Still believe that Flo Jo's 10.49 isn't legit?

How did the wind ONLY assist Flo Jo? Gail Devers was in the race too and her timing appeared to be what she runs at high exertion.

Here you go champ

"Gail Devers gets mentioned. Let's look at her season in 1988. She ran 10.86 with a +3.0 to win the NCAA's in June, but by the time the trials rolled around wasn't exactly in top form (as we see often with NCAA athletes at the trials given their length of season). Devers ran 11.15 with a +3.4 in the heats, 10.97 in the QF with the "0.0" and then 11.24 in the semi with a +1.3 and didn't even make the final. So it's fair to say that looking at her trials results, this was not exactly the Gail Devers of the early 90's or even the NCAAs of that 1988 season. Since it's Sunday morning and I'm just sitting here drinking a coffee I will do the numbers for you. If you correct the times of Devers allowing for the wind this is what we get - 11.15 > 11.34 in the heat and 11.24 > 11.33 in the semi. So Gail Devers was in mid/low 11 second shape at the trials. Now let's pick a wind value of around +5.0 (as it's been suggested it was) and this takes her 10.97 to a corrected 11.21 which is right in line with every race she ran in Indianapolis (and honestly points to the wind being even slightly stronger than +5.0).

But if you want to look at an athlete look at Sheila Echols. Echols had one season in an 11 year career running under 11 seconds - 1988. In '88 she ran under 11.0 3 times - all at the trials. She ran 10.83 in the first round with a +3.9 wind (an adjusted 11.03), 10.83 with allegedly no win in the QF, 10.99 with a +1.3 in the semi (adj.11.07) and 11.00 with a +1.2 in the final (adj.11.08). Again, Sheila Echols was in 11.00-11.10 shape for three of the 4 races she ran in Indianapolis including the most important 2 - the semi and final. The best part of these numbers is that she would have had to morph from a 11.00-11.10 performer to a 10.8 performer in the space of a few hours because she ran her very wind adjusted 10.83 only a matter of hours before supposedly running the same time with absolutely no wind. Impossible."

That's how. You're welcome.

Nope. It's dismissed by conspiracy theory morons such as yourself.

You don't think it was wind-aided?

Either give some evidence/rational explanation as to why it's not or honestly, stay off this thread - you aren't contributing anything of value to the community.

Zero chance. It is more likely gravity is just an elaborate hoax than that time is legit.

It was clearly wind-aided. The video still exists if you have any doubt. The wind was obviously blowing pretty hard but the equipment malfunctioned and gave a reading of 0.0, which is impossible if you watch the video.

Also, both runners were doping.

Flo Jo’s 10.49 was wind aided and drug aided. Most obvious drug record on the books. That’s all there is to it.

No doubt the race was windy hell you can see their numbers and hair blowing.

Flo Jo was a 10.6 not 10.4

FloJo still don't give no BloJo.

PEDs put her in a very early grave.

Not a fraud on Armstrong's level, but a fraud nonetheless.

The MIlli Vanilli of T&F.

Watch the video carefully. Look at the wind direction. It was swirling round the stadium. It's much more logical and less conspirartorial to suppose that she was aided by a cross tailwind from her left at the start, a cross talwind at the finish from her right and zero wind assistance halfway down the strait, where the wind guage was.

Have you watched the video carefully?

1) Prior to the race Liquori and whoever he's commentating with lament how even though it's been a great year for here the time "won't count" because of the wind. Do you think that the commentary team conspired to screw Flo-Jo out of an impending WR they never knew was going to happen by claiming it would be wind aided when it wasn't?

2) At the start of the race the numbers on the back of the women were almost blowing off because of the strength of the wind from behind. At the end of the race the hair of Griffith-Joyner is blowing up off her head as she walks back towards the start finish line indicating the wind is coming straight down the home straight.

3) To debunk this frankly idiotic "It was a crosswind then nothing then a crosswind" concept you have, this didn't seem to be the case in the 3rd womens QF where the wind was +5.0 for Gwen Torrence (in QF2 the wind was also 0.0 which is also evidence for some kind of faulty gauge but more likely one not even turned on because getting two perfect 0.0's on a day with any type of wind is almost completely impossible) and also for Carl Lewis in the mens 100m final (run at 4.35pm just after the womens QF) which was +5.2. Even more telling is the wind gauge for the mens triple jump was hitting 5's and within seconds of this performancer of FGJ, Willie Banks jumped 18m20 with a +5.2 with a wind gauge sitting right in the center of the triple jump runway literally feet away from the 100m gauge.

I wrote this a while ago, I just can't even comprehend why, even if you want to say Griffith-Joyner was clean, that any track and field fan can't just concede that a mistake was made that day in Indianapolis (either a gauge that didn't work or wasn't turned on) and an even bigger one made ratifying a record that shouldn't have been. I don't understand any benefit for and in trying to do mental gymnastics to try and convince oneself this just wasn't legitimate other than being borderline insane.

So you think it was a conspiracy? By whom? And how? Did the conspirator/conspirators secretly switch on and off when she was or wasn't competing?
Or was it just a fluke that even though she was 'wind assisted' it didn't register on the guage?

Dude can you read? This is getting into nauseating territory.

As for what you suggested it's entirely plausible that the wind gauge wasn't even turned on purely by accident which would be my guess because when it was on (starting at QF3) the wind readings were consistent with the entire afternoons wind readings.

Is it also plausible the wind gauge was deliberately turned off? Of course it is - athletes of this era were taking steroids to enhance their performances - some of which were harmful to their health - and you think it's impossible someone turned off a wind gauge to enable an "enhanced" performance?

Once again this is simple - you are contending that on an afternoon of 12mph winds, a wind gauge magically registered zero right when the one event that benefits most from wind assistance was being run by the perfect candidate to benefit from that assistance - despite visual evidence and evidence from other events that used the same measuring devices.

Maybe.. you have lost your freaking mind. I'm done with this conversation you can believe what you want to - you are in the overwhelming minority.

You're a weird dude. Anyone ever tell ya?

I've given a perfectly reasonable explanation. Maybe you should read it again?