Flojo was running easy in that 10.49. I don't think she was even all out in the 10.61 final, which was definitely not wind-aided. But these tracks are very, very fast, so Herah may have run slower on those 1988 tracks.
Flojo was running easy in that 10.49. I don't think she was even all out in the 10.61 final, which was definitely not wind-aided. But these tracks are very, very fast, so Herah may have run slower on those 1988 tracks.
Star wrote:
I just cannot believe that Armstronglivs thinks that the evidence of Flojo doping is greater than the evidence that her best race was wind-aided.
I'd much rather accept there was proof of neither and move on.
But if this were a criminal case, she'd be guilty of wind and maybe have a hung jury on drugs.
If there is no wind gauge or it is deemed faulty, then a record cannot be ratified.
If they pass the drug test, you have to ratify the record.
Now, it seems to be pretty easy to pass drug tests.
It's very random for a wind gauge to temporarily malfunction. Since it worked for the other heats, they had to accept the results and ratify the record.
I watched the race live. The next day in school, we assumed the record would not be ratified. That wind reading was a joke.
I think all of the top 10-20 100m times were juiced, I don't believe any were actually wind-aided besides Flojo's.
You are not very bright. I am not arguing that Flojo's race wasn't wind-aided but that inferential reasoning of the conditions will not allow a conclusion about the wind speed as precise as an anemometer, down to a decimal point. Wind fluctuates. Even on a breezy day it can suddenly die. For 10 seconds. Or get stronger.
The view that she was doping however doesn't depend on a few seconds, like a wind reading does, but an assessment of her career. It can allow for an affirmative conclusion of fact to a high degree of probability in an answer to a "yes" or "no" question. It also has nothing to do with what a jury would think if it were a criminal matter. It isn't - wasn't - a crime, so that standard of proof is completely irrelevant - although the "jury" of this board would be virtually unanimous on the question that she was doped.
If there is an inference that drugs were more of a factor with her performance that day than the wind then of course that is the case. I mean you don't have to be a math PhD or of any great intellect to figure this out. We can make a reasonable hypothesis that whatever she was taking that elevated her from a career 10.9X sprinter to one running 10.6X was worth in the vicinity of 2-3 tenths of a second (and I even give the 2 tenths as benefit of the doubt that incentive in an Olympic year may have a part of that, even though this is very generous).
The equivalent of 0.30 seconds benefit as a tail wind is around +10 m/s, so clearly drugs are of a greater help than the wind behind her that day which, the IAAF commissioned investigation and other evidence (events happening at the same time and races run immediately after this) suggest was at a minimum +4.0. That advantage is 0.19 seconds which gives her an adjusted 10.68. You know what else was an adjusted 10.68 for Flo Jo? The two most important races of her life - the Olympic final (10.54 +3.0) and the trials final (10.61 +1.2) - they are both adjusted using the same formula/altitude factoring etc to 10.68.
It's even more likely that her effort in that race wasn't of the same level as either the trials or Olympic final - probably more in the region of 10.7X low and guess what that would suggest the wind was - right at about 5m/s which the performances of Shelia Echols running in heat immediately after would suggest and right at what the actual wind reading was for the 3rd QF where Torrence ran 10.78. Yes wind can fluctuate on given days and give periods of close to no apparent wind. Usually these days are in the <3 mph max wind type of day - I don't think I've ever seen a day where the wind was blowing as hard as 11mph where is magically fluctuated down to absolutely ZERO for any period - not sure if that's very reasonable to suggest.
I can only guess some of arguing here is to try and promote this agenda/narrative that drugs are more powerful and more important than any type of climatic/geographic factor. Well congratulations they are. How this changes the fact it was also windy a f--k when she ran that time I don't know - I'll put that down to mental gymnastics and some ill-advised contrarianism for the sake of contrarianism fight-picking mindset.
Whatever was the case, history will retains the fact that Flo-Jo was an epic runner of three months only.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Evelyn Ashford did that before Flojo.
Evelyn Ashford was able to win only in the boycotted Olympic Games of Los Angeles 1984.
