It's predictable an athlete approaching the mark won't answer it. Did you expect her to say "I think Flo Jo's mark was not clean so that makes me the fastest to ever run the distance"? Of course, she will not say that, even if she believes it. Do you think she is Muhammad Ali? That's why it was a dumb question.
She could have said, "I don't know whether that record is doped but I think there's a chance now I could take it and I would love to". Lord Coe would agree and hopes she does. Is that very hard for her to say? I suppose it is if she wants to duck questions about doping altogether, which gives a different impression.
It goes without saying she wants to break the record. And indicating she does not know if the record is doped is, in effect, not different than just refusing to answer.
No one is suggesting Jackson should never be asked about the current record or that the question is invalid. It's a matter of whether or not that was the best possible question at that particular time and in that setting. Or could Gault have phrased the question in a way that Jackson did not immediately shut it down. It's up the interviewer to ask the right questions in a way that gets an interesting or surprising answer.
Gault’s question was “I’m wondering what you make of the current WR. Do you believe in that time”? That’s not open-ended. And it’s a horribly phrased question – actually 2 questions that it can be interpreted in different ways. It would have been better if he would have just said “The current WR is 21.34. Do you believe you can break it”? That is something she can answer. Then follow with “Do you believe that record is clean”? Very direct and she will still probably refuse to answer but at least she can’t pretend she did not understand the question.
Open-ended questions are best in situations where the respondent can elaborate. When the goal is to obtain an attention-grabbing sound bite it’s usually more effective to force the interviewee into an answer they may not want to provide. But it’s still poor journalism.
She could have said, "I don't know whether that record is doped but I think there's a chance now I could take it and I would love to". Lord Coe would agree and hopes she does. Is that very hard for her to say? I suppose it is if she wants to duck questions about doping altogether, which gives a different impression.
It goes without saying she wants to break the record. And indicating she does not know if the record is doped is, in effect, not different than just refusing to answer.
No one is suggesting Jackson should never be asked about the current record or that the question is invalid. It's a matter of whether or not that was the best possible question at that particular time and in that setting. Or could Gault have phrased the question in a way that Jackson did not immediately shut it down. It's up the interviewer to ask the right questions in a way that gets an interesting or surprising answer.
Gault’s question was “I’m wondering what you make of the current WR. Do you believe in that time”? That’s not open-ended. And it’s a horribly phrased question – actually 2 questions that it can be interpreted in different ways. It would have been better if he would have just said “The current WR is 21.34. Do you believe you can break it”? That is something she can answer. Then follow with “Do you believe that record is clean”? Very direct and she will still probably refuse to answer but at least she can’t pretend she did not understand the question.
Open-ended questions are best in situations where the respondent can elaborate. When the goal is to obtain an attention-grabbing sound bite it’s usually more effective to force the interviewee into an answer they may not want to provide. But it’s still poor journalism.
I see that p*ssy-footing around the obvious is what works for you. Athletes are delicate flowers - they clearly need protecting from facts. Like the fans do.
Anyone who thinks flojo wasn't juiced is not thinking clearly. Just like Michael Johnson and the other 60/70/80's runners that set records that last for 40 to 50 years, they all had access to better drugs that the testing of that era could not detect. Someone is going to tell me that with all the better shoes, nutrition and training no one in 50 years has been able to equal these "clean" runners? Flojo came out of nowhere, set a record that lasted decades and died at 40, can anyone say roids?
It goes without saying she wants to break the record. And indicating she does not know if the record is doped is, in effect, not different than just refusing to answer.
No one is suggesting Jackson should never be asked about the current record or that the question is invalid. It's a matter of whether or not that was the best possible question at that particular time and in that setting. Or could Gault have phrased the question in a way that Jackson did not immediately shut it down. It's up the interviewer to ask the right questions in a way that gets an interesting or surprising answer.
Gault’s question was “I’m wondering what you make of the current WR. Do you believe in that time”? That’s not open-ended. And it’s a horribly phrased question – actually 2 questions that it can be interpreted in different ways. It would have been better if he would have just said “The current WR is 21.34. Do you believe you can break it”? That is something she can answer. Then follow with “Do you believe that record is clean”? Very direct and she will still probably refuse to answer but at least she can’t pretend she did not understand the question.
Open-ended questions are best in situations where the respondent can elaborate. When the goal is to obtain an attention-grabbing sound bite it’s usually more effective to force the interviewee into an answer they may not want to provide. But it’s still poor journalism.
I see that p*ssy-footing around the obvious is what works for you. Athletes are delicate flowers - they clearly need protecting from facts. Like the fans do.
It goes without saying she wants to break the record. And indicating she does not know if the record is doped is, in effect, not different than just refusing to answer.
