I hope Flo Jos records keep standing

Agree op. However I would be ok if Parker valby took down the 200m records. Expect great things!

You're confused. The people who ratified the record were NOT there. They were located in a different country.

The reporters and announcers who WERE there said that it was very windy during that 10.49 race.

It's pretty strange that you think you know more than the reporters and announcers who were actually there.

They had numbers on their backs that were lifting from their bodies as the wind was blowing so hard. And the announcer is a dead giveaway.

Why would anyone, in their right mind anyway, consider that the US is in any way less suspicious than Jamaica. I don't have a dog in this fight, but it is laughable that Americans think that they are more ethical than anywhere else. Have you seen how corrupt your political system is? why would arms-length pseudo governmental organizations (USATF/USADA) be any different? I would not be surprised with any doping coming from either camp, but I suspect that Americans are better at hiding it than even Jamaicans. It is obvious how much doping exists in both HS and the NCAA, again (based on LR logic) since ALL pro's are dirty but just don't get caught, I would say that it is an even playing field anyway.

Sure it does, make some sense, that is. If you are saying she was doping, then of course, that seems very likely, but if you are saying it is impossible for a woman today or in the eighties to run 10.4 or even 10.28 without drugs that were illegal back then, that is what doesn’t make any sense.

We have no idea what the limits of a woman are and what a single genetic fluke could do, unlikely as it may be but not impossible.

HGH, which Flo Jo was most likely taking wasn't actually banned until 1989 (wasn't even tested for until then), so (ignoring the wind reading irregularity) was she 'technically' clean when running 10.49 as not taking any banned substance at the time? (assuming is was 'only' HGH she was taking). The fact she was at her peak yet retired the moment HGH was added to the banned list and begun testing for is a fairly major hint as to what she was likely taking.

The most shameful thing is that Flo-Jo peaked only in 3 months and disappeared after that.

If true, that is very interesting. I had never before heard that HGH WASN'T banned in 1988, but WAS banned starting in 1989.

Do you have a link to that information regarding the date that HGH was added to the banned substance list?

These are more good points. I'm always personally amazed at what the motivations are to justify/defend this particular race (putting any drug allegations completely to the side) - and there is this constant narrative of "there are no facts to support that it wasn't legal" - which is simply untrue.

It is a fact that on this particular afternoon of sprinting that wind readings in all the sprint events except for 2 races showed the presence of considerable tail winds. At 3.05pm the mens semi-finals had +2.6 and +4.9 wind readings. The final at 4.35pm had a +5.2 wind. On the womens side, the heats that were at 1pm that day all had winds between +2.7 and +3.9 but more importantly, the quarter finals which were at 3.45pm, so right in between the mens SF and F, had wind readings of 0.0, 0.0 and +5.0.

It is a fact that the mens triple jump started at 2.30pm that day and was finishing up right around the start of the womens 100m QF's. It was competed on in the same direction as the 100m and on the home straight (just in case there was some possibility of wind being irregular on the other side of the stadium). Of the 12 finalists these are the wind readings of their best jumps in order starting with Willie Banks (1st place), through to Johnny Washington (12th place). +5.2, +5.2, +4.3, +3.3, +5.2, +4.9, +4.8, +4.8, +5.4, +4.8, +3.0, +4.5. Of even more intrigue is that fact that this very wind gauge read +4.3 at the exact time of this 100m "record" race. Same straight, same direction, gauges less than 50ft from each other.

But all of this aside - you can choose to ignore this if you want and instead convince yourself that there was some possibility that on an extremely windy afternoon in Indianapolis, there were 2 magical 15 second bubbles where the wind just didn't die down to a light zephyr, but died down to completely nothing (and remember this is what would have to happen to get a 0.0 wind - the gauge can't pick up any wind at all or else it will give a reading), and that's fine - the biggest fact or piece of evidence comes from what we see and hear on the broadcast of the race.

As the runners in womens QF 1 get down into their blocks, the camera cuts to Wendy Vereen in lane 6 in a bright orange suit and you can see with your own eyes, the wind coming from behind here funnels up here back causing her pinned number to flutter. This is the reason I just wrote it has to be 15 magical seconds of absolutely zero wind because in this moment, seconds before the start it doesn't matter what the wind reading is - it's not zero.

