Jgault asks Shericka Jackson a stupid question then deservedly gets treated like a clown

Sigh. Still can't get it. The question is fine because Flojo's mark is widely acknowledged as a doped record. That was what the question effectively stated. How much plainer does it have to be? The question doesn't prove Jackson is clean or doped - it is just a question. My own view that she is doped is because I believe it would take a doper to erase Flojo's records. Is that, too, putting my position too plainly? The question to Jackson was not an accusation. But she ducked it. That I find interesting.

"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." —Jonathan Swift

And that’s why pulling Seb’s opinion about Jackson into the discussion caused you to self own.

It was funny, have the maturity to laugh at your mistake and move on.

Your IQ points fall with every post.

I defended Gault's question, and Coe's response shows it was justifiable. This is regardless of whether one takes the view that Jackson herself dopes - as I do. The question itself proves neither position, that she is clean or doped - it simply puts the issue on the table.

You are unable to comprehend that two different views can be adduced from the same subject. The colloquial expression is that you are "unable break wind and chew gum at the same time". But don't be too despondent - you have plenty of company here.

As a genius, Jonathan Swift was often surrounded by dunces. He would have recognized you.

"Talking to fools is like lighting a torch for the blind."

— Pierre Claude Boiste, 1765-1824, French lexicographer

Well, that's the problem with the question - Jackson can't answer it without people making negative judgements about her or her performances. If she acknowledges the WR is dirty, then inevitably people will question if she is clean should she break it. If she says she thinks the record is clean no one will believe her because the record is widely assumed to be dirty, and she has no basis for claiming otherwise. So why put an athlete in that dilemma right after a race? Why not just ask her if she thinks the WR is achievable or within her grasp and let others read into her response what they will?

The truth is that Jackson can't avoid the question forever anyway. If she breaks or gets close to the WR she will have to deal with the issue so she should come up with an answer she is comfortable with. I just think that trying to catch her off-guard right then was a bit of a cheap shot Gault used to get a sound-bite try and draw attention to himself and away from the athlete and her performance.

It was funny to see someone trip themselves up so badly.

Even funnier has been the melt down since then. Sometimes you really should stop digging but watching the never ending compulsion has given us all a chuckle.

That is finally a thoughtful response to the question. But you have also hit the nail on the head when you say the question is unavoidable. Her mistake was to not answer it rather than anticipate it with a considered response. However, I don't blame Gault for asking the question. At some point it was inevitable. She is the closest anyone has been to the record. She had just run the fastest time since it was set 34 years ago. As we have seen, there are some who wish she would take it.

The record may be seen as analogous to the "4 minute barrier" before Bannister finally broke it. It was long considered out of reach but that didn't stop speculation about breaking it. Athletes were even prepared to state it was their goal. The "4 minute barrier" in this case is a long-standing record widely believed to be doped. For Jackson - who is knocking on the door - the question is solely whether she thinks she can break it or even has it as a goal. So why couldn't she say that? It wouldn't require her to have a view on whether or not she thinks the record is doped, but only that she might wish to break it.

Is your brain stuck on an insecure loop that won’t allow you to accept a foolish mistake?

That question is fine, but it wasn't the one she was asked. Again, here is Gault’s exact question:

“There is one person in history who has run faster than you tonight. I’m wondering what you make of the current WR, do you believe in that time?”

So, the first part of the question is a clear reference to Flo Jo and the second part asks if Flo Jo’s record is legitimate. Not surprisingly, Jackson declined to answer. If Gault had simply asked Jackson if she thought she had a chance to break the WR we would not have 10 pages of commentary about it here.

Also, regarding your analogy with the 4-minute mile (or a sub-2 marathon), I think there are important differences. While the sub-4 was viewed as a barrier to what was humanly possible, it was not associated with any particular athlete. The women’s sprint records are associated with one athlete only. The Chinese women’s distance records are also highly suspicious, but they are held by obscure faceless runners who very few people can even name. Flo Jo was as big as celebrity as we have had in the track world. She was certainly one of the most famous female athletes in the world in 1988, and she also happens to be dead. And I think that makes current sprinters less willing pass judgement on the record itself.

Flo Jo’s records will be broken, and there is a good chance that will happen in the next few years, and then we will have a new controversy to occupy this board, assuming it’s still around.

I was going to ask you the same thing?

You do understand that there's a difference between a question and the answer that is offered?

Gault's question was valid. If not so Coe wouldn't have commented. My own response is my own - I don't have to agree with Coe's response in order to agree the question is valid.

But all beyond you.

I am well aware he is asking her view of the existing record. She could have easily said she would rather not offer a view on whether it is legitimate but that she would like to beat it. Boy, that was hard! Would that have provoked a dozen pages condemning Gault for asking the question (and myself for defending that he did so)? My own view, that it takes a doper to beat an almost impossible doped record is not a given from the question alone - it is my response. Clearly, it isn't Coe's, who nonetheless implicitly accepts the validity of the question. The question - which is the subject of the thread - is all I have defended.

I used the "4 minute-mile analogy because it presented a goal perceived as unreachable by many for years; this also Flojo's records. Others won't agree, but I don't believe that her "barrier" will be beaten by a clean athlete.

I appreciate your response, however. You have argued the issue on its merits as you perceive them.

Someone should point out Armstronlivs blunder and see if it’ll trigger him for the one hundredth time 😀

He takes the bait every time 😂

You might try reading the post above by "goalie" since it contains everything yours lacks.

This thread has certainly provided an insight into the unfortunate limitations of the average poster.

You’ve been reduced to insults and the same repetitive dull IQ jabs for about a week now.

Coe would like to see Jackson erase a dirty WR, you were foolish to introduce that and undermine your central point that Jackson is dirty.

LOL - I was right, I was right, I was right damn it 😢😢😢🎻

Oh no you weren’t kiddo 😏

My central point is not that Jackson is dirty but that Gault's question was valid. Coe proved that - against the attacks made against Gault here for asking it. My view that she dopes doesn't depend on the question. You have proven - along with most other posters - that you lack the intellectual capacity to grasp any of that.