No one is suggesting Jackson should never be asked about the current record or that the question is invalid. It's a matter of whether or not that was the best possible question at that particular time and in that setting. Or could Gault have phrased the question in a way that Jackson did not immediately shut it down. It's up the interviewer to ask the right questions in a way that gets an interesting or surprising answer.
Gault’s question was “I’m wondering what you make of the current WR. Do you believe in that time”? That’s not open-ended. And it’s a horribly phrased question – actually 2 questions that it can be interpreted in different ways. It would have been better if he would have just said “The current WR is 21.34. Do you believe you can break it”? That is something she can answer. Then follow with “Do you believe that record is clean”? Very direct and she will still probably refuse to answer but at least she can’t pretend she did not understand the question.
Open-ended questions are best in situations where the respondent can elaborate. When the goal is to obtain an attention-grabbing sound bite it’s usually more effective to force the interviewee into an answer they may not want to provide. But it’s still poor journalism.
I see that p*ssy-footing around the obvious is what works for you. Athletes are delicate flowers - they clearly need protecting from facts. Like the fans do.
Your facts are that the bladder is part of the digestive system and all medical textbooks are wrong.
Your grasp of science is illustrated that you say Asprin has no side effects because you think you have no side effects from your drug use.
These are your facts; fans clearly need protecting from you.
Anyone who thinks flojo wasn't juiced is not thinking clearly. Just like Michael Johnson and the other 60/70/80's runners that set records that last for 40 to 50 years, they all had access to better drugs that the testing of that era could not detect. Someone is going to tell me that with all the better shoes, nutrition and training no one in 50 years has been able to equal these "clean" runners? Flojo came out of nowhere, set a record that lasted decades and died at 40, can anyone say roids?
Some people are forever on some BS and don't have a clue of what they speak of.
Flo Jo was a silver medalist in 1984. She didn't come out of nowhere you lying idiot.
Anyone who thinks flojo wasn't juiced is not thinking clearly. Just like Michael Johnson and the other 60/70/80's runners that set records that last for 40 to 50 years, they all had access to better drugs that the testing of that era could not detect. Someone is going to tell me that with all the better shoes, nutrition and training no one in 50 years has been able to equal these "clean" runners? Flojo came out of nowhere, set a record that lasted decades and died at 40, can anyone say roids?
Some people are forever on some BS and don't have a clue of what they speak of.
Flo Jo was a silver medalist in 1984. She didn't come out of nowhere you lying idiot.
Yeah, she was well-known to track fans from about 1983 on, mostly as a 200 specialist and for her long fingernails. She was generally considered the 3rd best US 200 runner after Ashford and Brisco-Hooks during that period. She won Silver in 1984 in the 200 (with the Eastern Bloc boycott) and in the WC in 1987 (beating Merlene Ottey). She was also on the US Gold 4x100 team in 1987. She did have a major jump in performance in 1988 and it was one of the biggest stories in T&F.
Some people are forever on some BS and don't have a clue of what they speak of.
Flo Jo was a silver medalist in 1984. She didn't come out of nowhere you lying idiot.
Yeah, she was well-known to track fans from about 1983 on, mostly as a 200 specialist and for her long fingernails. She was generally considered the 3rd best US 200 runner after Ashford and Brisco-Hooks during that period. She won Silver in 1984 in the 200 (with the Eastern Bloc boycott) and in the WC in 1987 (beating Merlene Ottey). She was also on the US Gold 4x100 team in 1987. She did have a major jump in performance in 1988 and it was one of the biggest stories in T&F.
I see that p*ssy-footing around the obvious is what works for you. Athletes are delicate flowers - they clearly need protecting from facts. Like the fans do.
By asking a more direct question?
Hoe about - do you think it takes a doper to beat a clearly doped record?
I see that p*ssy-footing around the obvious is what works for you. Athletes are delicate flowers - they clearly need protecting from facts. Like the fans do.
Your facts are that the bladder is part of the digestive system and all medical textbooks are wrong.
Your grasp of science is illustrated that you say Asprin has no side effects because you think you have no side effects from your drug use.
These are your facts; fans clearly need protecting from you.
They seem to be able to hold on to their illusions whatever I seem to say. Just like you.
Their illusions are infinitely closer to reality than yours
Yours say that all medical text books are just plain wrong and that society should accept the use of racist phrases.
No I don't. Your lobotomy hadn't gone well.
You produced an academic reference and quote that says the phrase should no longer be used as it was racist yet you continued to mock with bile by pointingly repeating it.
And you persistently kept saying all the medical text books were wrong.
You produced an academic reference and quote that says the phrase should no longer be used as it was racist yet you continued to mock with bile by pointingly repeating it.
And you persistently kept saying all the medical text books were wrong.