Criticism Of Wariner’s 2008 Performances Is Unwarranted
Posted by Jimmie R. Markham | July 29, 2008
I get annoyed every time the Olympics roll around and then suddenly all of the journalists who have been ignoring track & field for the past four years begin taking notice of a sport about which they know so little. Take an article for instance, published yesterday on the Yahoo! Sports website by Josh Peter. If his headline ("Wariner changes into the slow lane") doesn’t immediately clue you in that Peter doesn’t understand his subject, then the article confirms it. Peter grabs onto the "Wariner shouldn’t have fired Coach Hart" angle with the tenacity of a terrier grabbing a dish towel that’s been left on the kitchen floor and then proceeds to shred it to pieces.
Don’t get me wrong - Peter is an excellent researcher and he did his homework on this piece. He uncovered details about the contract dispute that most people (including myself) didn’t realize, he interviewed many of the people involved in the drama (his former coach, his training partner, his agent), he did most of the things a good journalist should do, all except for the most important piece of the puzzle. He got the conclusion wrong:
So far, Wariner’s times indicate his decision [to change coaches during an Olympic year] could be a recipe for disaster… This year, Wariner has yet to match [his] personal best of 43.45, much less approach Johnson’s [world] record of 43.18.
Peter doesn’t understand enough about the sport of track & field to realize that Wariner has yet to peak this season, or rather, that he had to peak twice - once for the trials and now for the Olympic Games. He isn’t aware that Wariner ran his PR last season on August 31st, the day of the World Championships final, on the exact day he was supposed to peak. He fails to see that Wariner was exempt from having to peak twice last season because USATF rules allow existing World Champions to bypass the US National Championships. He might be interested to know that Wariner’s times for 2008 have, on average, improved with each passing month (April: 44.56, May: 44.42, June: 44.24, July: 44.18) and that he’s progressing at exactly the right rate at which he’s supposed to be progressing. Perhaps most tellingly, he didn’t grasp that the recent losses Wariner has suffered at the hands (or, I suppose "feet" would be more accurate) of LaShawn Merritt have less to do with his own training than with the fact that LaShawn Merritt has (very nearly) reached Wariner’s level at the pinnacle of world-class 400m running. Merritt has steadily improved in each of the past few seasons, as has Wariner. For both athletes, however, the increments of improvement have diminished the closer they have come to reaching that pinnacle. That’s how it works for the vast majority of athletes.
I suppose, though, that having ignorant journalists expound on track & field only once every four years is better than having to read their drivel all the time. Of course, if they did cover it a little more often, they might find that they would begin understanding the finer aspects of the sport, enough so that their articles might then be worth reading. As the great Kurt Vonnegut wrote, "so it goes."
Topics: Blog, Commentary, Sprints/Hurdles |
July 30th, 2008 at 7:44 am
not to mention the fact that Wariner has already gone under 44 twice this season.. he didn’t dip under 44 until august last year.. he ran 43.86 already.. he he runs that i the olympics he will more than likely win. that’s pretty far ahead of Merrit’s PB.. obviously they’re both going to run faster times this season. Wariner isn’t getting worse, in fact he’s pretty solid.. it’s just that he finally has a challenger. Frankly, I don’t even remember Michael Johnson having another sub 44 guy to compete with in his era.. though I might be wrong. Ok so I checked the records.. and yea of course Quincy Watts and Butch Reynolds, but they were mostly late 80’s early 90’s.. before MJ hit his peak. Wariner has a legit Challenger in what might be his peak.
July 30th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Good piece Markham. Now that folks get an understanding of that contract, the break up is making more sense to those not in currently in the know. I’ve said all along the break up was reasonable while unfortunate.
Jay H.
July 30th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
LOL… as they say in divorce court: irreconcilable differences.