And as it does, the voice on commentary (I'm very sure it's Liquiori but obviously if it's not it doesn't matter) - with clearly no knowledge of what is just about to happen, say's that "of course the wind will mean that it won't count, but this has been a great year for her" (Griffith-Joyner). This is a guy that is literally sitting there in the stadium watching every single race and is privy to every result that is happening. He knows it won't count because he is there too much tail wind and this is why he says it. Now think about this logically, he has just made a point to mention this right? Do you not think that in the event that as the runners settle in their blocks and the wind dropped away to absolutely zero, he would not have updated his commentary to make note of this? He's just alluded to the fact FGJ is in great shape but it's a pity this race won't be legal because of the wind and you don't think that if all of a sudden the wind disappeared he wouldn't say something to the effect of "but hold on a second the wind appears to have really eased off here we could be in for something special"?

Getting back to the magical 15 seconds - why 15? Well we see Vereens number fluttering like a sail just prior to the start, we see the race and then we see FGJ turn around as Danette Young (lane 3) congratulates her and her hair visibly starts blowing backwards as she walks back into the very direction she's just run. Again, the actual numerical value of the wind reading is irrelevant - there is wind present so it's not 0.0. So we have the runners on their marks (substantial wind in the stadium, the 100m race + the time it takes here to stop and turn around (15 seconds) with absolutely no wind, and then as she turns around to walk back the wind kicks up again.

Back to the underlying point - I get that remembering this record takes people back to a maybe more "golden" era of track and field. Maybe you were there and remember the excitement. Maybe FGJ and this race inspired you to change your life? It doesn't change reality. Believing this race was run without any wind assistance is and can only be an irrational and emotional position and unfortunately that's not how reality works. Not being able to accept reality is in itself bordering on mental illness - we say the same thing about people these days who truly believe they are dogs or cats - they can't accept reality either.

The IAAF didn't know what to do here and it was good for the sport to have a recent and in-form "WR holder" going into Seoul. They also probably never expected this record to be so ridiculous that it would last 35+ years and show for itself how flawed it was. That's reality.

"The International Olympic Commitee were the first organisation to ban hGH in 1989" - no direct link, but if you google "when was hGH banned in sport" it will confirm the above and a few articles.

This logic is so flawed it defies belief. What do you mean we have no idea of what the limits of a woman are - of course we do. Because otherwise we could just use that narrative and say "well eventually we will see a woman run under 10 seconds because we have no idea of what the the limits are and what a genetic fluke could do". No buddy - we will never see a woman as we know them today, run under 10 for the 100m, just like we will never see a man as we know them today, run under 9 seconds for the 100m.

All of this is so remedial it defies belief. Flo Jo was a natural 11.00 runner - that was her level. In '83 she ran 11.06, '84 was 10.99, '85 was 11.00 and '87 was 10.96 - and she was born in December 1959 so those are her best performances at ages 23,24,25 and 27 respectively.

She took steroids/doped - whatever you want to call it and became a 10.70 runner. That's how you change your physique and improve that much in the 100m at that age - it's the only way, stop the delusion. Almost all of her best results in 1988 when you adjust them to a neutral 0.0 wind come out at that. The trials final (10.61 +1.2) > 10.68, the OG final (10.54 +3.0)> 10.69, and even the bogus 10.49 which if we took the wind reading from the TJ runway of 4.3 gives us (guess what) an adjusted 10.69 seconds!

She doped to become a 10.7 runner (because she wasn't an awesome talent at all) and then had the extra cherry on the sundae by running a race with a 10mph tailwind that wasn't registered because the crappy 1980's wind gauge was malfunctioning in the 102 degree weather. It's all this simple.

So TWO things happened in 1989. Out of competition drug testing started happening AND HGH was considered a banned substance. No wonder FloJo quit at the beginning of 1989.

The americans are all doping,too.Everyone at that level is.

The speculation here is wild. Again, none of you have ANY evidence that she cheated or that her records were tainted in any way. You just have broken hearts that FloJo remains the GOAT. Get over it!

Does the wind account for her 200M 21.3 WR as well?

Fraser-Pryce running faster in her old age is akin to Gatlin running faster when he was apparently not doping than when he ever did when he was doping.

It's all rather strange.

Nope. That was just a lot of drugs.

I'm actutally saying she possibly wasn't 'cheating' (in strictly letter of the law terms at least - moral terms could be interpreted differently) in '88 as HGH wasnt considered a banned substance at the time - she may well have been 'technically' clean in that year.