the only female finalist from the US in either
event, while aside from Mo the US men managed a 5th, a 7th and an 8th. The
US has two glorious champions, but does not have the strength in depth of
yesteryear. It was this very waning of US dominance which was behind my
assault on the first-3 system earlier this year - the US cannot afford any
longer to send its third fourth and fifth strings to major events >>
Now we are full of contradictions here Justin, and you just strengthen my
point about Mark. He is far and away better, and it showed. It showed to
the point that he was wasting his time competing there against NO
competition. The series of times you reeled off would have put him in the
Olympic final, enough said.
The arrogance you interpret, is not arrogance at all on my part. It is a
simple fact that everyone knows. Even you know that when there are no
Americans running well in the sprints everyone starts with the what if's.
When FF and DB were dominating the sprint scene, the buzz was who will be the
next American to step up. It is a question asked by all nationalities, even
on the list it was asked.
It is not arrogance, it is reality. A reality that is hoped by some to be
changed, and by some to remain the same. Like I stated before, the US has
not gotten weaker, the rest of the world has gotten stronger, and that is a
good thing. And like someone else stated, the US does not see the need for
Jr WC, but other countries do, so be it.
My point is a simple one, Mark is a phenom, and the timing was perfect for
him. He came out at the London GP and took 3rd in a quality feed. He went
to the British trials and made the Olympic team. Now your response is that
Jason deserved the spot on merit. That line of reasoning is consistent with
sending Mark for the experience, except for one thing. Mark physical proved
he was ready. Jason only got through on merit, and physically was not ready.
And I know with Mark on that 4x100 they are much better.
I do not see the harm in having him participate in both events, given the
timing of both. The travel is inconsequential, that is a part of the game.
The stress was not going to be a factor, per se, because the events are 2
entirely different experiences. There was no stress for him in Chile.
And as for your argument about depth, we still dominate the relays. And
barring an ill timed injury no one stops Inger from taking the silver or gold
in both sprints. On the men's side we had 2 Americans in both finals of the
100 and 200. I do not ever remember the US sweepine the sprints, and only on
a few special occassions did we take 2 medals. Our dominance has always been
based upon the gold, of which we have won the last 3 majors.
DGS
The G.O.A.T.