In 1983, she wasn't even able to end the race du a cramp:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CyzFKyu2HAFloJo's advance on the record to 10.49 was three times greater than Ben Johnson had made on the men's record in Rome the previous year (9.83).
Listen, we all admit it. Or we should. Pat Connelly admitted it in 1989 at the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the use of steroids in America before Joe Biden (D-Del) at the University of Delaware ("at least 40 percent" of the U.S. women's track and field team in Seoul "probably used steroids").
Track & Field in the 1980s was a murky, secretive environment where the use of drugs was common among many athletes. It was the way to win. You knew it. I knew it and several people were outspoken about that 'way to win' following Flo-Jo's 10.49.
Spoiler alert: they weren't talking about the wind gauge.
Was FloJo dirty? Probably the hell YES.
Think about the athlete reception that Genzebe Dibaba got in the immediate aftermath of her Monaco 1500m world record run. FloJo got a very similar one. You see, it's what the other seven women in that USOT final didn't say that was telling.
6 women finished behind FloJo in Indy. They were in a world record race, the fastest ever recorded in history. The US had absolutely shot a bow across the world to the Soviet Block and America's fastest sprinter was leading the charge to Seoul. However united the States were, these athletes were not united in support of FloJo. In fact, one could argue they were united in protest as neither Evelyn Ashford, nor Gwen Torrence, nor Sheila Echols, nor Alice Brown nor Dannette Young or not even Jennifer Inniss would high-five, hug, greet, cheer, encourage or visibly support FloJo following that epic race. The only one person who shared that moment with her was her husband.
Perhaps they felt inside what the following people, themselves, stated to journalists . . .
Joachim Cruz said: “In 1984 in Los Angeles Florence was an extremely feminine person. Today she looks and runs more like a man than a woman. She must be doing something that is not normal to break these records.”
Linford Christie said after she broke the 100m world record during the USOT: “No woman can run that fast. I know how difficult it is to get under 10.5 seconds for the 100.”
Carl Lewis has also suggested that drugs could have played a role in her performances.
As the media gathered around FloJo after Seoul 100m gold medal victory, somebody asked how she had come to run so fast. Ashford turned to FloJo and inquired, "Why don't you tell them Florence?"
Ashford stated the following to Biden: "at least two American women gold medalists" at the 1988 Olympics took steroids. The U.S. women's track and field team in Seoul had 49 members. Seven U.S. women won gold medals: sprinter Florence Griffith Joyner (three), heptathlete and long jumper Jackie Joyner-Kersee (two), high jumper Louise Ritter (one), and 4x100-meter relay team members Ashford, Alice Brown, Sheila Echols and Danette Young.
Hadn't she smeared every one of the aforementioned? None of them filed lawsuits.
Your pick on which 2 athletes they probably were.
Look, when an artist submerges a crucifix in a jar of his own urine, or smears elephant dung on a canvas, these works sometimes made their way to various art museums. That's art.
But the person dressed in an artistic fashion who ran 10.49 competed dirtier than a Black-eared opossum's anus and that time doesn't belong in the record books.
Passant wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Evelyn Ashford did that before Flojo.
Evelyn Ashford was able to win only in the boycotted Olympic Games of Los Angeles 1984.
In 1983, she wasn't even able to end the race du a cramp:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CyzFKyu2HA
Ashford broke the wr for the 100 in '84 while beating the best E Bloc sprinters.
Salvitore Stitchmo wrote:
If there is an inference that drugs were more of a factor with her performance that day than the wind then of course that is the case. I mean you don't have to be a math PhD or of any great intellect to figure this out. We can make a reasonable hypothesis that whatever she was taking that elevated her from a career 10.9X sprinter to one running 10.6X was worth in the vicinity of 2-3 tenths of a second (and I even give the 2 tenths as benefit of the doubt that incentive in an Olympic year may have a part of that, even though this is very generous).
