Steve Scott Shames himself - Wack Job OC Conservative.

This is going to require more research than I personally feel like doing, but my memory is that the U.S. and British Olympic situations in 1980 were not the same. The British government had absolutely no control over their country's Olympic situation. I don't think that was quite the same in the U.S. The USOC has some measure of independence, but I'm pretty sure it was beholden to the American government.

It's at this worth mentioning, which no one has thus far, that Scott expresses regret not just for himself but for Don Paige, who would have been a very strong medal bet in the 800 in 1980.

quick one wrote:

jjjjjjjjjjj wrote:

agreed. Carter may have been wrong to do it. There were other options to respond to Afghanistan. But the decision is no reason to condemn Carter as a whole and placing this quote on the front page is just confirming the site's conservative ideology. Carter's Nobel Prize had nothing to do with Afghanistan, by the way.

Exactly. I was against the boycott from the moment that it was brought up as a possibility, and Carter lost my vote because of it.

Nevertheless, he has done much good before and since then. Steve Scott is off base (and immature) to say that anything Carter has ever done is bad because of the boycott.

Yep, and his own comments contradict himself.

He felt bad for others, not himself? He felt bad for Don Paige? Oh wait, he got screwed by not having Moscow to prepare HIM for LA.

Let's see, you have the Olympics in your home town (practically), and one of the best coaches in the world, and great shoe sponsorship, the best coaches in the USA as advisers -- and no one in that mix can tell you how to schedule your day and work your time demands.

I guess NO Americans won medals in 84. Because they missed Moscow.

Tell it to King Carl.

Clowns of the Purple Sage wrote:

It's at this worth mentioning, which no one has thus far, that Scott expresses regret not just for himself but for Don Paige, who would have been a very strong medal bet in the 800 in 1980.

If you base your life success and happiness on one or maybe two Olympic shots, your odds for disappointment are about guaranteed.

The emotionalism and dis-respect for Scott's comments reveal his true disappointment is for himself, himself, and himself.

nathan jessup wrote:

Remember, this is America and last time I checked Steve Scott still has the freedom of speech...just like the rest of us!

Nobody is saying he does not have the right to say what he did.

Scott can speak in public all he wants to. I do question letsrun giving him too much of a forum since it is and was apparent that he didn't stand a chance of medaling in '80, '84 and '88. He simply wasn't up to it mentally and probably not performance wise.

It takes guts and courage like Joan Benoit had. Now there is an olympic champion!

Really Real, try that one again. Your comments don't actually make any sense.

Clowns of the Purple Sage wrote:

Really Real, try that one again. Your comments don't actually make any sense.

Lol. Good catch. But, you figured it out ("in" not "for").

Lack of caffeine. GARCON!

Clowns of the Purple Sage wrote:

It's at this worth mentioning, which no one has thus far, that Scott expresses regret not just for himself but for Don Paige, who would have been a very strong medal bet in the 800 in 1980.

don paige moved on quite nicely working in track and field. i wonder if he is on record with any comment about the boycott

i just remembered to check my friend bill clark's villanova track blog. paige'scomments are there.

http://villanovarunning.blogspot.com/2010/02/don-paige-on-1980-olympic-boycott.html

TAC held the Trials for two primary reasons: 1) Politics--TAC and the USOC wanted to be able to say they had named an "Olympic team." 2) More importantly the meet in Eugene made a lot of money for TAC. Despite the boycott (and some really crappy record the first few days) it was still well attended.

I believe they also had a TV contract to meet.

Thanks for finding that. Don Paige seems to have taken the high road.

Yeah, what a world of difference, Scott's spew, and Paige's well stated, eloquence...

No, it's about a democrat supporting a democrat. Versus a non-democrat not supporting a democrat.

Scott Reid wrote:

TAC held the Trials for two primary reasons: 1) Politics--TAC and the USOC wanted to be able to say they had named an "Olympic team." 2) More importantly the meet in Eugene made a lot of money for TAC. Despite the boycott (and some really crappy record the first few days) it was still well attended.

I believe they also had a TV contract to meet.

Scott Reid, thanks for that update.

On point 2 did you mean "(and some really crappy WEATHER the first few days)"....is that what you meant?

Tango Uniform wrote:

USSR was not the enemy wrote:

The USA should have let the Soviets have their way with Afghanistan. Maybe 9/11 would not have happened. Blame Carter and Reagan for that one.

Blame yourself, dumbass. The Soviets lost the war in Afghanistan.

With the help of the US.

jjjjjjjjjjj wrote:

agreed. Carter may have been wrong to do it. There were other options to respond to Afghanistan. But the decision is no reason to condemn Carter as a whole and placing this quote on the front page is just confirming the site's conservative ideology. Carter's Nobel Prize had nothing to do with Afghanistan, by the way.

Yes, that everlasting peace in the Middle East certainly was worthy.

The Thing Of It Is wrote:

I'm not sure that Scott's position rates as "conservative," to begin with.

I have to admit that in 1980, I was pretty naive. I thought after the Russian invasion of Afghanistan that the IOC would take the Games away from Moscow, which is what should have happened. But the IOC was always gutless and always favored the Eastern bloc. Notice to this day that with all the retrospective removal of medals for drugs admissions, they've never done a thing about the East Germans, and the proof of their miscreance is in their own writing.

I suspect that there was not an alternative location that late in the game. The invasion was in late 1979.

Wendell Gee wrote:

T.L. the stallion wrote:

i agree with scott, carter was an @sshole.

Say what you like about Carter as a president, or his choice to boycott the Olympics (which I agree was a travesty) but to say he's an asshole takes away all your credibility. Carter was a great man even if he was a poor president (and a worse politician).

Other than Habitat for Humanity, tell me what makes him great.