Even though I love this thread topic, it seems like there was an epic thread on this not very long ago.
Was Griffith-Joyner taking PEDs? I mean this is kind of a rhetorical question isn't it? From 84 to 87 (24-28 years old) her seasons best for the 100m ranged from 10.96 to 11.06. In 1988, in an era we know crude steroid use in track and field was rampant (ahem, the mens 100m final anyone?), she dropped to the high 10.5, low 10.6 range (and this even includes adjusting the 10.49 with the approx 5-6 meter tail wind). Not only that, after 1988 she basically retired and never ran again - almost as if '88 was just the science experiment year that went right and then it wasn't worth doing it ever again.
As for that day in Indianapolis? When you find yourself back at the first principal of any debate on this it lands with one thing - a wind reading of 0.0. People want to argue what the wind might have been, could it have magically dropped to 0 or to under 2.0 but the wind gauge reads 0.0 when clearly there is wind (numbers flapping on the backs of athletes in the race, frizzy 80's hairdos blowing around like crazy before and after the race, flags in the background, a commentator of the race, unprompted and with no foresight this would be a topic discussed almost 40 years later talking about it - so we know there was wind). Therefore it's unequivocal the gauge is faulty and and that's the end of it - it can't be legal and shouldn't have been ratified.
And as mentioned if you account for a wind reading in the +5-6 range (which the triple jump was frequently hitting during those 100m races) it brings her wind adjusted time back to the 10.6X range which was true for almost all her great races that outlier season.
Why was it ratified? People want to see world records. This was situation where you would have had to have someone on site vehemently opposing it and making a solid case as to why and if that didn't happen it could easily slip through the cracks. Real easy to toss any anecdotal yet common sense logic out the window when it was the golden age of American sprinting. I also think that the IAAF never thought about the reality that in ratifying this record that it would basically stand the test of time. I think the default mindset was "oh well maybe it wasn't right but someone will come along and put it to bed sooner rather than later and it won't be an issue anymore" Well 34 years later we see that 10.5 seconds for 100m in the womens category is not that easy - in fact only one other athlete has ever run under 10.6 - Thompson-Herah. Final thing - they can asterisk all they want or put footnotes to it but the moment it was ratified it became the WR. I mean on the World Athletics website on the 100m all-time list that time sits at the top with no caveats - it's the world record despite the absurdity and folklore of the situation.
'Obviously she was totally juiced and how she got away with it would make a great read.'
Shows zero knowledge.
There was no out of competition back then. She retired just before it was introduced
What are you talking about?
So no disrespect here intended, but you do know that out of competition testing was only really established in the mid to late 90's right? Before then doping control (and calling it even that is a stretch) was exclusively done at competition venues only. Not difficult to circumvent (routinely athletes would "disappear" after races before being officially notified they needed to give a sample) or fudge the test (the practice of visibly watching urine being given was introduced around the same time as OOC testing). You could fill your sample pot with apple juice back in the late 80's/early 90's for all anyone knew.
the doping is vastly more widespread now,and these days athletes line up looking like mutants straight out of a laboratory.they didnt look that bad in the 80s,and the east germans look normal compared to todays sprinters.i think its easier to dope now,because most countries cover it up.
WTF? In those days the didn´t have out of competition testing, so you didn´t have to cover anything up. You just stopped taking the drugs a few months before the competition, and then you weren´t caught.
Yeah for me there really is no doubt that she was a drug cheat. For me, the bigger unanswered question is if, and to what extent, her drug use played a role in her sudden death.
Like Armstrong, Flojo never tested positive! An American Legend!
Seriously, I think you would have a harder time finding someone who thought she was clean than dirty.
Haha true - but the thing about Flo-Jo I will always in a backwards way respect? That she did what she did and was then like "I'm done".
It was almost as if her conscience got the better of her and was like "I am an 11 second runner than took this sh$t and ran 10.6 and I even managed to get my name to a WR that is clearly bogus" so she just retired. I mean think of that - she comes off 1988 and the 100-200 double along with 2 WRs and never runs again? No cashing in off appearance money/sponsorship cash etc in Europe for a few seasons? I swear even she knew she was "taking the p#ss" so to speak.
Except that you are lying.i even clicked on that link and it led me to electrical appliances and devices.woops.poor you.proof of your bullcrap.Quit while youre behind.
Wrong.
See this....
Caribbean Forum hit out at Carl Lewis after comments American Olympic sprint legend Carl Lewis has been hit by some hard criticism from the Caribbean Track and Field Forum after comments he made during an interview on a British website.
That....Caribbean Forum is what I'm talking about, that is where I met all those Carib/Jamaican posters.
So you aren't familiar with Ato Boldon 's forum either?
Ato Boldon, Ato Boldon .. where have I heard that name??//
bolt was so much faster than the rest he didn't need to dope. probably never crossed his mind.
Total myth in 07' he lost badly to Tyson Gay and didn't enter the 100m because he wasn't fast enough and then he discovered Sarms and the rest was history...
If by "everyone" you mean "almost no one", then possibly, possibly, your post makes sense. Still totally unnecessary though
This. No running fan thinks this is a legitimate time. Everyone thinks it was wind aided, or drug aided, or both, but almost no one thinks it was neither.
Of course she was taking steroids. What important person denies this? Her 100 and 200 are the most obvious drug records in sports. I don’t know that we can say that steroids is why she died so young, though.
The thing there is that margin of victory, and while there is no doubt of that wind that was a great race. To destroy that field like she did was very impressive, wind for everyone.
Obviously she was totally juiced and how she got away with it would make a great read. Had to have been some master plan to pull it off like they did. This is the best example of what PED's can do for an athlete.
I am a bit surprised the powers that be let that 10.49 stand, you'd think common sense would have come into play, women can't run a 10.49 100m. I know that, you know that, apparently they didn't.
Everything in this post is spot on ... except that women can't run a 10.49. Women potentially can run that fast, just not flo jo, at least not clean, wind legal, and with the equipment of her time.
apparently she was on a mix of human growth hormones,and testosterone,possibly turinabol or winstrol as well.yes,she was an obvious doper,but the leval of drug taking is much MUCH worse and more widespread these days than it was in the 80s.i believe her 10.49 was wind aided.
She was definitely not on turinabol or winstrol.
Why are you confident she was not on those two steroids in particular?
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.