Still believe that Flo Jo's 10.49 isn't legit?

Down with the IDMC wrote:

oldschoollrc wrote:

A 10.54 today is less impressive than the same time would have been 30+ years ago with slower spikes and on a slower track surface.

Flo Jo had no out of competition testing and had an obvious wind gauge error, so when you put those factors in the equation. Thompson's time is more impressive all things being equal.

Yep I’m with this comment. No way it was a 0 wind. And she retired as soon as OOC testing came in. Even if the Jamaicans get help, it’s nowhere near the same level.

Looks like a strong wind at 90 degrees to the straight.

proposer of nicknames wrote:

Wind is less of a factor in that time than old-school PEDs.

look at '84 Flo-Jo vs. '88 Flo-Jo-read between the lines; though she was more of a 200m specialist prior to '88--her 100m PR in '87 was 10.96-wind guage error plus getting on the juice=big WR

Dr. DETROIT wrote:

Flo Jo and the all the Jamaicans are dopers. Track is turning into the 80s again. Massive dopers everywhere.

There are two bases of illegitimacy: wind gauge error and use of PED’s. Ben Johnson’s 9.79 certainly isn’t considered “legit”, and there was no controversy as to the wind reading in that final.

As I have posted before, FWIW I heard from a former U.S. Olympic Coach that they were asked to keep quiet about findings that Flo Jo had used PEDs. I have no such evidence as to Frazier- Price or Thompson.

So yes, I don’t think Flo Jo’s 10.49 was legit.

Starting to wonder whether Naser’s 48.14 is all that Kosher as well.

This thread is wind-assisted. So much of it here. Thompson-Hera didn't need it. Plain old-fashioned ped's did the trick - as it did for Flojo.

420 Dogecoin wrote:

Is it that hard to believe that Flo Jo could also muster up a faster 100m than Elaine can?

This is irrelevant - it has nothing to do with what anyone believes about anyone's ability.

This is what happened on that day back in Indianapolis 1988

1) PRIOR to the race, with no knowledge of what will happen in following 15 or so seconds, the commentators (I believe Marty Liquori but I could be wrong), who are sitting trackside, make the comment that it's been a great year for her but if she was to run the fastest any woman has ever run (referring to Ashfords 10.76 WR) the "wind will mean that it won't count". (youtube clip is below)

2) Gwen Torrence ran in the 3rd quarter final after FGJ and ran 10.78 with a +5.0m/s wind

3) The triple jump on the adjacent runway to the home straight was found to have been recording similar wind values for jumps conducted at the time (the minutes before-during-after) of the race.

4) Watch the youtube clip at the start of the race and look at the pinned number on the back of Ashford. You can visibly see the wind funneling up the back of her and the number fluttering. Watch the end of the race as Griffith-Joyner walks back to the start line and the wind is blowing her hair all over the place.

The biggest issue though? That the wind gauge read 0.0 which signifies that there was absolutely no wind. If this wind gauge was faulty and it came up even some kind of number (say +1.0 when it was clearly more) then there is at least some potential/opening to say "well there was a lull in the wind" - because we know from what we see and hear that there clearly was some kind of wind. The point is, because it reads 0.0 it simply can't not be faulty because it would have had to read something - the wind did not drop to absolutely nothing as soon as the gun went, held off for 10.5 seconds and then switched itself back on again after the race to blow-dry her hair around.

The evidence isn't anecdotal because we can see it with our own eyes. This isn't a situation where some says "well in my opinion there was wind" - because we can see there was wind. There are also facts and data (wind readings taken at the same time in the same orientation) that validate this.

So good try, nice attempt at using the "anecdotal evidence" card, but no cigar my friend. I think the reality is, Griffith Joyner was a good sprinter that most likely doped and got very fortunate with a equipment malfunction on this day. She still ran 10.61 and 10.62 legal which is very very good - just not as good as Thompson-Herah.

You're welcome.

habs wrote:

Richardson Last wrote:

Incredibly poor post.

The wind for all but 2 races that day had wind of +4 or stronger. The triple jump going on right beside the race had sustained wind over +4. Flo Jo ran between 10.68 basic and 10,70 basic 3 times that season. Guess what 10.49 w/ +4.0 wind works out to?

And Flo Jo the GOAT? Based on one amazing year?

Again I'm not disputing it was wind-aided, I wasn't alive then but the evidence is pretty clear it was. 10.49 w/ +4.0 wind is still equal to a 10.57 with +2.0 wind. If the wind was +3.0, then it would be equivalent to a 10.53 with +2.0.

So even if you substitute that time for 10.53 or 10.57 the lists speak for themselves.

No, wind is worth about 3/4 or 2/3 of 0.1 for each 1.0m/sec of wind. So if her 10.49 had a 4.0 wind, then with a 2.0 wind it would have been around 10.63.

gunk wrote:

http://dailyrelay.com/the-wind-read-zero-an-oral-history-of-florence-griffith-joyners-100-meter-world-record/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REGAD32IPLM

Looks like a strong wind at 90 degrees to the straight.

