No O'Keeffe in marathon?

So what happens when your coach and manager (agent) are one and the same? And not just that, but your coach/agent is paid by your sponsor. In who's best interest is he acting?

You were representing no one in those marathons. Respectfully sorry, likely no one else cared if you started or not, or cared if you finished or how well you did.

Fiona was earned the right to represent an entire country, whose process selected her as one of the three best chances that country had to not simply finish, but hopefully do well. She was in Paris and able to be on that starting line only because of that country. That country cared enough about that potential finish and place to bring in an alternate runner to take her place in case she was not able to give her best possible performance.

Whether or not a 100% healthy Fiona actually could have medaled or even finished in the top 10 is not relevant. That country had thousands (hundreds of thousands?) of people hoping, wishing, dreaming that she (or any other runner from that country) would make them proud and do well.

The U.S.A. deserved better than what she decided to give them.

Starting an injured first-string quarterback hoping they will be ok is a bad analogy.

When it becomes apparent that your injured first-string quarterback is too injured, you can sub in your healthy second-string guy at any time.

Once Fiona decided that a miracle was possible and declined to let the alternate start, no substitutions were allowed.

And the coach has the ultimate decision about who gets to play, not the players.

Good coaches will do what is best for the team, not necessarily the players.

You're right, it is a bad analogy! I didn't start it, though, and was responding to other commenters who brought it up as a way to justify the decision of O'Keeffe and her team. And actually, you've just done a better job of refuting them than I did! It's not the same situation, given that a QB can be subbed at any time, while a marathon runner cannot.

I'll still maintain, though, the QBs (and probably all football players) should be subbed more than they are, and that maybe we even need to radically reconceptualize the game itself to address the physical risks (particularly CTE). But that's a thread for another day!

"Since the women's marathon became an event at the olympics in 1984, 7 of the 31 women who competed for Team USA recorded a DNF: Julie Isphording, Jenny Spangler, Magdalena Lewy-Boulet, Deena Kastor, Des Linden, Aliphine Tuliamuk, and Fiona O'Keeffe."

Honestly, I've still not forgiven Tuliamuk or her team. Attempting to run an Olympic marathon 6 months after pregnancy and giving birth is madness. Kipyegon, the greatest female middle distance runner ever, took a full year to come back to racing. What made Tuliamuk think she could reach Olympic caliber in 6 months for a much longer distance? The only mitigating factor for her, I think, was the situation with COVID, which made everything so unpredictable. But still ... once the Games were on, and she knew how little time she had, she should have dropped. A hip injury is exactly what one would expect coming back from pregnancy at that level, given the stress that is put on the pelvis and the effect of relaxin on ligaments. And lo and behold, she got a hip injury.

I can see how Tuliamuk herself may have thought she could do it, but there should have been someone to tell her no.

"Since the women's marathon became an event at the olympics in 1984, 7 of the 31 women who competed for Team USA recorded a DNF: Julie Isphording, Jenny Spangler, Magdalena Lewy-Boulet, Deena Kastor, Des Linden, Aliphine Tuliamuk, and Fiona O'Keeffe."

Honestly, I've still not forgiven Tuliamuk or her team. Attempting to run an Olympic marathon 6 months after pregnancy and giving birth is madness. Kipyegon, the greatest female middle distance runner ever, took a full year to come back to racing. What made Tuliamuk think she could reach Olympic caliber in 6 months for a much longer distance? The only mitigating factor for her, I think, was the situation with COVID, which made everything so unpredictable. But still ... once the Games were on, and she knew how little time she had, she should have dropped. A hip injury is exactly what one would expect coming back from pregnancy at that level, given the stress that is put on the pelvis and the effect of relaxin on ligaments. And lo and behold, she got a hip injury.

I can see how Tuliamuk herself may have thought she could do it, but there should have been someone to tell her no.

I looked back over the thread and I see some comments about Rose Harvey (the British athlete)

It's so interesting the way she is being portrayed vs Fiona:

bbc.com

Team GB runner Rose Harvey finished marathon despite breaking leg

Rose Harvey overcame the injury to complete the Paris Olympic marathon in a time of two hours 51 minutes.

Link:www.bbc.com/news/articles/c990yd94j7eo

"Despite treatment for her hip before the Olympics, the injury did not appear to be getting any better.
Doctors and physios told Harvey that running the marathon would make it worse - but there was a chance that she could get through it and do her training justice."