The equivalent of 0.30 seconds benefit as a tail wind is around +10 m/s, so clearly drugs are of a greater help than the wind behind her that day which, the IAAF commissioned investigation and other evidence (events happening at the same time and races run immediately after this) suggest was at a minimum +4.0. That advantage is 0.19 seconds which gives her an adjusted 10.68. You know what else was an adjusted 10.68 for Flo Jo? The two most important races of her life - the Olympic final (10.54 +3.0) and the trials final (10.61 +1.2) - they are both adjusted using the same formula/altitude factoring etc to 10.68.
It's even more likely that her effort in that race wasn't of the same level as either the trials or Olympic final - probably more in the region of 10.7X low and guess what that would suggest the wind was - right at about 5m/s which the performances of Shelia Echols running in heat immediately after would suggest and right at what the actual wind reading was for the 3rd QF where Torrence ran 10.78. Yes wind can fluctuate on given days and give periods of close to no apparent wind. Usually these days are in the <3 mph max wind type of day - I don't think I've ever seen a day where the wind was blowing as hard as 11mph where is magically fluctuated down to absolutely ZERO for any period - not sure if that's very reasonable to suggest.
I can only guess some of arguing here is to try and promote this agenda/narrative that drugs are more powerful and more important than any type of climatic/geographic factor. Well congratulations they are. How this changes the fact it was also windy a f--k when she ran that time I don't know - I'll put that down to mental gymnastics and some ill-advised contrarianism for the sake of contrarianism fight-picking mindset.
The time adjustment for Flojo's record could be debated all day without it being settled. Because it wasn't recorded it has to remain an estimation.
However the further point I would wish to make about that performance is that she was 4 and 5 tenths of a second ahead of the next runners. Those are absolutely ridiculous margins at that level. Even Thompson-Hera is not beating the competition by those margins. When running 10.54 Thompson-Hera was 2 tenths ahead of Fraser Pryce. That is about as big a margin as could be expected at that level of competition (like Bob Hayes at Tokyo '64, who ran 10-flat as against 10.2 for the next runner). Watching Flojo's race again she is still accelerating away from the field - like a man running against women. Thompson-Hera is showing something of the same; she is burying the competition over the last 30m - something she has only shown this year, like Flojo in '88. Neither runner is slowing - a dead giveaway of doping.
Armstronglivs wrote:
You are not very bright. I am not arguing that Flojo's race wasn't wind-aided but that inferential reasoning of the conditions will not allow a conclusion about the wind speed as precise as an anemometer, down to a decimal point. Wind fluctuates. Even on a breezy day it can suddenly die. For 10 seconds. Or get stronger.
We don't need to conclude the wind reading down to a decimal point.
We only need to assume that it was greater than 2.0 m/s and the gauge malfunctioned.
And that assumption is based on a preponderance of evidence. Buttloads of evidence, to use a scientific term.
Let me ask you this:
Do you at least think the wind was probably greater than 2.0 m/s during her race and the gauge malfunctioned, or do you think the wind reading was probably accurate?
nurstel-1049 wrote:
FloJo's advance on the record to 10.49 was three times greater than Ben Johnson had made on the men's record in Rome the previous year (9.83).
Listen, we all admit it. Or we should. Pat Connelly admitted it in 1989 at the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the use of steroids in America before Joe Biden (D-Del) at the University of Delaware ("at least 40 percent" of the U.S. women's track and field team in Seoul "probably used steroids").
Track & Field in the 1980s was a murky, secretive environment where the use of drugs was common among many athletes. It was the way to win. You knew it. I knew it and several people were outspoken about that 'way to win' following Flo-Jo's 10.49.
Spoiler alert: they weren't talking about the wind gauge.
Was FloJo dirty? Probably the hell YES.
Think about the athlete reception that Genzebe Dibaba got in the immediate aftermath of her Monaco 1500m world record run. FloJo got a very similar one. You see, it's what the other seven women in that USOT final didn't say that was telling.
6 women finished behind FloJo in Indy. They were in a world record race, the fastest ever recorded in history. The US had absolutely shot a bow across the world to the Soviet Block and America's fastest sprinter was leading the charge to Seoul. However united the States were, these athletes were not united in support of FloJo. In fact, one could argue they were united in protest as neither Evelyn Ashford, nor Gwen Torrence, nor Sheila Echols, nor Alice Brown nor Dannette Young or not even Jennifer Inniss would high-five, hug, greet, cheer, encourage or visibly support FloJo following that epic race. The only one person who shared that moment with her was her husband.
