Thank you! [from Ruth Wysocki]

[Ruth Wysocki]

Just wanted to thank T&FN for dredging up that interview from 1995. I've been enjoying many of the "blast from the past" interviews and was pretty surprised to see one pop up about me. That 5-year-old boy in the article is now 21. In some ways, 1995 seems like a short time ago. Hard to believe it's been 17! I just turned 55, and that 1984 Olympic Games is a whole lifetime ago. Thanks for the memories, everyone!

[DoubleRBar]

Thank you, Ruth, for all the great memories.

[mump boy]

Hi Ruth, it was a very interesting article. Do you mind me asking why you chose to compete in South Africa ? It seems like a very strange decision

thanks

[26mi235]

Thanks for the memories, everyone!

That is what I think. In the top group of my memories is sitting by Vince in the Coliseum as you repeatedly and continually held back the challenge from Decker.

[Ruth Wysocki]

Hi Ruth, it was a very interesting article. Do you mind me asking why you chose to compete in South Africa ? It seems like a very strange decision

thanks

A good question. It's a little hard to go back and put it all in the perspective of 1988. So much is different now. At the time, I was 31 years old and had experienced a lot. Keep in mind that, in 1984 at age 24, I was one of the oldest athletes on the Olympic Team. Back then, 31 was really "old" in track. Going to South Africa was a great opportunity. Having been through Olympic boycotts, I felt strongly that politics and sports, (and the arts as well) shouldn't mix. The athletes in South Africa had no moe chance of influencing their government than we did as American athletes. They had been isolated for decades competing amongst themselves without the opportunites that many of the rest of us had. It was not in any way a racial issue. Stephanie HIghtower, among others called me racist for making the trip, and that was ridiculous. We were there for 10 days and ran 3 meets. The people there were awesome and most appreciative that we would come there and compete. Hard to explain it all in a "nutshell."

What I was unprepared for was the reaction of TAC (now USATF) when we returned. They totally hung us out to dry. There was a hearing, but it was a joke. I was very disappointed in our governing body and the things they said and did. Definitely a "kangaroo court." The appeals process changed as it went along. They made it very clear that they were in charge and could do anything they wanted to us. They all but dared us to take legal action, assuring that they had lawyers on staff and the deep pockets it would take to fight anything. TAC made it abundantly clear that they were a private organization and the laws of the land, as far as due process, etc., did not apply to them. Put into perspective that, at the same time, Ben Johnson was given only 2 year ban for defrauding the entire Olympic movement. I got 4 years (and others got more) for making a trip to run against some athletes that otherwise never had the opportunity at international competition.

Believe me, I'm not a very political person. I learned a lot and don't regret the trip. At the time, I simply saw it as a chance for Tom & I to travel somewhere we'd never been and experience spending time in a place we would never otherwise have had the means to go to.

[preston]

A brave answer that I really didn't think, given the obvious political connotations, needed to be answered. I will say that going doesn't make you a racist - even though I completely disagree with the decision to go. Plus the RSA team was "welcomed" into Montjuic stadium in '92. Thankfully that part of sport history is over.

Congratulations on an enviable career. You were one gutsy as hell racer!

[mal]

As the years go by, the political influences in sport become more irritating to me.

I'm not sure that ostracizing the Saffas in port led to any significant change. I don't believe the boycott of the Moscow Olympics by the Americans did anything of value. Though it led to another meaningless boycott.

I look at the recent Semenya issues, the Pistorius stuff etc. and just wish the governments would keep their long term strategies away from people who have a very short window of opportunity.

[mump boy]

Hi Ruth, it was a very interesting article. Do you mind me asking why you chose to compete in South Africa ? It seems like a very strange decision

thanks

A good question. It's a little hard to go back and put it all in the perspective of 1988. So much is different now. At the time, I was 31 years old and had experienced a lot. Keep in mind that, in 1984 at age 24, I was one of the oldest athletes on the Olympic Team. Back then, 31 was really "old" in track. Going to South Africa was a great opportunity. Having been through Olympic boycotts, I felt strongly that politics and sports, (and the arts as well) shouldn't mix. The athletes in South Africa had no moe chance of influencing their government than we did as American athletes. They had been isolated for decades competing amongst themselves without the opportunites that many of the rest of us had. It was not in any way a racial issue. Stephanie HIghtower, among others called me racist for making the trip, and that was ridiculous. We were there for 10 days and ran 3 meets. The people there were awesome and most appreciative that we would come there and compete. Hard to explain it all in a "nutshell."

