Scenario wrote:
wa runner wrote:No, take this scenario: Dan Browne cramped up. That's the bottom line. He ran too fast for too long and his body couldn't take it. Dan Browne couldn't take the pace, but Brian Sell could. That's why Sell is going to the Olympics.
The same thing goes for every other runner that didn't make the top 3. They weren't fast enough. You can argue forever that So-and-so has more talent, has accomplished more, but the bottom line is, Brian Sell beat them when it counted. No other argument holds up to reality.
I don't know why I have to spell this out, but too many folks jumped all over what I said in order to defend Sell. My point is that Sell had the best race and deserved 3rd place. Still, this was not the only way it could have played out. The marathon is very fickle, and there are several guys who could have taken the third spot if rthe race had unfolded differently. My point is not to take anything away from Sell, but to suggest that there is a very narrow margin between Hanson's looking like a great success, and the program bing cast in a very different light if Sell had finished outside the top and had left the program. I admire their approach and efforts, and am personally glad that the trials race was a boost for them, rather than what could have been a very disappointing result, given Sell's pre-race threat to quit.
It really doesn't matter how narrow the margin of success.
Yes, Sell's making the olympic team makes Hanson's 'look' more successful. Being successful tends to have that effect.