Apologies for rushing to start another thread about Employee #1 latest objectionable editorial, but this idea has gotten too much play since Pre. And if it is true, it is certainly NOT praiseworthy.
What on earth is great about an athlete paying such close attention to another's runners personal goals that he rearranges his racing schedule to try to prevent him from setting a record, and then quits and blurts angry accusations when the threat goes away?
In my mind the greatest thing to happen (off the track) at the Pre Classic was my interview with Solinsky . . . Chris said, "I wouldn't be surprised if they (Galen Rupp and Alberto) run tomorrow (in the two mile) and it was a ploy."
It is hard to express how great Chris' one sentence was.
. . .
LetsRun.com would usually be the first to rip Solinsky if he entered the 10,000m three days in advance with no intention of running it (depriving a well deserving athlete of the chance to run). However if that is what happens and Chris only did it to get back at Alberto and Galen for warming up but not running the 10,000m in Eugene, then great.
And what would be great about an athlete who enters a race to get revenge for that perceived "ploy?" How is it revenge, for that matter? Is Rupp supposed to prepare differently if Chris is in the race? Is it that hard to adjust on the fly? If anything, I would think that it would come as a welcome relief if Solinsky doesn't run, not Rupp's panties in a twist the way you suggest that Solinsky's were when Rupp chose not to run Pre.
You may be right about this melodramatic subplot, but if so, there's nothing great about it. You say that our sport needs more petty, bratty rivalries between competitors. I say it needs more people like Lagat, who we can look up to because of his grit and fierce focus his own self-improvement -- and who wins over and over in stunning fashion with grace and humility.