What I was unprepared for was the reaction of TAC (now USATF) when we returned. They totally hung us out to dry. There was a hearing, but it was a joke. I was very disappointed in our governing body and the things they said and did. Definitely a "kangaroo court." The appeals process changed as it went along. They made it very clear that they were in charge and could do anything they wanted to us. They all but dared us to take legal action, assuring that they had lawyers on staff and the deep pockets it would take to fight anything. TAC made it abundantly clear that they were a private organization and the laws of the land, as far as due process, etc., did not apply to them. Put into perspective that, at the same time, Ben Johnson was given only 2 year ban for defrauding the entire Olympic movement. I got 4 years (and others got more) for making a trip to run against some athletes that otherwise never had the opportunity at international competition.

Believe me, I'm not a very political person. I learned a lot and don't regret the trip. At the time, I simply saw it as a chance for Tom & I to travel somewhere we'd never been and experience spending time in a place we would never otherwise have had the means to go to.

Thankyou for a very honest answer. I also don't agree with your reasoning for going but certainly don't think it implies any racism !!

It was a long time ago now and thankfully just a couple of years after SA were welcomed back into international sport

[lonewolf]

Since we are weighing in on 30 years old political correctness:
The 1980 boycott was wrong. The 1984 boycott was wrong. The TAC treatment of Wysocki et all was wrong.
Ruth has no obligation to explain or defend her decision. She had every right to take an earned trip to a new place and legitimate motivation in meeting athletes who would otherwise never experience world class competition.
I am disappointed that she even replied but I admire her cogent restrained response to an insolent question.

[vencio2]

In case you come back here Ruth ... I've been trying to find further details of the races that you competed in during the SA trip. The best I can uncover is that you finished second in a 1500m, possibly to Elana Meyer. I wondered if you remember any more or if you have further details?

[jazzcyclist]

Since we are weighing in on 30 years old political correctness:
The 1980 boycott was wrong. The 1984 boycott was wrong. The TAC treatment of Wysocki et all was wrong.

I have mixed feelings about boycotts in general, because I do feel that somethimes they are necessary. The bottom line question is that if a country is going to be sanctioned, should their sports and art industry be exempted? How many here would support the boycott of an international sporting event in Iran if President Obama called for it? For the record, I agree with you about 1980 and 1984. I think that American athletes should have done what the British did in 1980, dared Jimmy Carter to yank their passports and went anyway. However, I'm on the fence about Ruth.

Ruth has no obligation to explain or defend her decision. She had every right to take an earned trip to a new place and legitimate motivation in meeting athletes who would otherwise never experience world class competition.
I am disappointed that she even replied but I admire her cogent restrained response to an insolent question.

I agree with you that she had no obligation to answer the question, which probably violates board rules since it wasn't asked on the Free Speech board which is currently locked, but why are you disappointed that she replied?

By the way, it was nice finally getting to meet you on Saturday though our conversation was brief. Since now I know what you look like, maybe we'll have a chance to chat a little longer next time.

[Powell]

How many here would support the boycott of an international sporting event in Iran if President Obama called for it?

I wouldn't.

But... there's a big difference between OGs and invitational meets. Missing the Olympics is a tragedy for any top athlete - destroying their lifelong dreams, denying them their only chance to gain wide recognition (beyond the circle of hardcore fans), glory etc. I don't think it's fair to expect people to make that kind of sacrifice for political reasons. Missing a couple of invitationals, on the other hand, will mean you will miss out on some potential earnings, but there are enough other meets on the circuit to choose from that it shouldn't really be that big a deal.

[preston]

Since we are weighing in on 30 years old political correctness:
The 1980 boycott was wrong. The 1984 boycott was wrong. The TAC treatment of Wysocki et all was wrong.
Ruth has no obligation to explain or defend her decision. She had every right to take an earned trip to a new place and legitimate motivation in meeting athletes who would otherwise never experience world class competition.
I am disappointed that she even replied but I admire her cogent restrained response to an insolent question.

lonewolf, maybe it's because of your advanced age that gh gives you so much leeway to constantly inject your limited-minded politics into discussions without shutting you down. Maybe it's because you've worked many meets or because you've been a long time forum member. Whatever it is...you need to keep that shit to yourself! '80, '84 and SA are barely mentioned in the article but you, as always, want to shove your dusty ideology down everyone else's throat. Now, if I wanted to refute you, I would have to bring politics into this and politics has nothing to do with the thread, so I won't, you idiot. The thread is about Mrs. Wysocki saying thanks and everyone saying thank you back (even if we didn't, agree with all of her decisions, RESPECTFULLY!)

