"70s attitude: We didn't think 2:14 was something to write home about. "
One man's criticism is another man's commentary. Regards, Martin malmo wrote: > No one is implying anything. Your criticism has no merit to stand on. > Simple stuff. > > malmo > > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard McCann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > As to Malmo's comment: I did take these types of risks when I could 20 > years ago, and I both paid dearly for them and had some shocking > improvements. I not asking them to do any differently than I tried to > do. And by implying that only current elite athletes can criticize > current > elite athletes, you are saying that no fan of the sport has any standing > in > talking about athletes' performances. That's not a valid defense. > > RMc > > At 07:57 PM 10/14/2002 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >In a message dated 10/14/2002 7:51:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > > > >>But what's this pack of US runners? Looks like they > >> > > were on a training run rather than racing rest of the world.... > > > > > >Since when is going out in sub 1:06 a training run? Of course this is > >going to go back to the old tired thread of "why isn't the US as good > as > >the rest of the world?", but going out at 2:11 marathon pace for the > first > >half is not training. If your goal is sub 2:12 then they were right > where > >they needed to be, they just did not get it done in the second half. > > > >Brian Fullem
