Harrington on Hold'em Vol. III - Contradiction

[PequDios]

Hello. First time posting here on 2+2.
Now I am fairly new to poker, I bought the Harrington books and have read both Vol. I and II. These books have definitely helped and even though I have only read one other poker book (Phil Gordon's little Green Book) I am sure that these are one of the best, if not the best poker books. It just really shows how a poker player should perceive each hand in itself.

But there is one thing I have a problem with and I would like to post it here. I have a problem with Vol. III the Workbook Problem 19 Harrington versus Hansen - Playing a Medium Pair. The situations is this:

[ QUOTE ]
Late in the first day of a major tourament. Allen Cunningham in he big blind has a tiny stack with an M of 4. Gus Hansen is the big stack at the table hand has been his usual aggressive self. I'm your playing partner, and I'm on the button with a moderate stack and an M of 16.

[/ QUOTE ]

The actions is: The blinds are at $200/$400 and an ante of $50 so the pot is $1,050 to start with. The stacks of our three players are:
Cunningham: $4,400
Hansen: $27,000
Harrington: %18,000
Players A, B, C and all fold.
Gus raises to $1,300
Harrington has 7h7s
Harrington calls %1,300
Small blind folds.
Allen Cunningham pushes all-in for his last $4,000.
Gus Hansen calls $2,700
The pot is %10,350
Harrington calls $2,700
Flop is Kh5s4d
Gus bets $3,200
Harrington folds
Gus shows 7d5c
Cunningham shows QQ
Turn is T and river is 5
Gus wins with two pairs, a 7 and a 5.

Now Harrington analyzes the hand:
[ QUOTE ]
I actually liked this flop, with two cards below my sevens, but as soon as Gus bet I understood just how big a blunder I had made on my last turn.

My problem is pretty simple. I may well still be beating Gus (assuming I was beating him to start), but how am I doing against Allen? If he went all-in with a higher pair than mine I'm still losing, and if he went all-in with a couple of picture cards, several of those combinations just beat me as well. If I call against Gus, I may be only playing to win the money in the side pot, since the main pot may be out of reach (unless I can spike a seven on the next two streets).

What's really happened here is that Gus and I are, in effect, locked in a game of "chicken," and whoever bets first wins by putting the opponent in an untenable position. Assuming Gus and I are playing the roughly the same type of hands, there's no advantage any longer to acting second. In fact, the advantage goes to the player who can act first, leaving his opponent a Hobson's choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now I am not gonna disagree with any of Harrington reasoning here. What I do not understand is why Harrington doesn't criticize Gus Hansen for not checking down the hand to eliminate the most dangerous player at the table. This was something he talked about I think in Vol. II. To check down a hand to eliminate an opponent. What was Gus doing there? What if he had 6-5 instead of 7-5 and he had chased Harrington out of the pot and wouldn't have hit his outs. And maybe Harrington would have hit his set but he didn't because of Gus, and now Cunningham would triple up. I thought this was a beginners mistake. But Harrington doesn't criticize him, instead he talks about how Gus is "one of the most astute tacticians around, and he's worked out many original ideas in his private laboratory". Not that I disagree with Gus being a great player, I just can't see how that was not a bad move by Gus Hansen.