Ok, I've about had it.
One week ago, after the team was named, I got into several "arguments" on the comment section of a yahoo article entitled, "Biles, Douglas Headline Rio Team". I know, right?
My point is, Douglas isn't headlining ANYTHING. I'm sick of trying to explain why to a bunch of uneducated and hostile four year fans.
So I'm putting it to bed right here and now.
They say: I trust the selection committee, what makes you think you know better than them? Marta Karolyi has been successfully doing this for years!
Refute: With all high power comes corruption. And there has been a crap ton of it under MK's rule. With the USA being so ahead and deep in talent, it gives the committee a lot of leeway to pick who they want, rather than who is actually best for the job. The fact is that the USA could win gold with many five person team combinations but that doesn't make it ok to not include people who have proven they are at the top of the pack. Gabby is not at the top of the pack and she was not chosen for her talent. The selection committee is taking her because it makes a good story and USAG will make money of her. Simple
They say: Gabby is going because she is one of the best bar workers, we need her in team finals.
Refute: Gabby is the third best American on bars, behind Locklear who we left at home. If we really wanted someone for bars, we would have taken Ashton who has a chance to actually medal in event finals. At any rate, we don't actually need either one. A few tenths on bars (all that Gabby can offer) is nothing to us. We are that ahead. So no, Gabby is not going for bars.
They say: Why don't you have a little faith in Gabby! She is the AA champion after all, she won in London!
Refute: So freaking what? She won a medal four years ago and look how far she has fallen. It doesn't mean ANYTHING that she is the reigning AA champ at this point. She is seventh in the country at this point, not top three on anything except bars (her "best event") and adds nothing to this team. Why don't we all look at history and see how far being the AA champ from last quad gets you. Just ask Nastia Liukin.
They say: Gabby will be great in Rio, she just needs time.
Refute: Time? Tell me why Gabby was given the benefit of "time" when Maggie Nichols was tossed aside like garbage? Explain why Maggie, who literally came back from her injury like a boss, was not even considered when she not only beat Gabby Douglas, but was an Amanar away from being in top form again? And she had the Amanar in training but was just told not to compete it! Maggie is not only a more reliable gymnast than Gabby but she outscores her, so explain why Gabby was given time but not Maggie? You can't? Right, because there is no logical explanation.
They say: Gabby won silver at worlds last year, she's still one of the best in the world.
Refute: Ahh this one really gets me. Here you go: Nichols outscored Douglas at worlds but was simply not given the chance to compete AA. Lordache should have beat Gabby had she not been underscored and Aly Raisman had one bad day in qualifying. So, no Gabby should not have won that medal at all, another example of her being favored over others. And, clearly, she can't even be argued to be top in the world at this point because, hello, she came in seventh in USA alone.
They say: Gabby is such a hard worker, that's why I admire her.
Refute: JOKE. Gabby is a notorious slacker, ask Marta herself who has literally said so multiple times. And can't you see how it shows? She has DECLINED. While others have IMPROVED. She did not bring it at trials where it counted and that should have been what mattered. Skinner brought it, Smith brought it, Locklear brought it where it counted, Nichols sure as heck brought it, save one mistake. So tell me why, two fall, seventh place Gabby was favored over the former? Cricket, cricket. Right.
Because Gabby Douglas shouldn't have been anywhere near this team except as an alternate.
Does everyone get it now? Ok?
Case closed.
No comments:
Post a Comment