Women's Gymnastics 2012: Jordyn Wieber's Loss Boosts Pressure on Gabby Douglas
All eyes are on Gabby Douglas.
Is Douglas the U.S.'s only hope for all-around gold?
Jordyn Wieber, the women’s gymnastics favorite in the 2012 Summer Olympics, was cheated out of an individual all-around finals berth on Sunday. Twenty-four gymnasts advance. She finished fourth, but an asinine rule exists that limits a nation to two finals participants and Douglas and Aly Raisman finished second and third.
Raisman wasn’t expected to advance, so any medal from her is a bonus for Team USA. Douglas, on the other hand, entered the Olympics with sky-high expectations and, with the world champion eliminated, the United States’ gold medal hopes rest entirely on her shoulders.
Mark Emmert of DesMoinesRegister.com reported that when it rained in London the day of the competition, Douglas knew she’d dominate. Apparently it’s something of a good-luck charm for her as she said:
It’s like a manifestation is going to happen, you know, like a good thing is going to happen. It’s God, it’s God. So when it rains, me and my mom always text each other like, “It’s going to be a great day today.” So I had peace in my heart and I came out here and performed very well.
Hopefully it continues to rain.
Douglas emerged as a legitimate threat for all-around gold after defeating Wieber at the U.S. Trials. The pair was projected to enter the finals and provide Team USA with two shots at a victory. Now, they only have one.
No offense to Raisman, but Wieber is just on another level. Raisman has never won an individual all-around gold in a major competition while Wieber boasts seven. Sure, Raisman proved that she’s capable of competing on Sunday, but her odds to upset the dominant Viktoria Komova are slim.
Douglas, on the other hand, could realistically pull it off. And she must do so to numb the pain of Wieber’s injustice.
David Daniels is a featured columnist at Bleacher Report and a syndicated writer.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?