"But Rose also demonstrated exactly why she was picked, showing true Olympic spirit, resolve, determination, grit, huge amounts of resilience.”

🤔 Rose is getting a lot of press and no criticism at all..in fact she's getting praise for her grit and termination for "pushing through."

We, as fans and supporters are actively choosing to be with these athletes during success, and on certain arcs, but then also actively villianizing them at arguably the hardest part of their real lives, if it doesn't fit our narrative..

Kara and Des discuss the situation 20 min into today's vid. In summary, they are firmly on Fiona's side bc they both did the same thing. Des wanted the title of Olympian in 2012 and to keep all the team USA gear and stay in the Olympic village. Kara ran injured in 2011 at World's bc she would get a 30% salary decrease if she didn't start. They feel Fiona earned the spot and that it was fully her right to get whatever benefits she would get emotionally, financially, etc from starting even if she knew long ago that she would not complete the race.

So both Des and Kara are willing to do something that most of us think is unethical and immoral if the price is right. Interesting.
This is the same defense that causes people to use performance enhancing drugs. They both have also justified use of thyroid meds.
Everyone is able to justify bad behavior because it allows them to sleep at night.

I was really disappointed in their take and that they doubled down on it. It’s also clear neither of them can separate their emotions from this situation. They should have covered it in the broadcast as well.

Also disappointed in Kara’s “if you’re not an elite athlete, you’ll never f’n understand” quote. Fans of the sport are allowed to have an opinion.

ok but we are glossing over the accusation that USATF flew out Jess McClain behind Fiona's back which is honestly pretty bad if true

The thing to remember about Tuliamuk though is that if she had skipped the Tokyo Olympics, the alternate spot would have gone to ... wait for it ... Des. I don't know what Aliphine's thought process was, but many of us would have thought that Des was the last person to deserve an alternate spot after what she did in 2012. Given that, and given that a year and a half had gone by since the Trials, I was fine with Aliphine starting when she clearly wasn't the runner she had been when she won in Atlanta.

You do have a right to your opinion, but so does Kara and I 100% agree with her and Des.

Ray,
You add a lot to this board and are 100% entitled to your opinion but you are in the minority on this issue.

I listened to the podcast and kara makes it seem like she has some insider knowledge on how Jess got invited to Paris and that it was done behind Fiona’s back and she found out like the rest of us thru runners world. If that’s the case, that’s pretty bad on all fronts.
something else I find interesting in the podcast is that they both agreed the idea that team USA is an actual team motivated to earn medals as a team is false and that everyone shows up selfishly for themselves and their own individual goals, even if those goals end up being acquiring USA gear and getting to experience the closing of the Olympics. They also pointed out that if Fiona didn’t try to race, she would lose future appearance fees bc she wouldn’t be able to call herself an Olympian. The podcast is worth a listen. I’d be curious if American sprinters would push back on some of their opinions since they have relays to contend with.

I really didn’t like how Kara said she didn’t think Jess could’ve run or completed the Paris course. What an unnecessary and untrue thing to say. I think Jess would’ve done great and I’m bummed we didn’t get to see her race

The only time Des and Kara come close to discussing a change that could be implemented in the future is when they state (toward the end of their O’Keeffe segment) that some people are advocating for USATF medical staff to make the final decision on whether a team member will start the race or be replaced by an alternate. They dismiss this proposal because it could create an unhealthy power dynamic by placing the decision in the hands of a “creepy” doctor.

Maybe some people have been advocating for team doctors to have the final say, and maybe that would create potential problems like the appearance of or actual bias or favoritism. But what would be the objection to requiring USA marathoners to submit proof of completion of a not overly demanding race-specific workout in the month prior to the race? Did O’Keeffe ever do a session that included at least 10km at marathon pace (not even a continuous 10k necessarily) after say July 1? If she did, and it was documented, I think the criticism she’s received for starting the race would have been a lot less harsh, at minimum, since it would defuse the allegations that she covered up an injury or injuries that had kept her far from race-fit all summer.

I’m just not seeing what downsides would come with instituting a modest fitness test requirement like I’ve described. It would separate the athletes who are actually just “dinged up” but still training at a high level at least some of the time, from those who have no genuine chance of replicating their trials performance at the Olympics because they’re seriously injured. It seems pretty clear that, for a variety of reasons, athletes in the latter camp are not going to honestly disclose their status if they can just say they’re “dinged up” without going into details.