Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Zola Budd pushed Mary on purpose !

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Marlow
    replied
    Originally posted by SQUACKEE
    The guy who suggested it has to be kidding and if he's not kidding he's clearly insane, no really, he's insane.
    It's a joke - I say it's a joke, son!



    [we wish]

    Leave a comment:


  • kuha
    replied
    I've been away for a couple days. I'm concerned that our dear williamhammerjammer appears to be positively rabid, foaming at the mouth, yapping and biting, clearly a menace to all.

    Really, how inane can a thread get these days?

    Leave a comment:


  • bad hammy
    replied
    Originally posted by Dutra
    Originally posted by williamwindhamjr
    Puica lost because she is not remembered for winning the gold, she is known as the woman who won because mary couldnt finish.
    1. You're wrong . . .
    That has never ever stopped our friend willjr from posting here before . . .

    Leave a comment:


  • SQUACKEE
    replied
    Originally posted by Pego
    Originally posted by williamwindhamjr
    what is a disgrace pego is you defending a paper champion.Everybody knows Mary had that race won.Maybe her a Zola got together before the race.
    How can anybody take you seriously? At the time of the collision, it was anybody's race. You are the only one who "knows Mary had that race won". Even the biggest Mary's fans did not know it at that time.
    Budd and Puica conspired against Mary and Zola sacrificed herself for Puica? Is that what you are saying? How preposterous!
    I dont think preposterous is strong enough. The guy who suggested it has to be kidding and if he's not kidding he's clearly insane, no really, he's insane.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pego
    replied
    Originally posted by williamwindhamjr
    what is a disgrace pego is you defending a paper champion.Everybody knows Mary had that race won.Maybe her a Zola got together before the race.
    How can anybody take you seriously? At the time of the collision, it was anybody's race. You are the only one who "knows Mary had that race won". Even the biggest Mary's fans did not know it at that time.
    Budd and Puica conspired against Mary and Zola sacrificed herself for Puica? Is that what you are saying? How preposterous!

    Leave a comment:


  • williamwindhamjr
    replied
    Brian you are a follower , so I understand you have to agree with the masses.

    Leave a comment:


  • williamwindhamjr
    replied
    Nevetsllim who are you to even mention the word ban! In america its called freedom of speech or do you go for the 1800 idealisms?

    Leave a comment:


  • mcgato
    replied
    I've always been of the opinion that Puica was going to win that race regardless of what happened to Decker. Decker's loss at the trials was the first sign that she was not as dominant as before. I liken it to Liz McColgan who ran pretty much the same 10000 race in 91 and 92 championship races. In 91 in Tokyo, her 15:30-ish opening 5000 dropped pretty much everyone. In 92 in Barcelona, the she opened the first 5000 at about the same pace, and there were about 9 runners still there. Everyone in the world had a year to prepare for something that they knew would happen.

    Leave a comment:


  • nevetsllim
    replied
    Originally posted by williamwindhamjr
    what is a disgrace pego is you defending a paper champion.Everybody knows Mary had that race won.Maybe her a Zola got together before the race.
    25 years on and you're still bitter :roll: Puica was a fantastic athlete who achieved more than Slaney in her career and doesn't have a drugs record unlike Whiny Mary.

    Can't gh just ban people like this who post absolute dribble like this?

    Leave a comment:


  • williamwindhamjr
    replied
    what is a disgrace pego is you defending a paper champion.Everybody knows Mary had that race won.Maybe her a Zola got together before the race.

    Leave a comment:


  • EPelle
    replied
    Originally posted by rasb
    And I certainly don't agree that Mary was just "lucky" in 1983 in Helsinki.
    As I saw it, she just out-gritted the Russians in the homestretch - twice.
    As to not cause further confusion, the surprise element was available in 1983. It would not have been in 1984. Luck, or catching a good break with her kick, may have been a one championship shot (folks may have started later down the stretch on Slaney rather than running up on her shoulder off the turn).

    Regarding the Romanians, following Marasescu and Silai, the ones to reach the top during Slaney's time were Puica, Melinte and Ivan. Following a significant time, the torch got passed to Szabo, who had the spotlight in the 3.000m and dueled with Szekely and the late Cioncan in the 1.500m. They've had only three break 8.30,00 for 3.000m, and none during Slaney's tenure on the scene.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pego
    replied
    Originally posted by williamwindhamjr
    Puica lost because she is not remembered for winning the gold, she is known as the woman who won because mary couldnt finish.
    You might be the only one, who remembers Puica that way. To most reasonable people, she is a deserved Olympic champion. She was also a member of the Romanian team, the only Soviet block country that defied Moscow and came to LA to compete. Your treatment of Maricica Puica is a disgrace.

    Leave a comment:


  • rasb
    replied
    Originally posted by williamwindhamjr
    Puica lost because she is not remembered for winning the gold, she is known as the woman who won because mary couldnt finish.
    william, no offense intended, but please stop saying stupid things. It makes it very difficult to carry on an intelligent conversation.
    But I'll try.

    If the unfortunate events had not occurred in the 3000 in 1984, I don't think we "know" for sure, who would have won, or medalled. We can only form suppositions or opinions. Does anyone disagree with that part?

    Maybe Zola would have won - we just don't know...
    By the way, it was Lynn Williams who won the bronze.

    As to whether Mary was a different runner in 1984 than 1983, well of course she was --- everybody was. The question to me is, is it possible that Mary could have won the gold under different circumstances, and my answer is, yes it is possible. I don't know the odds, but they certainly weren't 0/10.
    And I certainly don't agree that Mary was just "lucky" in 1983 in Helsinki.
    As I saw it, she just out-gritted the Russians in the homestretch - twice.

    And I think using the 1500 at the Trials as a measuring stick does not give full credit to Ruth Wysocki, and how good she was in 1984. Does anyone know if Mary was planning on running both the 1500 and 3000 at the Games?
    I don't know if I saw footage from the 3000 metres at the US Trials. Can anyone provide some information on that race?

    And as for the Romanians, please don't get me started. Of all the countries that seemed able to "produce" elite female runners galore, and very few top male runners, Romania ranks at the top, right up there with China and East Germany, and Russia. I don't how they did that...

    Leave a comment:


  • Dutra
    replied
    Originally posted by williamwindhamjr
    Puica lost because she is not remembered for winning the gold, she is known as the woman who won because mary couldnt finish.
    1. You're wrong regarding Puica

    2. Slaney "could" have finished.

    Leave a comment:


  • nevetsllim
    replied
    Didn't Joan Hansen (?) fall after about three laps?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X