In the week that was, this was a quote..."We think it's doubtful that we'll every see an American-born male of Caucasian descent medal in the 5k or 10k in our lifetime. With the marathon, a lot more can go wrong, making the race more of a dice roll, and thus one's chances are better there. Plus, watching an American stay in the lead pack at New York or London before finishing 5th is way more exciting than watching an American get dropped at 5k in a 10k and finish 5th in a 10,000 at the Olympics."
First, considering Teg was 4th in 2007, I think this might be a little ridiculous. Im sure in the next 40 years, an athlete will come along who can get in the top 3.
On that, should an athlete pick the marathon simply on the hopes that "a lot more can go wrong, making the race more of a dice roll."
1) Things can also go wrong for Americans, as we have seen before.
2) If an athlete can be one of the best Americans ever at 5k or 10k, why should they be rushed off to the marathon in hopes that other runners will have crappy races and they can sneak a medal. Id rather be able to watch the 5k and 10k at big meets and see America's best mixing it up at the front. I dont want the biggest distance talents racing only 2-3 times a year where there is a good chance at least one will be a disaster.