Methinks Radcliffe's endeavours would be viewed in a different light if she were American . . .
Paul -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of ghill Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 11:46 AM To: track list Subject: Re: t-and-f: women's AOY > From: "Post, Marty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: "Post, Marty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 20:03:53 -0400 > To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: t-and-f: women's AOY > > Although she has a blemish on her record losing the Monaco 3000m to Szabo, > consider Radcliffe's outstanding versatility this year. Cross-country: gold > medal at world champs. Road: 2nd fastest (at the time) road 10-K; 2nd > fastest marathon in history. Track: 8:22 and 14:31. > > More gold at Europeans and a win over Ndereba at Chicago Marathon and she's > just about a lock for Athlete of the Year. > > Doesn't matter what Devers does. She's just a 'one-trick pony' now, > abandoning any flat 100m running since she probably knows she can't beat > Jones/Pintusevich.> I have to take (strong) issue w/ both Radcliffe's purported "versatilty" and Devers' being a one-trick pony. Everything Radcliffe does is a variation on a theme of having good distance running ability. There's little more versatitiliy in what she does than if Devers could also run the 90H, 95H, 105H and 110H, or if she had the 27-and 30-inch options sted of just 33-inch. This is the same kind of bias which denies field eventers a decent shot at AOY in most polls becuase they're too locked into a single event. Radcliffe's accomplishments this year are so far behind Devers' it's laughable. gh