So obviously wind aided. As she crossed the line and the camera pans up there is a flag flapping about like mad.

Ridiculous for the IAAF to never have stricken this record off due to an obviously unreliable wind gauge. Flo Jo still would have had the WR at 10.61. Nobody would have lost out. Instead it's become a 30 year long sore point which has not only marred Flo Jos legacy as a sprinter but also marred the women's 100m.

Just shows how out of touch with reality they are and always have been. So focused on strict rules and regulations with a clinical approach to 'fairness'.

21.34 is not unbelievable however. That is about equivalent to what a 10.6 athlete should run over 200. I'd expect Elaine Thompson to be able to get close.

habs wrote:

So whether or not the specific time of 10.50 is legit, Flojo is the undisputed GOAT.

She is far from being a GOAT. She is a three months rising star.

We can't build a GOAT reputation on three months.

Bolt battled for 8 years to get that and he own all titles Juniors/Youth and Senior.

ex-runner wrote:

Ridiculous for the IAAF to never have stricken this record off due to an obviously unreliable wind gauge. Flo Jo still would have had the WR at 10.61. Nobody would have lost out. Instead it's become a 30 year long sore point which has not only marred Flo Jos legacy as a sprinter but also marred the women's 100m.

.

how can you mar flo jo's legacy? she is the most obvious unbusted drug cheat female sprinter of all time.

having either 100m wr kind of shows that.

Florence Griffith Joyner performances on 100m from 1983 to 1988:

10.49 Indianapolis, IN (USA) 16 JUL 1988

10.61 Indianapolis, IN (USA) 17 JUL 1988

10.62 Olympic Stadium, Jamsil, Seoul (KOR) 24 SEP 1988

10.70 Indianapolis, IN (USA) 17 JUL 1988

10.88 Olympic Stadium, Jamsil, Seoul (KOR) 24 SEP 1988

10.91 Tokyo (JPN) 08 OCT 1988 <-- Here she was not able to replicate the Olympic performances one month later.

10.89 San Diego, CA (USA) 25 JUN 1988

10.96 Köln (GER) 16 AUG 1987

10.99 Berlin (GER) 17 AUG 1984

11.00 Stadio Olimpico, Roma (ITA) 07 SEP 1985

11.02 Berlin (GER) 17 AUG 1984

11.06 Bruxelles (BEL) 26 AUG 1983

11.07 Olympiastadion, Berlin (GER) 23 AUG 1985

11.12 Lausanne (SUI) 15 SEP 1987 (ranked 5 in this race)

11.19 Berlin (GER) 17 AUG 1983

11.29 Stockholm (SWE) 26 JUL 1983

I think flo-jo's 10.49 was wind assisted.Apparently she ran 10.62 with a legal wind.Elaine thompson-herah's 10.54 would be worth about a 10.75 on an 80s track,with no vaporfly shoes.

If the wind for Flojo's 10.49 was a strong as is typically claimed here then it doesn't explain how only two other athletes got below 11 secs. Devers, who came second, subsequently became one of the US's fastest women yet scarcely got below 10.9 in a race claimed to have a strong tail wind. She was miles behind Flojo. The 3rd place-getter was 10.98. That doesn't speak of a strong wind either. I would say doping was a bigger factor than the wind in that race.

This may be the one time when this poster and I agree in years of posting. It may not have been functionally 0.0, but with the wind being directly from her left side, I think it was more the drugs than anything . Her husband said she brought two suitcases of outfits to the meet to have a different outfit for every round (keep in mind this was her "transformative" meet lol). An athlete does that sh*t when they know they have a leg up on the competition.

The fact is, Flo Jo wasnt a woma

What a pity. You are usually informed when you post. I will help you. Go take a look at the field in that race and see how many ran lifetime bests.

10.49 is possible, just not for FloJo.

Some stats to chew on.

This was a quarter final race. Runners generally don’t run lifetime bests in a quarter final.

Devers was not second in Flojo’s race. She was third.

It was the beginnings of Dever’s career and four years before her breakthrough. I wouldn’t put much weight on her time not being a lifetime best. But it makes her progression look off.

Diane Williams was second and her 10.86 was a lifetime best.

Her only other sub 11.0 came 5 years earlier in 1983.

The second QF heat also read 0.0 wind.

Sheila Echols won it in a lifetime PR of 10.83.

She won her prelim heat also in 10.83. But that had a +3.9 wind reading.

In the semi final, she ran 10.99 with +1.3 wind.

Quarter final three had a wind reading of +5.0.

Gwen Torrence ran 10.78. She ran her lifetime best of 10.82 six years later.

She ran 10.91 for 3rd in the 1988 final.

Evelyn Ashford cruised 10.91, knowing it was just a quarter final. She sinister second in the final in 10.81. She was was upset he former record holder at 10.76.

All of the quarter final heats produced times that were far superior than the athletes were otherwise running.

Two heats read 0.0 wind. One heat read +5.0 wind.

One might deduce an error in the 0.0 readings.