jazzcyclist wrote:...the idea that a cripled Merritt is better than an aging but healthy Wariner is absolutely ludicrous.
I think an assumption that coaches or Merritt himself could see that he was 'crippled' is an exaggeration. That the T&FN formchart panel dropped him to 2nd after Monaco, indicates the experts thought he still might be worth a low 44, albeit without any lift down the home straight. And the coaching staff was probably hoping for exactly that- probably not a gold, but a medal. But crippled? No, that was unforeseen. Wariner, on the other hand, hasn't even been able to break 45.0 lately, unless I overlooked something in the last few weeks.
jazzcyclist wrote:...the idea that a cripled Merritt is better than an aging but healthy Wariner is absolutely ludicrous.
I think an assumption that coaches or Merritt himself could see that he was 'crippled' is an exaggeration. That the T&FN formchart panel dropped him to 2nd after Monaco, indicates the experts thought he still might be worth a low 44, albeit without any lift down the home straight. And the coaching staff was probably hoping for exactly that- probably not a gold, but a medal. But crippled? No, that was unforeseen. Wariner, on the other hand, hasn't even been able to break 45.0 lately, unless I overlooked something in the last few weeks.
Come on man. You can't use the formcharts to gauge an athlete's health. Merritt's doctors, trainers and coaches weren't sharing information with the track and field prognosticators. And it's not like Merritt ran strong for 350 meters before pulling up, he looked like crap out of the blocks. He knew he wasn't ready to run, but he was too selfish to give up his spot. And even if Wariner is just a 45.0s runner these days, it's still faster than Merritt was today.
jazzcyclist wrote:He knew he wasn't ready to run, but he was too selfish to give up his spot. And even if Wariner is just a 45.0s runner these days, it's still faster than Merritt was today.
Merritt certainly knew he didn't have a 43.5 in him. There is no reason to believe that he knew much more than that, unless you have some inside information that we don't have.
If he did know ahead of time, as you claim, that his result today would turn out as it did, what is his motivation for running anyway? You seem to say his motivation was nothing more than pure selfishness. Okay, if the motivation is simple selfishness, what does he gain by starting a race that he knows he's going to drop out of? Is he paid a bonus by some sponsor for starting? I doubt it. Selfishness is usually tied to greed or monetary gain. I don't see any objective evidence supporting the selfishness allegation.
Randy Treadway wrote:Given the current U.S. state of affairs in the 400, a 50% risk Merritt might still be a better risk than the 'next available alternate'. The Olympic team list was already locked in prior to the Monaco meet. The next available alternate might be Wariner, who probably had an even smaller likelihood of a medal than an injured Merritt.
Under the U.S. system, the athlete gets the final call on these deals. It was Merrittt's responsibility to let the U.S. coaches that he couldn't go. His alternate is already in London as part of the relay team, so he wouldn't have to jump on a plane a la David Payne. I vehemently disagree that a 50% Merritt is better than any alternate. The U.S. is the deepest nation in the world in this event and their sweep of the medals at the last two Olympics proves it. Obviously you didn't see the Trials if you think Merritt finshed fourth, but the idea that a cripled Merritt is better than an aging but healthy Wariner is absolutely ludicrous.
I agree that LM should have either pulled himself out (I said so earlier in the thread) or we need to make a change to the system that takes the potential of doing the right thing out of an athlete's hands who won't do the right thing. I would have thought, also, that they would have already done some 4 x 4 relay work (obviously not nearly as pressing a need as a 4 x 1) at which point the coaches could easily see whether he was healthy or not-maybe they did but I wonder if they encouraged him to forego the spot-I have no idea obviously. The right thing to do would have been for Merritt to give up that spot and let Mance have a go.
I don't undertand his comments about not being selfish about taking up a 4 x 4 spot. I'm pretty sure it's not a matter of him giving up that spot voluntarily, he likely lost that spot when he could not make it through the first 100m-I did not see the race and am basing that on others' comments. No way he was going to be on relay with his injury affecting him to that degree. As far as we know, he's been at the training camp for some time with ample opportunity for coaches to watch him (or not if he was training minimally around the injury). I was certainly hoping he would be healthy but the one I feel for is Mance who just lost an opportunity to run.
GDAWG wrote:SRR is America's best chance at an Olympic gold medal right now.
Speaking of which, we're only two days into this thing, but how does the U.S. stand relative to USATF's stated goal of more than 30 medals in Athletics?