Mump boy and I agree on very little -practically nothing- and though it pains me to say it we agreed on this. We stated our disagreement with her decision to go to SA and then lauded her career - NEITHER MUMP BOY NOR I MADE ANY JUDGEMENT ABOUT RUTH WYSOCKI THE PERSON!!!! It is you who is bringing your ignorant politics into this, not us! Did you even bother to read mump's response to her answer?!?

There is no such thing as "political correctness" you buzzword regurgitator, there is only right and wrong. I would figure someone who has such a rooting in the good ol' days would understand that, but maybe it's a lost connection to your aboriginal heritage that has you flummoxed on right and wrong. Or, maybe you should stick to geology or the best ways to officiate a field event but as for sticking your politics into every thread for no reason...STFU!!!

[jazzcyclist]

Come on fellows. Can't we all get along?

[preston]

Come on fellows. Can't we all get along?

jazz, enough is enough with lonewolf and his leaky ideology. His views litter the "Things Not T&F" section and it was unnecessary here; it was obvious by the responses that no one really wanted to dredge that stuff up! In fact, it was your response to his nonsense which sends this into the "defend your corner" political morass that usually shuts a thread down. This is how the political fights get started: each one feeling that they have to get their word in to defend their cause.

I mean, if mump and I agree that's probably as close as you get to lamb and lion.

[gh]

.....
lonewolf, maybe it's because of your advanced age that gh gives you so much leeway to constantly inject your limited-minded politics into discussions without shutting you down. Maybe it's because you've worked many meets or because you've been a long time forum member. Whatever it is...you need to keep that shit to yourself! .....

I'm good about giving leeway for lots of reasons, but not to people who shit in our sandbox. Please check back in after you've decided to cease your ad hominem attacks.

[SQUACKEE]

I just have to say, If Ruth is still reading this, Thank You for one of the most amazing stretch drives I have ever witnessed. I still remember screaming for you to do it and you did it! You come across very humble and likeable, which I am sure you are.

[Vault-emort]

Ruth has no obligation to explain or defend her decision. She had every right to take an earned trip to a new place and legitimate motivation in meeting athletes who would otherwise never experience world class competition.

Well, thanks for explaining and defending a decision that Ruth herself had no obligation to explain or defend..

[Marlow]

I'm good about giving leeway for lots of reasons, but not to people who shit in our sandbox. Please check back in after you've decided to cease your ad hominem attacks.

Normally it's bad form to comment on bannings but . . . thank you. His tirade against lonewolf was COMPLETELY uncalled for. Lonewolf and I have completely different world-views, but we both appreciate (in the broadest sense of the word) each other's views.

[Fortius19]

Good interview! I would have gone to SA too; I love to travel.

It's amazing to me how super competitive Ruth's PR times would be today. Not just nationally, but internationally.

[lonewolf]

Wow!... eye of the beholder..actually, being in a minority on many/most topics here, I deliberately avoid "political" discourse...political opinions contrary to mine are constantly interjected into and tolerated in non-political threads here. I don't see how my comments are any more "political" than mump's question, which I felt was offensive in a public forum...
reference to the 1980 and 1984 boycotts was relevant to the discussion of implied and admitted disapproval of Ruth's South African junket.
I was unaware I was offending anyone with my 6900 posts. I have never attacked anyone personally and even though I may disagree, I do not publicly denigrate the honest opinions of others.
That concludes my end of this pissing match.

[mump boy]

My intention was not to be 'offensive' and i hope it wasn't taken in that way

When you are a public figure and you take controversial decisions (that were highlighted in the article) i don't see the harm in asking about them.

The explaination was thorough and while i don't particularly agree with it, there are no judgements from me.

[DrJay]

I appreciate the civil part of this discussion. While I thought lonewolf's initial post was a bit heavy-handed, I'm not sure it rose to the level of being objectionable, and the tirade it produced from a poster now on holiday was truly amazing. While lonewolf's opinions and politics are a bit different than mine, I have as much respect for them, and for him, as for anything or anyone else on the Message Board. Wisdom, respect, dignity, and courtesy are words that he brings to my mind. Thank you, Ruth, for your response. Please keep coming to the Board (you see what FUN it can be!)