I'm proud of Jonathan for the question. I only wish he'd been more direct.
When asked what he meant? He should have said, "Many people think the 21.34 WR was aided by performance enhancing drugs. In 1988, Flo came improved from 21.96 to 21.34 in the 200 and from 10.96 to 10.49 in the 100. She promptly retired the next year at just the age of 29 - the same year that out of competition drug testing was introduced the sport. Do you think that record was set by a clean woman?"
The best part is Buzzfeed refers to them as “an interviewer” and everyone else they use the interviewer’s name. Pretty much saying whoever asked that question is so low that their name doesn’t matter. I agree.
It wasn't even from LetsRun's channel, it was Citius Mag, so the average person might think it was one of their guys. I just happen to recognize Jon's voice and remember when he asked that question.
I suggest in the future, he say "Jon Gault with LetsRun" before the question, but I know that can be hard when you are in a large group of people all trying to squeeze in your question.
Was that list compiled by the Williams sisters’ dad?
Gotta admit, I side with team LetsRun on this one. Buzzfeed acts like they don’t know what it means to “believe in that time,” and they probably don’t. But Jackson has to know exactly what they mean and is being unnecessarily defensive. It shouldn’t offend her for someone to ask her if she thinks 21.34 was drug aided unless she’s super sensitive to any and all questions about drug use in world class women’s sprinting.
She does know what she’s being asked and Gault was trying to rope her into badmouthing FloJo. Even if Shericka believes that FloJo was a doper, it would be poor form for her to voice that in an interview in front of a lot of journalists. Who knows how her words may have been misconstrued. I commend her for not taking the bait.
he could have framed the question better but stuff like this is stupid, reporters shouldn't be discouraged from asking about doping in sports. I'm surprised the Armstrong-Kimmage exchange didn't make the cut on this article.
Gault definitely made waves but I find it infinitely less cringey than the typical fawning we get from reporters to clearly doped up athletes the the cover they subsequently provide those athletes when they test positive.
Was that list compiled by the Williams sisters’ dad?
Gotta admit, I side with team LetsRun on this one. Buzzfeed acts like they don’t know what it means to “believe in that time,” and they probably don’t. But Jackson has to know exactly what they mean and is being unnecessarily defensive. It shouldn’t offend her for someone to ask her if she thinks 21.34 was drug aided unless she’s super sensitive to any and all questions about drug use in world class women’s sprinting.
She does know what she’s being asked and Gault was trying to rope her into badmouthing FloJo. Even if Shericka believes that FloJo was a doper, it would be poor form for her to voice that in an interview in front of a lot of journalists. Who knows how her words may have been misconstrued. I commend her for not taking the bait.
I see both sides. It’s a fair question, but it was smart of Sharicka not to bad-mouth FloJo when she had absolutely no evidence, just like the rest of us.
But props to Gault for having balls and not just being soft on everybody.
Anybody have the link to the Wiley interview mentioned elsewhere in here?
I'm proud of Jonathan for the question. I only wish he'd been more direct.
When asked what he meant? He should have said, "Many people think the 21.34 WR was aided by performance enhancing drugs. In 1988, Flo came improved from 21.96 to 21.34 in the 200 and from 10.96 to 10.49 in the 100. She promptly retired the next year at just the age of 29 - the same year that out of competition drug testing was introduced the sport. Do you think that record was set by a clean woman?"
If you ask a question like that you'll be laughed out of the room. It doesn't matter what the conventional wisdom or the likelihood is.
You're far too caught up in the comments here to the point the big picture is flying comfortably over your head. Those records are on the books and they aren't coming off. There is no remedy 35+ years later. The athletes fully understand that and are miffed that others are bewildered and wasting their time. All you have to do is look at Elaine Thompson's reaction and comments when she was asked the same type of questions in 2021 after her 10.54
Those records are on the books and they aren't coming off. There is no remedy 35+ years later. The athletes fully understand that and are miffed that others are bewildered and wasting their time.
Then the athletes don't understand at all. Nobody is bewildered about those records just because they can't be erased. They simply aren't willing to pretend that their indelibility means they are truly legit.
And until the athletes understand that, they also don't understand why they are paid: as entertainers and advertisers, for a product that doesn't happen to sell well, largely because of this kayfabe. It's bad business. Stupid, really.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
Reason provided:
track's image was destroyed by doping scandals, more than any other sport. It has never recovered.
Besides, Shericka Jackson is in her 20s. Many people are sharp enough not to comment on things before their time. They can read and listen all they want but there's no way to competently assemble all the variables from a different time frame. It's guesswork and they don't want to do that.
Was that list compiled by the Williams sisters’ dad?
Gotta admit, I side with team LetsRun on this one. Buzzfeed acts like they don’t know what it means to “believe in that time,” and they probably don’t. But Jackson has to know exactly what they mean and is being unnecessarily defensive. It shouldn’t offend her for someone to ask her if she thinks 21.34 was drug aided unless she’s super sensitive to any and all questions about drug use in world class women’s sprinting.
She does know what she’s being asked and Gault was trying to rope her into badmouthing FloJo. Even if Shericka believes that FloJo was a doper, it would be poor form for her to voice that in an interview in front of a lot of journalists. Who knows how her words may have been misconstrued. I commend her for not taking the bait.
^^^This.
Even if she has doubts about the veracity of the record, and who doesn't really, it wasn't the time or place. One word and/or sentence answers in a room teeming with frothing at the mouth reporters is no place to dive into the murky world of sketchy performances - that's best left for in-depth one on one interviews and the like.
I'm proud of Jonathan for the question. I only wish he'd been more direct.
When asked what he meant? He should have said, "Many people think the 21.34 WR was aided by performance enhancing drugs. In 1988, Flo came improved from 21.96 to 21.34 in the 200 and from 10.96 to 10.49 in the 100. She promptly retired the next year at just the age of 29 - the same year that out of competition drug testing was introduced the sport. Do you think that record was set by a clean woman?"
It's a question designed to get a reaction, not a genuine answer. The runner in question has been dead for a long time, there's no actual evidence that she was doping other than suspicion over the time disparities, and Jackson wasn't even alive when the record was set. She wisely pushed back to focus on the here and now, not 1988, and correctly avoided disparaging a record set by a woman no longer here to defend herself from accusations of doping.