Using T&FN's formchart as a guide for remaining finals (less people, like Merritt, already eliminated), plus medals already won, it comes to: Golds - 10 Silvers - 9 Bronzes - 12 = 31
I'd still be very surprised if the U.S. actually won that many. It assumes no botched baton exchanges. There are a couple of upside possibilities though, like in the women's marathon tomorrow morning, and the men's steeplechase.
So far the US has "underperformed" in the mLJ (only 1 medal, coulda been 2), mSP (only 1 medal, shoulda been 2), wDT (no medal, coulda been 1), and m400 (with the loss of Merritt), but got an unexpected medal from Rupp in the m10k.
The US didn't underperform in the mLJ, wDT or even in the shot.
Nellum looks like he has the best chance of making the 400m finals for the US.... My prediction might just come into being with Nellum being the best placed American in the 400 at the Olympics... It'd be difficult but I want Nellum to medal....
Randy Treadway wrote:be a better risk than the 'next available alternate'. The Olympic team list was already locked in prior to the Monaco meet. The next available alternate might be Wariner, who probably had an even smaller likelihood of a medal than an injured Merritt.
I'd rather see Josh Mance make it around the track than Merritt come out of the blocks limping.
jazzcyclist wrote:He knew he wasn't ready to run, but he was too selfish to give up his spot. And even if Wariner is just a 45.0s runner these days, it's still faster than Merritt was today.
Merritt certainly knew he didn't have a 43.5 in him. There is no reason to believe that he knew much more than that, unless you have some inside information that we don't have.
If he did know ahead of time, as you claim, that his result today would turn out as it did, what is his motivation for running anyway? You seem to say his motivation was nothing more than pure selfishness. Okay, if the motivation is simple selfishness, what does he gain by starting a race that he knows he's going to drop out of? Is he paid a bonus by some sponsor for starting? I doubt it. Selfishness is usually tied to greed or monetary gain. I don't see any objective evidence supporting the selfishness allegation.
I have no idea why Wariner would be in the discussion in the first place as he is not the alternate. Many athletes do have monetary gain for participation. Merritt's body language prior to the start was not one of an Olympic Champion in the first round of his event. There was no confidence at all shown and it was confirmed about 3 steps into the race. He had no business being out there.
t_monk wrote:Nellum looks like he has the best chance of making the 400m finals for the US.... My prediction might just come into being with Nellum being the best placed American in the 400 at the Olympics... It'd be difficult but I want Nellum to medal....
Randy Treadway wrote:be a better risk than the 'next available alternate'. The Olympic team list was already locked in prior to the Monaco meet. The next available alternate might be Wariner, who probably had an even smaller likelihood of a medal than an injured Merritt.
I'd rather see Josh Mance make it around the track than Merritt come out of the blocks limping.
And hindsight is always perfect ,isn't it? If you thought Merritt might come out of the blocks at 95% of his usual power, what then? Wouldn't you go with him, over Mance?
If now, you say 'but surely he wasn't more than 50%'.... what do you base that on, based on what everybody knew several days ago, not what we know AFTER the race?
t_monk wrote:Nellum looks like he has the best chance of making the 400m finals for the US.... My prediction might just come into being with Nellum being the best placed American in the 400 at the Olympics... It'd be difficult but I want Nellum to medal....
McQuay.
He's in lane 9 with.... in the same semi with Kirani James, Chris Brown and Jonathon Borlee....
cladthin wrote: I agree that LM should have either pulled himself out (I said so earlier in the thread) or we need to make a change to the system that takes the potential of doing the right thing out of an athlete's hands who won't do the right thing.
Unless they consider some type of UK-like funding for athletes, the governing body shouldn't have any such power when it comes to individual events. If USATF didn't help them "get there", they certainly shouldn't have the right to take away their opportunity...even if it seems wasted.
Last edited by TrakFan on Sun Aug 05, 2012 7:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
Randy Treadway wrote:be a better risk than the 'next available alternate'. The Olympic team list was already locked in prior to the Monaco meet. The next available alternate might be Wariner, who probably had an even smaller likelihood of a medal than an injured Merritt.
I'd rather see Josh Mance make it around the track than Merritt come out of the blocks limping.
And hindsight is always perfect ,isn't it? If you thought Merritt might come out of the blocks at 95% of his usual power, what then? Wouldn't you go with him, over Mance?
If now, you say 'but surely he wasn't more than 50%'.... what do you base that on, based on what everybody knew several days ago, not what we know AFTER the race?
Merritt hasn't run in over a month after suffering what apparently was a pretty serious injury in Monaco. Based on his body language prior to the race and the way he ran, he was pretty sure he wasn't ready to go.
