1980 Olympic BOYCOTT was a terrible political move by America, and a lot of athletes were against it.

As usual politicians use the working man as some kind of geopolitical pawn.

You'd have to be a serious bootlicker to think the boycott was a good idea.

Let the individual athletes decide.

looks like it actually did work wrote:

9 years later the Berlin wall fell

looks like it worked

Oh no. I knew a guy who bought a used car through a newspaper. Ten years later, BAM! Herpes.

At least U.S. government made a decision (right or wrong I can not say). In Italy we did something worse. Even if we were not involved in the Afganistan situation, we talked about a boycott because during the cold war we were a satellite of the U.S. in Europe, so we would not want to be insubordinate. We were stuck between a boycott and some more gold medals (without U.S. athletes we had more chances than usual). So, after months of debates we decided like this : we go to Moscow with our full team except for the athletes belonging to military sport teams.

(Especially in sports where you don’t have the chance to earn much money, like for example wrestling, rowing, judo, shooting, italian athletes are enlisted in Navy, Army, Police so that they have an income and a future after the career is over).

For many athletes it meant the end of the Olympic dream and the end of the career

Greg Fredericks never once complained. He had trained solo for 8 years following college and missing the team in both 72 and 76. He finished second behind Virgin and ahead of Salazar at the Trials. Wore his Olympic uniform for us one time with pride. A remarkable man. I wouldn't have been as stoic as he was.

No Bill Rodgers wrote:

Brianruns10 wrote:

I often wonder just what a 1980 Olympics would've looked like with the Americans in play. You would've had Mary Decker at her ascendancy, and Bill Rodgers reaching the end of his dominance as a marathoner. And then Steve Scott, Matt Centrowitz and Craig Virgin in the 1500, 5000 and 10,000 respectively. A tantalizing series of what ifs.

The only one you listed with a shot at earning a medal, Mary Decker. Others who would have interesting to see: Don Paige, peak James Robinson, Renaldo Nehemiah, Edwin Moses and peak Carl Lewis in LJ. Steve Scott would have gotten 5th at best 1500m behind: Coe, Ovett, Straub & Wessinghage.

Agree with your assessments. There was a far larger European season than there is today which all the top Americans participated in... it was their primary source of income. So it wasn’t like American distance runners never matched up against the best in the world. They did quite often but were decidedly second tier back then. The U.S. could have counted on nice medal hauls in the sprints, hurdles, relays, jumps, and jav on the men’s side. But anything 800 meters or farther on the track, a medal would have been a huge shock. A silver or bronze in the marathon could have happened but was almost as unlikely.

Positive Contribution wrote:

looks like it actually did work wrote:

9 years later the Berlin wall fell

looks like it worked

Oh no. I knew a guy who bought a used car through a newspaper. Ten years later, BAM! Herpes.

What does work mean in this context? A: Furthering the demise of our enemy. What was the purpose of the boycott? To hurt the enemy. The enemy eventually fell. Are you stupid enough to think that only a single action lead to the downfall of the Soviet Union?

Greg did not complain but he certainly was disappointed. He said something about hating to have to choose between being a good athlete and being a good American. Finally making the team after two misses and then have there be no team must have felt like a triple kick own the groin.

Not at all pleased wrote:

TTH wrote:

Thanks for the bulletin. It's never been publicly acknowledged that a lot of the athletes were against the Olympic boycott.

As someone who knew several of the athletes personally and read everything about T &F that I could at the time, I would say it was crystal clear how the athletes felt. Most knew it was their one shot ever of competing in the Olympics and they felt seriously screwed to get caught in the middle of a political conflict.

Ya, how do you think Quenton Cassidy felt after coming out of retirement, moving up to the marathon, laying his body all on the course, making the team only for us not to compete. He was always a solid runner but this was by far his only shot to run in the olympics.

evil empire wrote:

Positive Contribution wrote:

Oh no. I knew a guy who bought a used car through a newspaper. Ten years later, BAM! Herpes.

What does work mean in this context? A: Furthering the demise of our enemy. What was the purpose of the boycott? To hurt the enemy. The enemy eventually fell. Are you stupid enough to think that only a single action lead to the downfall of the Soviet Union?

You do know: Carter was not re-elected. Do not let Habitat for Humanity and President Carter's gentle demeanor fool you. Carter, I believe was a U.S. Navy nuclear sub commander. Carter was a Cold War Warrior. Olympic Boycott was step 1. If Carter were re-elected, the response would not have been a very low level C.I.A. operation spearheaded by Texas U.S. Congressman, Charlie Wilson. Carter, if re-elected would had a more robust response than silver screen tough guy, Ronald Reagan. Cold War would have ended sooner if Carter were re-elected.

Moscow Games

Harper’s

October 1980

By George Plimpton

“Tip-toe incognito,” whispered Mister Bumpus.

—The Travels of Dr. Doolittle

http://grantland.com/features/director-cut-george-plimpton-1980-moscow-games/

HRE wrote:

Greg did not complain but he certainly was disappointed. He said something about hating to have to choose between being a good athlete and being a good American. Finally making the team after two misses and then have there be no team must have felt like a triple kick own the groin.

Does Mr. Fredericks consider himself an Olympian?

Charlie Wilson's War wrote:

evil empire wrote:

What does work mean in this context? A: Furthering the demise of our enemy. What was the purpose of the boycott? To hurt the enemy. The enemy eventually fell. Are you stupid enough to think that only a single action lead to the downfall of the Soviet Union?

