The point is Puica won the Olympics and Slaney didn't. Whether she could have outkicked Slaney or not is irrelevant in this instance. She didn't need to outkick Slaney. Who cares what could have happened. Let's acknowledge what did happen. Slaney: no Oly medal ever. She is not in the pantheon of greats because of it.
If you read the original post opinion, you will find out why we are not debating on who won the race and the gold medal or who might go down in your diary of greatest of all time.
The original posting questions why so many reports were slating Slaney as the favorite in the 3k in 1984 - and what was the rationale behind those reports.
It was a speculative questions which required speculative answers, not some fact in which we are fully aware.
All of the best are on something, don't kid yourself. Also why do you feel that the Soviets or E. Germans had anything on the usa, sophistication level, please you jest? Drugs are the evolution of the sport as we know it. Puica had major wheels please don't kid yourself on this either. That is why they run the race(s) to find out the true winner, that said there was no lock on Mary D.T. Slaney winning any race. Winners win the rest of us come in after that.
16x wrote:
don't leave out the Soviets or E. Germans. If the Americans were taking anything, it wasn't at the sophistication level of the Europeans.
I doubt that Puica had the wheels to outkick a vertical Mary Slaney.
Stop picking on people's anal warts, it will beome a painful hemmoroid.
Putting aside all talk of whose fault the collision was and all debate about Slaney's alleged drug use, on fact was very clear in 1984:
Slaney was the overwhelming favorite in that 3000 for a good reason - she was the fastest one in the field. She could hang with anyone and had a better kick than any of the women in that 3000. Certainly a faster kick than Puica. Even Puica couldn't have gunned down the Russians the way Slaney did in 83.
This was true going into the race and was borne out by her blowing away both Puica and Budd the following year. The Olympic final was hers to take until she fell. That's why announcers always make that statement. It was true.
Slaney was not at the top of her game in '84. She was beaten in the 1500 by Wysocki at FOT. As noted earlier she was not comfortable in a race unless she was leading, and she was not leading when she tried to pull into a gap that wasn't there. When Slaney used to train in Eugene, her husband Dick would chase everyone off the track so she could do her workout by herself or with Twomey. Never developed a tactical sense.
kritter wrote:
Slaney was not at the top of her game in '84. She was beaten in the 1500 by Wysocki at FOT. As noted earlier she was not comfortable in a race unless she was leading, and she was not leading when she tried to pull into a gap that wasn't there. When Slaney used to train in Eugene, her husband Dick would chase everyone off the track so she could do her workout by herself or with Twomey. Never developed a tactical sense.
Dick Brown was not her husband, he was her coach - let's get that corrected first.
Wysocki beat Slaney - but with prelims and finals in a hot LA, is was an aggressive double that didn't work out and the winning 1500 meter time was down around 4 flat. I am sure that is why she decided to focus on one event.
I hardly think the loss was some form of "struggling" unless you have some additional information to contribute.
Yes, she did not know how to run in a pack, but certaintly Budd did not know how to either. It appears it was one of those tangles that happen in track, but if you view the tape, Slaney clips the heal of Zola, who appears to be running steady in the outside of lane one.
Dick Slaney was her husband. Hence her name!!
no, the winner is not Dick....
Richard Slaney goes by "Richard" not Dick.
who said Dick Brown was her husband. That's right nobody. 16x learn to read.
