THE SPORT OF ROWING Nash: “I felt that the emphasis to the front end had subverted the send in the drive and opened the double to the terror of a headwind. “Canada 1999 was a huge speedbump. With little back swing, the U.S. crew couldn’t cope with the Romanians’ longer- driven body strength. “But let us not forget the terrific list of medals and great races these two women gave us . . . Simply wonderful!”8821 In 2000, the transformation was com- plete. Garner’s legs were flat at 50% of the pullthrough, and now there was a visible second effort after the leg explosion. Hit, rebound, recommit, hit, rebound, recommit, but it was done with remarkable style by two great athletes. If one is going to row a two- part pullthrough, this double would be your model crew. With their double-stroke, Garner’s and Collins’ rowing in 2000 looked like much harder work than it had in 1998. They led the Olympic final marginally at the 1,000 meter mark, but then faded to a well-beaten third at the finish. How much the change in technique be- tween 1997 and 2000 limited their perfor- mance in Penrith, if at all, is unclear. The Olympic final mirrored the final in Lucerne earlier in the summer, the U.S. leading through the 1,000, being rowed down by Burcicӑ and her new double-partner, Angela Tamaş-Alupei, and losing by 1.73 seconds. The only difference from Sydney was that Garner and Collins got a length at the 1,000 in Lucerne and held off the Germans at the finish. At the Olympics, they only managed a lead of a little more than a meter at the 1,000, and when Germany and Romania got serious with 750 to go, the Americans were left well behind. Let’s also note that the Romanians were a truly outstanding boat. They would repeat 8821 Nash, personal correspondence, 2011 their 2000 Olympic Championship in Ath- ens, giving Burcicӑ three consecutive Gold Medals in the event. Jim Dietz in 2011: “I can’t say that I see a drastic change in technique in the U.S. Double from ‘98 to 2000. What I can speak to is that their times consistently improved in training. Prior to leaving for Sydney in 2000, I feel we all believed that we were on track for Olympic Gold, but the long journey to Australia and sickness at the Maclean8822 pre-Olympic training site played a large part in the final race. “Looking at video of Sarah and Chris- tine’s double confirms my memory that they were fluid and beautiful technicians in the boat. When they were out in front, they made sculling effortless and were truly economy in motion. “When pressed, Sarah would attack the catch a bit too hard, and we discussed this during training and as part of the race strate- gy. Christine was the perfect bow-seat in that she could feel Sarah’s acceleration and match her impulse perfectly. “They were both aggressive racers!”8823 Sarah Garner: “Peter probably notices the transformation from single-sculls-style rowing to more upright double sculls row- ing. It was a conscious choice to sit up and not collapse too much at the finish, not lay back too much and to get the hands around faster and more in front of the body. I also think, Jim, that what you said is accurate. Our times consistently improved over the years in the double, so this transition couldn’t have been all bad. “I don’t really think we lost in 2000 be- cause of a technical change, although I do remember thinking we were in a little slump around that time. It was probably more be- cause a few of our competitors got signifi- 8822 Maclean and nearby Yamba are at the mouth of the Clarence River, not far from the boyhood home of Henry Searle. See Chapter 131. 8823 Dietz, personal correspondence, 2011 2488
