Added Perspective wrote:
Personally, I often pass definitive judgment on people based upon one interview that they conducted over 18 years ago. I am typically open-minded like that.
Yes I agree that we only get a snapshot of any person presented in the media and not the whole story or person.
But Slaney always rubbed me the wrong way. To me she came off as a diva. I never got the impression that she took responsibility for her tactics which derailed Budd. Maybe I misread Slaney. Maybe not.
Most of you have probably read this Runners World article about Zola Budd, but in case you haven't, here is the link. I highly recommend it. She has been through a hell of a lot, not just this single famous Olympic incident, and has managed to come out of it all a great and graceful person. She has my total respect. She is on Facebook, by the way, if you want to say Hi.
http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-243-297--13308-0,00.html
Out of curiosity, who won the '92 road mile in Sydney?
The only thing to take from this video interview is that the interviewer/moderator was the equivalent of a troll - simply out to get one or both women riled up, say something ugly and make themselves look bad.
Extraordinarily ugly interview (and by this I am not talking about physical appearances).
The Thing of It Is wrote:
Decker Slaney would not have won gold that day in any case. No one was going to beat Puica. Whether or not Puica was clean is another matter.
Those who think Decker Slaney should have been more "aggressive" in getting past Budd should remember how early in the race this incident was, and how many other options Mary had. In a race at Madison Square Garden when she was well in the clear and winning, she had actually run up the back and made contact with a slower runner she was lapping. It was contact she could easily avoid; it pretty much shocked the crowd. That's who she was.
I remember seeing that on TV. She almost knocked the lapped runner down, it looked like a classic "illegal block in the back" penalty in football. She seemed pissed the lapped runner didn't move out to lane 2.
Shame that Zola was getting lapped - she had such high hopes.
Lick Tipton wrote:
Shame that Zola was getting lapped - she had such high hopes.
attempt at yet another troll attack?
I'm sure Zola would have liked Mary to say that but Mary just answered the question that she was asked. Zola should have stated her case or not bother to do the interview. You could have other knowledge of Mary that I don't that affects the way you see her behavior during this interview.
ray L wrote:
Great piece of film. One could look at this and see that Budd would just like to hear Mary say "it's history, forgive and forget on both sides", etc and Decker comes out with the same drivel she had been spouting for 8 years. Decker was and is a bitter old woman who turned to drugs to get that feeling of superiority back. It's a shame.
It would be interesting to see if someone has the article from 83 or early 84 where Decker talks about Budd and how she (Budd) has to learn to be more aggressive if she's going to compete with the European runners. There's a lot of pushing and shoving over there and I don't think she's up to it, was the gist of the article. Interesting because I believe to this day that Decker went into that race with the attitude that she would teach this young upstart a lesson. Why? Because Mary was the golden girl the 14 year old who had the world track and field crowd on their feet. who does this barefoot young foreigner think she is?
I just watched the footage of the incident, and this is what I see: Budd was in the middle of lane one and Slaney was inside her on the rail coming off the turn, with Budd ahead of Slaney by a body length, but the back-kick of Budd's stride looks like it would overlap with Slaney's legs if Budd were to veer to the rail.
As they proceeded down the straight, it looked like they held the same relative positions when Budd tried to veer to the rail, and got tripped slightly as her back kick caught Slaney's foot. Budd regained her balance and veered back to the right slightly(the middle of lane one again), but a few strides later, she tried to veer to the rail again. Unfortunately, Slaney had held her ground on the rail, and this time, it was Slaney who got tripped, and the rest is history.
It does not look like Budd made any attempt to accelerate as she moved to the rail either the first or the second time, nor does it look like Slaney either accelerated or decelerated during the entire chain of events.
This is the way I see it. Is there another way that you would interpret this? Who would be at fault if this interpretation were accurate?
I keep looking at that final stride of Budds before Slaney went down, and it actually looks like as Budd's left foot was coming from it's back-kick through recovery, it collided with her right leg and then Kareened to the left into Slaney's path, causing Slaney to trip and fall to the ground.
The Thing of It Is wrote:
Decker Slaney would not have won gold that day in any case. No one was going to beat Puica.
Based upon what?
In 1983, Mary was the world champion at 3,000m. In 1985 at the Grand Prix Finals, Decker, Puica, and Budd each ran what would be their lifetime PR in the 3,000m, and Mary won decisively. If you have more compelling evidence in Puica's favor, I would love to hear it!
Slaney was out of her mind, suffering from the delusions of infallability that often plague celebrities. The ugliness of her character here even shows in her face.
The driver of a car that rear-ends another car is ALWAYS the one at fault. Budd was absolutely blameless. In fact, she was the true victim, thanks to all those good American jingos in the crowd.
unbiased opinioin wrote:
This is the way I see it. Is there another way that you would interpret this? Who would be at fault if this interpretation were accurate?
My understanding is that by default, the runner behind is responsible. (Unless egregious conduct by someone else is proven.) Kinda like with cars.
budd committed the mistake of passing and slowing down. slaney committed the mistake of running up on her heels trying to bully her out of the way. you can argue whether budd should have known better due to her relative lack of experience, but you can't argue whether slaney should have known better. there were over 3 laps left...why not lift and follow the faster runner (puica) out of the box you let yourself get caught in?
instead she tried to intimidate her not lifting- and it backfired. she has no one but herself to blame. that interview is disgusting...she makes it sound like she was preordained to win because the race was in l.a. and budd had no right to be there.
and then came the drugs...
Mr Goodknuckle wrote:
The only thing to take from this video interview is that the interviewer/moderator was the equivalent of a troll - simply out to get one or both women riled up, say something ugly and make themselves look bad.
Extraordinarily ugly interview (and by this I am not talking about physical appearances).
are you crazy? what was she supposed to ask them? there was no point in doing the interview if you're not going to ask those questions.
god, when did people become so afraid of journalism in this country?
Slaney forgot that it was the Olympics and not a coronation.
Remarkably, they had the nerves, wit and maturity, to meet in person and recognize that if they really knew each other their feelings about the incident might be different.
Thanks for posting this link. At the time I was quite moved by the whole thing, mostly because of Budd's age and background. What a great sports story.
Once a Narcissist
what the? wrote:
Mr Goodknuckle wrote:The only thing to take from this video interview is that the interviewer/moderator was the equivalent of a troll - simply out to get one or both women riled up, say something ugly and make themselves look bad.
Extraordinarily ugly interview (and by this I am not talking about physical appearances).
are you crazy? what was she supposed to ask them? there was no point in doing the interview if you're not going to ask those questions.
god, when did people become so afraid of journalism in this country?
Well, as god I would politely suggest that no I am not crazy.
As far as afraid of journalism - that's just plain stupid. This is quality journalism in exactly the same way that the National Enquirer is quality journalism. It is pure raunchy entertainment that the stereotypical trailer park crowd would consider journalism.