Perhaps they felt inside what the following people, themselves, stated to journalists . . .
Joachim Cruz said: “In 1984 in Los Angeles Florence was an extremely feminine person. Today she looks and runs more like a man than a woman. She must be doing something that is not normal to break these records.”
Linford Christie said after she broke the 100m world record during the USOT: “No woman can run that fast. I know how difficult it is to get under 10.5 seconds for the 100.”
Carl Lewis has also suggested that drugs could have played a role in her performances.
As the media gathered around FloJo after Seoul 100m gold medal victory, somebody asked how she had come to run so fast. Ashford turned to FloJo and inquired, "Why don't you tell them Florence?"
Ashford stated the following to Biden: "at least two American women gold medalists" at the 1988 Olympics took steroids. The U.S. women's track and field team in Seoul had 49 members. Seven U.S. women won gold medals: sprinter Florence Griffith Joyner (three), heptathlete and long jumper Jackie Joyner-Kersee (two), high jumper Louise Ritter (one), and 4x100-meter relay team members Ashford, Alice Brown, Sheila Echols and Danette Young.
Hadn't she smeared every one of the aforementioned? None of them filed lawsuits.
Your pick on which 2 athletes they probably were.
Look, when an artist submerges a crucifix in a jar of his own urine, or smears elephant dung on a canvas, these works sometimes made their way to various art museums. That's art.
But the person dressed in an artistic fashion who ran 10.49 competed dirtier than a Black-eared opossum's anus and that time doesn't belong in the record books.
I like this. Nice post.
That whole era really fascinates me - you have so many political factors at play. The IAAF needing a constant flow of WR's and recognizable stars to maintain global relevancy. The US again perpetuating this "fight against Communism" - aka needing to prove at any cost it was better than Eastern Europe which started with the space race and infiltrated sport. The characters back then in the sprint events (Griffith Joyner, Carl Lewis, Ben Johnson et al) seemed completely larger than life so I guess in a way it all came together and worked. The things that must have been known and swept under the carpet must be Oscar-worthy.
Likewise the hypocrisy as every athlete served to deflect away from their own reality by using the "guiltier than me means more innocence for me" flawed logic - I laughed out loud hearing those quotes of Carl and Linford in particular - two of the most notorious but perfectly protected dopers of that era (Carl the US and Linford the UK posterchildren for sprints). And a great shout out for Genzebe Dibaba - 30 years old and back to running at her natural level (4.05 for the 1500m) - beyond impossible to believe she once came within 7 hundredths of breaking 3.50 - she would be lucky to come within 7 hundredths of breaking 4 minutes right now. I still will never forget the LRC poll about who America's top athletes thought were doping and who weren't in amongst the top 50 performers of all-time over the 1500m and because she was currently competing at time, she was the only one inside the top 10 "believed" to have been clean, despite being eons ahead of anyone else. Just thinking about that makes me chuckle.
Ah great chat, love it.
Absolutely, good points. Yet, lots of people here still argue that Carl Lewis only once used the wrong cough syrup, and that Mary Decker only doped once late in her career.
Another little gem that I coincidentally found some 15 years ago, somewhat comparable to this Senate meeting in the late 80s: West Germany's parliament openly debated in the late 70s whether they should fight the East's doping by also throwing the government's power and resources behind their athletes' doping. Young Schaeuble, later part of Kohl's hush money system, and then Finance Minister under Merkel, was very vocal in arguing pro state-sponsored doping. Officially, West Germany decided against it, but they still cranked out better times in the 80s than in the 2000s. Like some Americans and Brits and Spanish...
Back then, doping was largely viewed as a patriotic duty in the West. USATF alone was reported to have covered up 100s of positive tests. Unfortunately lots of athletes from that era, with their easy going attitude about doping, are now in leading positions in this sport.
I followed IAAF World Championship Helsinki 1983 on TV for a week, but none at that time was speaking about doping. East European runners were praised particularly, Marita Koch and Karoshvilova.