You do know: Carter was not re-elected. Do not let Habitat for Humanity and President Carter's gentle demeanor fool you. Carter, I believe was a U.S. Navy nuclear sub commander. Carter was a Cold War Warrior. Olympic Boycott was step 1. If Carter were re-elected, the response would not have been a very low level C.I.A. operation spearheaded by Texas U.S. Congressman, Charlie Wilson. Carter, if re-elected would had a more robust response than silver screen tough guy, Ronald Reagan. Cold War would have ended sooner if Carter were re-elected.

If you "would have" studied harder in school or perhaps if you "would have" read more history books as an adult you would not be so ignorant on the subject matter.

would have wrote:

Charlie Wilson's War wrote:

You do know: Carter was not re-elected. Do not let Habitat for Humanity and President Carter's gentle demeanor fool you. Carter, I believe was a U.S. Navy nuclear sub commander. Carter was a Cold War Warrior. Olympic Boycott was step 1. If Carter were re-elected, the response would not have been a very low level C.I.A. operation spearheaded by Texas U.S. Congressman, Charlie Wilson. Carter, if re-elected would had a more robust response than silver screen tough guy, Ronald Reagan. Cold War would have ended sooner if Carter were re-elected.

If you "would have" studied harder in school or perhaps if you "would have" read more history books as an adult you would not be so ignorant on the subject matter.

All you did is offer an inarticulate grunt. I assume you are a slave to your love of Ronald Reagan. You failed to challenge facts of my post. So I used had when I should have used have. You do like the gist of my post though. Am I correct?

Charlie Wilson's War wrote:

evil empire wrote:

What does work mean in this context? A: Furthering the demise of our enemy. What was the purpose of the boycott? To hurt the enemy. The enemy eventually fell. Are you stupid enough to think that only a single action lead to the downfall of the Soviet Union?

You do know: Carter was not re-elected. Do not let Habitat for Humanity and President Carter's gentle demeanor fool you. Carter, I believe was a U.S. Navy nuclear sub commander. Carter was a Cold War Warrior. Olympic Boycott was step 1. If Carter were re-elected, the response would not have been a very low level C.I.A. operation spearheaded by Texas U.S. Congressman, Charlie Wilson. Carter, if re-elected would had a more robust response than silver screen tough guy, Ronald Reagan. Cold War would have ended sooner if Carter were re-elected.

Bull and S h i t. Carter did not have the expertise nor the military strategy or intelligence to bury the Kremlin. Carter was a master of the Energy, Agriculture and Environment sector. His expertise was in those sectors. Hell, Carter created the Dept of Energy.

But as far as War and military tactics? Not his butter to slice. He failed with the Iran Hostage, and american felt unsafe.

Ronald Regan comes in with his Vice, George Bush, who was the former director of the CIA - forget about it! And they affiliated with Marget Thatcher to form a Three-headed gullitone to bury the Kremlin. Regan didn't care about anything else. He was focused on burying mother russia, and so to the point, that he became a gun seller and drug dealer. He turned america into a crack hole, where even his own kind couldn't totally escape the crack epidemic. That is how tenacious he was. Carter didn't have that kind of tenacity or viciousness. Carter is a man of goodwill, not a man of war.

I'm a huge Carter supporter, but he was a softee in regards to homeland security, and the american public knew it. Regan was willing to sacrifice the american people to take down the Ruskies.

The movie Clear and Present Danger reflected Regan and his administration and how they got down......Cold war needs Cold, cruel actions.

Also, Carter was a huge micro-manager, which is why he was constantly firing people in his cabinet, no different than Trump. He wanted to micro-mange everything down to the parking spaces at the White House. A man like that can't lead or carry a war. He wouldn't know who to place in charge, or when to let go, etc. Regan was very organized in his military strategy due to having George Bush as a vice and his association with the CIA, different task forces, etc.

The entire world was literally scared of Ronald Regan and America.

This thread has one deluded mass media drone helplessly denying the true history of US aggression against Afghanistan, and then evolved into two others bickering over which president would have been the better criminal invader.

Either Reagan fooled your daddy and he told you what to say or Reagan and his phoney silver screen tough guy image fooled you.

Wow! Carter attempted the most bold, most dangerous to U.S. military personnel special forces mission ever. Due to severe sand storm, the mission was a failure.

You must be a child typing what your daddy told you to type. You made no mention that 241 U.S. Marines and one USN Sailor died because of Reagan's foolish plan in Lebanon. Their deaths achieved nothing and the mission was 100% Reagan's fault. A weak later, Invasion of Grenada. Phoney.

You are a child if you are referring to a Hollywood film as evidencee Reagan was a good leader.

Not true wrote:

Luv2Run wrote:

For some athletes they might have been too young and not at their peak. Then by the time 84 rolled around might have been past their prime.

Sorry but you get a failing grade for stating this. Hyperbole surely?

Alberto Salazar ran his first marathon a few months after the Moscow games. And where was he in 1988? He hardly made it to 1984.

Not hyperbole.

We fought a proxy war in Afghanistan via the Mujahideen, who were armed with our weapons of war, which they used against us when the war was over and blowback.

And as mentioned above we armed South America for funds, and created a drug crisis in the US.

Conservatives. Enriching the war machine any way possible.