Were you even there? wrote:
Both Goucher and Ritz admitted that their goal was to win. They both failed in reaching their goal. Why? Ritz ran a stupid race and Goucher followed. Ask Ritz or Goucher what they think. They both admitted that Culpepper ran the smarter race. Culpepper could only win if 3 things happened and he only had control over one of them.
1. Culpepper had to run a smart race.
2. Ritz had to run a foolish race.
3. Goucher had to run a foolish race.
If any one of those things didn't happen, then Culpepper would not have won.
Had Ritz had a better day and held on everyone would be saying he ran brilliantly, with the right strategy -- to take it out hard and break everyone. Had he run more moderately and still not won, people would say his strategy was failed, that he should have gone out fast. Without Ritz (or Gouch) winning the race, you types would be going on about how his strategy was stupid regardless. There's no winning to Message Board coaches like yourself.
And your three points are hogwash. There's absolutely no way to know that for sure. You're assuming Culpepper is much more of a slouch than he is. He's run a 2:09 marathon and 27:33 10k, both faster than Ritz. His 5k isn't bad either.
That Ritz and Gouch say they didn't run the smartest race doesn't make them arrogant, nor does it make their race's foolish. Probably the last person you should ask about how one's strategy worked out is the racer. Did you see the video of Gouch afterwards? Full of excuses. He tripped here, rolled his ankle there.
It just wasn't his day to win. It was Culpepper's. Culpepper didn't need either of them to run foolishly (and they didn't --they got f***ing 2nd and 3rd place for christ's sake!) as he's an excellent runner himself.