Damn baby hurt her foot!
Damn baby hurt her foot!
Writer apparently doesn't know the difference between lead and led. Sad.
Very critical of someone who you would give your left nut to exchange running careers with.
Old Woman in the Shoe wrote:
http://www.runnersworld.com/races/kara-goucher-out-of-nyc-marathon?cm_mmc=Twitter-_-RunnersWorld-_-Content-News-_-GoucherOutNYCShe's officially washed up. Should have never had that baby.
I'm not saying the baby directly hurt her foot. But that time off certainly hasn't helped her. Even a few years later, she still hasn't gotten back to being a contender yet.
2008 - 3rd NYC
2009 - 3rd Boston
BREAK
2011 - 5th Boston
2013 - 6th Boston
plot that on a graph and see how it looks. she's getting a little old for this.
i am curious wrote:
Very critical of someone who you would give your left nut to exchange running careers with.
... but I wouldn't have had the baby.
Goucher had foot surgery while she was pregnant to get rid of some bone spurs.
http://karagoucher.competitor.com/2010/06/30/adventures-in-medicine/
It sounds like she had hallux rigidus and some arthritis in the joint. That kind of surgery is not always successful. The bone spurs can come back and the joint can be damaged and not completely recover from surgery.
Only 2 American women have broken 2:30 during 2013 and now one of them is hurt. OUCH
This is a major decision every woman has to make for herself. Delay having kids or bagging her career. There is no middle ground.
Paula Radcliffe came back and won another NYCM, but she never got back to the sub 2:20 level. Mary Keitany will probably never run another sub 2:20 either.
well how dare a woman care more about a family than her running career. I mean, damn, she can get a lifetime enjoyment from her family but her running career won't last forever. I probably don't see you on TV at pro events. What exactly was the downfall to your career?
Old Woman in the Shoe wrote:
i am curious wrote:Very critical of someone who you would give your left nut to exchange running careers with.
... but I wouldn't have had the baby.
But her pr was in 2011.
Kara's detailed explanation-
http://www.runtheedge.com/2013/09/letting-go-of-a-dream/
Not baby related.
You people couldn't wait to come on here and gloat. So negative. I feel badly for her.
Blidgerley wrote:
Kara's detailed explanation-
Not baby related.
Of course it it. When she came back, she wanted too much in too little time. She ran Boston half a year after giving birth. That's not how it works. Eventually, your body will break down at the weakest link.
I like Kara Goucher and think she is a great competitor. I think it is ridiculous to criticize her for having a child, and hope she is able to come back. However, I must say she is entirely wrong about one thing:
"...A combo of a bad race strategy and tough weather conditions left me outside the top 3 required to move on to the IAAF World Championships in Moscow. I was devastated, but quickly found the silver lining in the fact that I could now do some summer road racing that I have never had the opportunity to do before. I felt hopeful. THINGS HAPPEN FOR A REASON, RIGHT?" (all-caps by me)
The implication that she had a bad race at USAs because some force, or whatever, was guiding her towards some other goal, is just wrong. I know, I know, I can never absolutely prove my point that not everything happens for a reason, but seriously, life would be pretty ridiculous if every bad thing had a guiding reason behind it, if some unseen force was sometimes causing bad things to happen so that in due time, benefits could be obtained. Like, "Kid, I'm sorry about your mom dying of cancer/getting murdered/getting run over by a bus, etc at age 29, but just remember - everything happens for a reason".
I know Kara didn't mean to imply any of those things or that she is somehow specially guided, but still, anytime I see "everything happens for a reason", it just sets me off.
Gamera wrote:
I know Kara didn't mean to imply any of those things or that she is somehow specially guided, but still, anytime I see "everything happens for a reason", it just sets me off.
If she didn't say that then she would have said something else that set you off, and if she didn't set you off she would have set someone else off. That's what happens when peoples' words are broadcast.
Time to give Colt and little brother or sister.
OMG are you for real? wrote:
If she didn't say that then she would have said something else that set you off, and if she didn't set you off she would have set someone else off. That's what happens when peoples' words are broadcast.
Man, that really sets me off.
Old Woman in the Shoe wrote:
I'm not saying the baby directly hurt her foot. But that time off certainly hasn't helped her. Even a few years later, she still hasn't gotten back to being a contender yet.
2008 - 3rd NYC
2009 - 3rd Boston
BREAK
2011 - 5th Boston
2013 - 6th Boston
plot that on a graph and see how it looks. she's getting a little old for this.
You apparently believe that the marathon is such a predictable race that the difference between 3rd and 6th place is statistically meaningful.
I don't.
The future is not now wrote:
Only 2 American women have broken 2:30 during 2013 and now one of them is hurt. OUCH
I hope some American woman has a good marathon this fall...things are looking bleak. Shalane is up there...and that's it. We need a young person to start racing well. Lisa uhl, probably. I can't even think of anyone else. hastings maybe will keep improving. hassay? Maybe Desi will have a miracle comeback.
Are there any other american women who can run 2:27?
It is an event where experience helps and she is getting worse.I do hope that she can put together a great race at some point though.
4runner wrote:
Old Woman in the Shoe wrote:I'm not saying the baby directly hurt her foot. But that time off certainly hasn't helped her. Even a few years later, she still hasn't gotten back to being a contender yet.
2008 - 3rd NYC
2009 - 3rd Boston
BREAK
2011 - 5th Boston
2013 - 6th Boston
plot that on a graph and see how it looks. she's getting a little old for this.
You apparently believe that the marathon is such a predictable race that the difference between 3rd and 6th place is statistically meaningful.
I don't.