Don't give me the hindsight nonsense. He shouldn't have been out there.
t_monk wrote:Nellum looks like he has the best chance of making the 400m finals for the US.... My prediction might just come into being with Nellum being the best placed American in the 400 at the Olympics... It'd be difficult but I want Nellum to medal....
McQuay.
He's in lane 9 with.... in the same semi with Kirani James, Chris Brown and Jonathon Borlee....
McQuay has the best chance of medalling which is what the discussion is about...between Nellum and McQuay. If McQuay can't get to the final because of these guys then Nellum isn't beating them either.
t_monk wrote:Nellum looks like he has the best chance of making the 400m finals for the US.... My prediction might just come into being with Nellum being the best placed American in the 400 at the Olympics... It'd be difficult but I want Nellum to medal....
McQuay.
He's in lane 9 with.... in the same semi with Kirani James, Chris Brown and Jonathon Borlee....
McQuay has the best chance of medalling which is what the discussion is about...between Nellum and McQuay. If McQuay can't get to the final because of these guys then Nellum isn't beating them either.
I agree to an extent.... The fact is though once you're in the finals practically anything can happen. Based on how the three semi-finals are seeded, of the two (2) Americans it's clear that Nellum has the easier of the two (2) semi's and thus has a higher chance of getting into the finals.
As for medalling... McQuay has the better chance IF he makes it to the finals... that being said though I doubt he'd have medalled looking at his form from the first round compared to that of the other top athletes. But as I said.... once one makes it to the finals, anything can happen.
He's in lane 9 with.... in the same semi with Kirani James, Chris Brown and Jonathon Borlee....
I fancy (hey, it's London) McQuay's chances in lane 9 of a semi. He will be able to run his own race plan, rather than have it dictated to him by someone else going out too fast or too slow. He can let James go in the final straight (assuming James is gunning for a top seed in the final) and hold-off/reel-in the other two as need be. Brilliant, eh what?
t_monk wrote:As for medalling... McQuay has the better chance IF he makes it to the finals... that being said though I doubt he'd have medalled looking at his form from the first round compared to that of the other top athletes. But as I said.... once one makes it to the finals, anything can happen.
Its almost impossible to make judgment based off the first round.
Nellums in lane 6 with Santos and Kevin inside him, is pretty much the same as McQuay's lane 9 in his heat. Both with their major competition inside them.
I would pace a high bet on McQuay getting a auto Q than Nellums getting one.
cladthin wrote: I agree that LM should have either pulled himself out (I said so earlier in the thread) or we need to make a change to the system that takes the potential of doing the right thing out of an athlete's hands who won't do the right thing.
Unless they consider some type of UK-like funding for athletes, the governing body shouldn't have any such power when it comes to individual events. If USATF didn't help them "get there", they certainly shouldn't have the right to take away their opportunity...even if it seems wasted.
I'm not sure on that one. There are positive and negative aspects about keeping the decision totally within the hands of the athlete and we just witnessed the down side of that.
I totally believe in the "priviledge"/honor aspect of representing one's country and Merritt just selfishly took away the opportunity for another to take that spot. Merritt knows we are trying to send our best and for him to insist on running in that condition was not in keeping with what a team captain, of all people, should be demonstrating. He's had weeks to rehab which we've heard he's done and weeks to train and test it out.
McQuay is a 44.4 runner he will make the final easily if he is healthy. John went way too fast yesterday, this will kill him as it has in the past (2010 euros). I don't know that I would pick John against McQuay anyway. I am not sure James is faster either, but it won't matter in this heat because unless John is poised to run well into the 43s, 3rd place won't be able to hang with the the quality of semis that McQuay and James have shown they are capable of running. Look at McQuay's semis and finals from NCAAs and USAs the last two years. What you will see is a remarkable record of running really fast and then running again the next day. If he is faster than he was at USAs, which is likely, given his linear improvement over the past two years and the fact that he has never ran a summer season, he may well be the favorite to win gold, forget make the final. Anyone who questions the latter is on crack.
The future looks exciting for this event (not necessarily fast, but competitive) as there's a lot of youngsters near the top. Just heard them say that Solomon, the top Australian who just finished 3rd in semi #1 is only 19. Santos is only 18, and James is 19. Hopefully they can all stay healthy and continue to improve.
Randy Treadway wrote:How did Pistorius get placed into lane 5 of the semis???
He was (barely) one of the five fastest 2nd place finishers, which makes him one of the top 12 seeds, which gets him the random draw of one of the four preferred lanes.
Nellum needs to redeem the USA in the final semi as I don't think McQuay will make it in. When was the last time there was no American in the Olympic 400m final (not including '80)?
