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 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.
I’ve never taken issue with the validity of Gault’s question, just the timing and phrasing. Jackson could not have known in advance how fast she was going to run so it seems a bit unfair to expect her to have a well-thought-out answer prepared to that particular question right after the best race of her life. Alternatively, Jackson is an experienced professional athlete competing at the highest level of the sport in an event in which the record is widely assumed to be dirty. She can’t be oblivious to the issue.
But it is still my opinion that Gault’s “tough” question was designed to catch her off-guard and elicit an answer for which she was not prepared to give right on the spot. The question would have been better served in a less chaotic situation when she could elaborate on her response. The post-race interview is for the athlete to talk about the race itself and not to have to weigh in on controversial issues. We will just have to agree to disagree on that and call it a day / night – or whatever time it is in your world.
There is no reason for Shericka to answer the question at all. It's not up to her to say if the record is clean. All she has to do is run fast and show up and pass her drug tests. That's all she has control over.
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.
He should have dragged Coe into the equation. At that moment he lost completely because unlike Armstronlivs, Coe thinks Jackson is clean.
“Coe agrees with me” - eh no dummy he DOESN’T 🤣🤣🤣
Coe agreed the question raised by Gault was valid. I did not say he agreed that Jackson is a doper. I realise you haven't had enough education to see the distinction between a question and its answer. But you are in good company here.
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.
I’ve never taken issue with the validity of Gault’s question, just the timing and phrasing. Jackson could not have known in advance how fast she was going to run so it seems a bit unfair to expect her to have a well-thought-out answer prepared to that particular question right after the best race of her life. Alternatively, Jackson is an experienced professional athlete competing at the highest level of the sport in an event in which the record is widely assumed to be dirty. She can’t be oblivious to the issue.
But it is still my opinion that Gault’s “tough” question was designed to catch her off-guard and elicit an answer for which she was not prepared to give right on the spot. The question would have been better served in a less chaotic situation when she could elaborate on her response. The post-race interview is for the athlete to talk about the race itself and not to have to weigh in on controversial issues. We will just have to agree to disagree on that and call it a day / night – or whatever time it is in your world.
I'll try again, since the mods like to favour only one side of the debate.
Was Gault's question about Flojo's record justifiable or not? Lord Coe seems to think so and I agree. Why? Because.It.Is.A.Doped. Record.
You’re ignoring the very large part you got wrong.
The question was directed at Jackson whom you openly claim is dirty. Your ‘Lord Coe’ thinks Jackson is clean.
At best he agree with you 50% - which is still absolutely failing. Learn to own your mistakes, you’ll be a better person for it.
Once more - very slowly. The subject of this thread is whether Gault's question was valid, not whether Jackson is a doper. The question was about Flojo's record. Many here objected to the question. I argued it was legitimate. Gault, Coe and I are agreed on that point. My view Jackson is likely doped is independent of the question and is based on the premise that it takes a doper to beat a doped record. A question is not an answer. Answers may be different to the same question. I'll offer you your own advice - learn to own your own mistakes, you'll be a better person for it.