420 Dogecoin wrote:
Elaine Thompson-Herah just ran 10.54 in the 100m with a legal wins of +0.9m/s
Flo Jo's WR is widely dismissed as wind aided. Many do not believe the wind reading of 0.0. The main arguments are that it was windy that day and other heats run on the same day had high wind readings, so a time that fast from Flo Jo most have been wind aided. Thus theory has also been perpetuated by disbelief that such a time is even possible from a women.
33 years later and a women has now run within .10 of Flo Jo's WR, proving that such speed is possible from a women.
The evidence against Flo Jo's time is entirely anecdotal. She later ran 21.34 in the 200m which is a fair bit faster than Thompson-Herah's 21.53 PB. Is it that hard to believe that Flo Jo could also muster up a faster 100m than Elaine can?
there's a tenth in the track and shoes.
And yes the wind gauge was more than dodgy
Star wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
You are not very bright. I am not arguing that Flojo's race wasn't wind-aided but that inferential reasoning of the conditions will not allow a conclusion about the wind speed as precise as an anemometer, down to a decimal point. Wind fluctuates. Even on a breezy day it can suddenly die. For 10 seconds. Or get stronger.
We don't need to conclude the wind reading down to a decimal point.
We only need to assume that it was greater than 2.0 m/s and the gauge malfunctioned.
And that assumption is based on a preponderance of evidence. Buttloads of evidence, to use a scientific term.
Let me ask you this:
Do you at least think the wind was probably greater than 2.0 m/s during her race and the gauge malfunctioned, or do you think the wind reading was probably accurate?
I think the wind has been stronger in this thread than in Flojo's race - but, yes, there is a very good chance her race was wind-assisted.
But that interests me much less than that it was clearly drug-assisted. As Thompson-Hera is. Peas in a pod.
Salvitore Stitchmo wrote:
nurstel-1049 wrote:
FloJo's advance on the record to 10.49 was three times greater than Ben Johnson had made on the men's record in Rome the previous year (9.83).
Listen, we all admit it. Or we should. Pat Connelly admitted it in 1989 at the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the use of steroids in America before Joe Biden (D-Del) at the University of Delaware ("at least 40 percent" of the U.S. women's track and field team in Seoul "probably used steroids").
Track & Field in the 1980s was a murky, secretive environment where the use of drugs was common among many athletes. It was the way to win. You knew it. I knew it and several people were outspoken about that 'way to win' following Flo-Jo's 10.49.
Spoiler alert: they weren't talking about the wind gauge.
Was FloJo dirty? Probably the hell YES.
Think about the athlete reception that Genzebe Dibaba got in the immediate aftermath of her Monaco 1500m world record run. FloJo got a very similar one. You see, it's what the other seven women in that USOT final didn't say that was telling.
6 women finished behind FloJo in Indy. They were in a world record race, the fastest ever recorded in history. The US had absolutely shot a bow across the world to the Soviet Block and America's fastest sprinter was leading the charge to Seoul. However united the States were, these athletes were not united in support of FloJo. In fact, one could argue they were united in protest as neither Evelyn Ashford, nor Gwen Torrence, nor Sheila Echols, nor Alice Brown nor Dannette Young or not even Jennifer Inniss would high-five, hug, greet, cheer, encourage or visibly support FloJo following that epic race. The only one person who shared that moment with her was her husband.
Perhaps they felt inside what the following people, themselves, stated to journalists . . .
Joachim Cruz said: “In 1984 in Los Angeles Florence was an extremely feminine person. Today she looks and runs more like a man than a woman. She must be doing something that is not normal to break these records.”
Linford Christie said after she broke the 100m world record during the USOT: “No woman can run that fast. I know how difficult it is to get under 10.5 seconds for the 100.”
Carl Lewis has also suggested that drugs could have played a role in her performances.
As the media gathered around FloJo after Seoul 100m gold medal victory, somebody asked how she had come to run so fast. Ashford turned to FloJo and inquired, "Why don't you tell them Florence?"
Ashford stated the following to Biden: "at least two American women gold medalists" at the 1988 Olympics took steroids. The U.S. women's track and field team in Seoul had 49 members. Seven U.S. women won gold medals: sprinter Florence Griffith Joyner (three), heptathlete and long jumper Jackie Joyner-Kersee (two), high jumper Louise Ritter (one), and 4x100-meter relay team members Ashford, Alice Brown, Sheila Echols and Danette Young.
Hadn't she smeared every one of the aforementioned? None of them filed lawsuits.
Your pick on which 2 athletes they probably were.
Look, when an artist submerges a crucifix in a jar of his own urine, or smears elephant dung on a canvas, these works sometimes made their way to various art museums. That's art.
But the person dressed in an artistic fashion who ran 10.49 competed dirtier than a Black-eared opossum's anus and that time doesn't belong in the record books.
I like this. Nice post.
That whole era really fascinates me - you have so many political factors at play. The IAAF needing a constant flow of WR's and recognizable stars to maintain global relevancy. The US again perpetuating this "fight against Communism" - aka needing to prove at any cost it was better than Eastern Europe which started with the space race and infiltrated sport. The characters back then in the sprint events (Griffith Joyner, Carl Lewis, Ben Johnson et al) seemed completely larger than life so I guess in a way it all came together and worked. The things that must have been known and swept under the carpet must be Oscar-worthy.
Likewise the hypocrisy as every athlete served to deflect away from their own reality by using the "guiltier than me means more innocence for me" flawed logic - I laughed out loud hearing those quotes of Carl and Linford in particular - two of the most notorious but perfectly protected dopers of that era (Carl the US and Linford the UK posterchildren for sprints). And a great shout out for Genzebe Dibaba - 30 years old and back to running at her natural level (4.05 for the 1500m) - beyond impossible to believe she once came within 7 hundredths of breaking 3.50 - she would be lucky to come within 7 hundredths of breaking 4 minutes right now. I still will never forget the LRC poll about who America's top athletes thought were doping and who weren't in amongst the top 50 performers of all-time over the 1500m and because she was currently competing at time, she was the only one inside the top 10 "believed" to have been clean, despite being eons ahead of anyone else. Just thinking about that makes me chuckle.
Ah great chat, love it.
On a side note, the difference between Dibaba's current level of performance and her wr is an interesting measure of the likely difference that drugs can make. A number of today's "stars" who are eulogized in these threads would be pretty ordinary without it.
Salvitore Stitchmo wrote:
nurstel-1049 wrote:
FloJo's advance on the record to 10.49 was three times greater than Ben Johnson had made on the men's record in Rome the previous year (9.83).
Listen, we all admit it. Or we should. Pat Connelly admitted it in 1989 at the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the use of steroids in America before Joe Biden (D-Del) at the University of Delaware ("at least 40 percent" of the U.S. women's track and field team in Seoul "probably used steroids").
Track & Field in the 1980s was a murky, secretive environment where the use of drugs was common among many athletes. It was the way to win. You knew it. I knew it and several people were outspoken about that 'way to win' following Flo-Jo's 10.49.
Spoiler alert: they weren't talking about the wind gauge.
Was FloJo dirty? Probably the hell YES.
Think about the athlete reception that Genzebe Dibaba got in the immediate aftermath of her Monaco 1500m world record run. FloJo got a very similar one. You see, it's what the other seven women in that USOT final didn't say that was telling.
6 women finished behind FloJo in Indy. They were in a world record race, the fastest ever recorded in history. The US had absolutely shot a bow across the world to the Soviet Block and America's fastest sprinter was leading the charge to Seoul. However united the States were, these athletes were not united in support of FloJo. In fact, one could argue they were united in protest as neither Evelyn Ashford, nor Gwen Torrence, nor Sheila Echols, nor Alice Brown nor Dannette Young or not even Jennifer Inniss would high-five, hug, greet, cheer, encourage or visibly support FloJo following that epic race. The only one person who shared that moment with her was her husband.
Perhaps they felt inside what the following people, themselves, stated to journalists . . .
Joachim Cruz said: “In 1984 in Los Angeles Florence was an extremely feminine person. Today she looks and runs more like a man than a woman. She must be doing something that is not normal to break these records.”
Linford Christie said after she broke the 100m world record during the USOT: “No woman can run that fast. I know how difficult it is to get under 10.5 seconds for the 100.”
Carl Lewis has also suggested that drugs could have played a role in her performances.
As the media gathered around FloJo after Seoul 100m gold medal victory, somebody asked how she had come to run so fast. Ashford turned to FloJo and inquired, "Why don't you tell them Florence?"
Ashford stated the following to Biden: "at least two American women gold medalists" at the 1988 Olympics took steroids. The U.S. women's track and field team in Seoul had 49 members. Seven U.S. women won gold medals: sprinter Florence Griffith Joyner (three), heptathlete and long jumper Jackie Joyner-Kersee (two), high jumper Louise Ritter (one), and 4x100-meter relay team members Ashford, Alice Brown, Sheila Echols and Danette Young.
Hadn't she smeared every one of the aforementioned? None of them filed lawsuits.
Your pick on which 2 athletes they probably were.
Look, when an artist submerges a crucifix in a jar of his own urine, or smears elephant dung on a canvas, these works sometimes made their way to various art museums. That's art.
But the person dressed in an artistic fashion who ran 10.49 competed dirtier than a Black-eared opossum's anus and that time doesn't belong in the record books.
I like this. Nice post.
That whole era really fascinates me - you have so many political factors at play. The IAAF needing a constant flow of WR's and recognizable stars to maintain global relevancy. The US again perpetuating this "fight against Communism" - aka needing to prove at any cost it was better than Eastern Europe which started with the space race and infiltrated sport. The characters back then in the sprint events (Griffith Joyner, Carl Lewis, Ben Johnson et al) seemed completely larger than life so I guess in a way it all came together and worked. The things that must have been known and swept under the carpet must be Oscar-worthy.
Likewise the hypocrisy as every athlete served to deflect away from their own reality by using the "guiltier than me means more innocence for me" flawed logic - I laughed out loud hearing those quotes of Carl and Linford in particular - two of the most notorious but perfectly protected dopers of that era (Carl the US and Linford the UK posterchildren for sprints). And a great shout out for Genzebe Dibaba - 30 years old and back to running at her natural level (4.05 for the 1500m) - beyond impossible to believe she once came within 7 hundredths of breaking 3.50 - she would be lucky to come within 7 hundredths of breaking 4 minutes right now. I still will never forget the LRC poll about who America's top athletes thought were doping and who weren't in amongst the top 50 performers of all-time over the 1500m and because she was currently competing at time, she was the only one inside the top 10 "believed" to have been clean, despite being eons ahead of anyone else. Just thinking about that makes me chuckle.
Ah great chat, love it.
+1
Linford, as you say, is a stunning example. It is simply amazing that not one of these doped up cheaters has ever come forward and been honest,
The omerta amongst athletes is stonger than anywhere. they all protect each other, and threaten each other.
Coe is responsible for this. Coe could, and should, set the record straight in about 5 minutes.
I dont care which nation cheats the most, but i care deeply that a british lord is in charge of it.
why cant coe admit what SS just said?
Fatima Whitbread.
Maybe the world was more naive back then? By the time the 1987 world champs rolled around, I remember that the media was all about drugs stories. I remember when Ben Johnson won the 100m in a world record time of 9.83", that so many people were pointing fingers at him. Turns out he was more of a scapegoat than anything else...
I appreciate that Thompson-Herah isn't bothering with the cynical side. She says she has been carefully studying tapes of FloJo's races and the aspect that stands out is how relaxed she ran. Thompson-Herah says she has tried to incorporate that.
No kidding. Easily the biggest difference in Thompson-Herah this year compared to even 2016 is that she maintains tension free in the arms, shoulders and face all the way to the tape. Previously the relaxation was challenged over the final 5-15 meters.
None know if this girl will be able to make a name for herself one day...
https://twitter.com/FastElaine/status/1430564712870121482/photo/1
why isnt the dopehead competing at lausanne?
Most everyone else is.