t-and-f: flo-jo
Three is presumably a whole lot more on this floating around the Web: Flo-Jo's doctor believes the world's fastest woman was a drug cheat Yet just 11 days before the Sydney Games, there is open speculation that Florence Griffith Joyner used drugs. An investigation by British newspaper The Sunday Telegraph has added further fuel to suspicions, with a coach speaking of her drug use, and Dr Robert Kerr, a sports injuries specialist who treated her, telling of his conviction that she was a cheat. (much more in this story...) http://www.theaustralian.com.au/common/story_page/0,4511,1161376%255E601,00. html André Sammartino Reckon you know your stuff? Come try our Olympics track and field tipping comp http://surf.to/bayside
RE: t-and-f: flo-jo
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 22:47:06 -0700 From: "malmo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: RE: t-and-f: flo-jo Ahhh. You guys just don't give up with the Flo-Jo drug conspiracy theories, do you? What follows is a short abstract of her career, which shows, without a doubt, with the benefit of hard work, determination and courage - ANYTHING can happen. *** Well, the one thing for certain is that Flo Jo's career presents absolutely no support for the silly thesis that "with the benefit of hard work, determination and courage - ANYTHING can happen." Sprinters, especially 100 meter sprinters, are BORN and not made -- unless drugs are involved. If you have any doubt of this, I recommend the current cover story of the September Scientific American on "Genes and Muscles" by Bengt Saltin of the Copenhagen Muscle Research Institute (formerly of the Karolinska Institute). The difference between top sprinters is almost certainly entirely genetic as he makes clear. That makes Flo Jo's career even more suspect. The evidence you present show's a startling improvement in her 100 meter time from 1987 [10.96]to 1988 [10.49] -- that's almost half a second -- a four percent improvement which is for all intent and purposes FAR beyond the possibility of what can be done through technical improvement through training or nutrition. Intriguingly, she went from 22.46 in the 200 meters to 21.96 late in 1987, well after it was suspected she had started her drug regimen, to 21.34. That's an improvement of 1:12 or more than 5 percent. For someone in the midpoint of their career, when the efficiency of fast twitch muscles are actually on the decline, such improvements are literally IMPOSSIBLE without artificial means. The stark reality is that until 1987, Joyner had been a solid but not a brilliant sprinter. Her best time over 100 meters did not rank in the top forty marks of all time and her previous best at 200 was not in the all-time top twenty. Then she turned up in Seoul with a new sleek, muscular physique and promptly ran times that would have left some male runners in the dust. Griffith-Joyner angrily dismissed the allegations that she used drugs and volunteered to take a drug test "any?time, anywhere," but it turned out to be an empty promise. There would be no more races, no more tests. Months later, at the peak of her performances, she abruptly retired. The story got more complicated the following year when Darrell Robinson, a former national quarter-mile champion, claimed that shortly before the Seoul Games, Griffith Joyner had paid him $2,000 for 10 cubic centimeters of human growth hormone, which would not have been picked up in any drug test. She dismissed Robinson as a "crazy, lying lunatic," but she never raced again. To raise issues about the reliability of Flo Jo's career is no more pernicious than raising questions about the reliability of East German athlete's times during the 70s and 80s. Many of those athletes have denied taking drug and they are scoffed at. Why should their denials be given less weight or Flo Jo's denials be given more weight. Frankly, her career and performances are suspect to even the most reasonable outside observer. For all intents and purposes, these was an era of heavy drug use by female athletes in running, field events, swimming and other areas. Like or not, a cloud hovers over all because of this. Included are a records of sprinters from 1975-1996 for you Suh-tistikal types to analyze. Upon analysis, you too will find that Flo-Jo's breakthrough in 1988 was both predictable and within the norms of world-class sprinting. You malcontents should just stop your speculation, because Flo-Jo would NEVER associate with unsavory types from the underbelly of the sports world. In the words of John Gotti, "You can't prove nuttin'" Joyner had been a solid but not a brilliant sprinter. Her best time over 100 meters did not rank in the top forty marks of all time and her previous best at 200 was not in the all-time top twenty. Then she turned up in Seoul with a new sleek, muscular physique and promptly ran times that would have left Jesse Owens in the dust. Keenly aware of the limitations of the human body, athletes at Olympic Village began speculating on her redefined body and extraordinary performances. Griffith-Joyner angrily dismissed the allegations and volunteered to take a drug test "any?time, anywhere," but it turned out to be an empty promise. There would be no more races, no more tests. Months later, at the peak of her abilities, she abruptly retired. The story got more complicated the following year when Darrell Robinson, a former national quarter-mile champion, claimed that shortly before the Seoul Games, Griffith Joyner had paid him $2,000 for 10 cubic centimeters of human growth hormone, which wo
Re: t-and-f: flo-jo
For those of you that did not know it, Flo-Jo passed away a couple of years ago. Why don't we just let her rest in peace! Dan Doherty - Original Message - From: Jon Entine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, September 04, 2000 10:28 AM Subject: RE: t-and-f: flo-jo > Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2000 22:47:06 -0700 > From: "malmo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: t-and-f: flo-jo > > Ahhh. You guys just don't give up with the Flo-Jo drug conspiracy > theories, > do you? > > What follows is a short abstract of her career, which shows, without a > doubt, with the benefit of hard work, determination and courage - > ANYTHING > can happen. > > *** > > Well, the one thing for certain is that Flo Jo's career presents > absolutely no support for the silly thesis that > "with the benefit of hard work, determination and courage - ANYTHING can > happen." > > Sprinters, especially 100 meter sprinters, are BORN and not made -- > unless drugs are involved. If you have any doubt of this, I recommend > the current cover story of the September Scientific American on "Genes > and Muscles" by Bengt Saltin of the Copenhagen Muscle Research Institute > (formerly of the Karolinska Institute). The difference between top > sprinters is almost certainly entirely genetic as he makes clear. > > That makes Flo Jo's career even more suspect. The evidence you present > show's a startling improvement in her 100 meter time from 1987 [10.96]to > 1988 [10.49] -- that's almost half a second -- a four percent > improvement which is for all intent and purposes FAR beyond the > possibility of what can be done through technical improvement through > training or nutrition. > > Intriguingly, she went from 22.46 in the 200 meters to 21.96 late in > 1987, well after it was suspected she had started her drug regimen, to > 21.34. That's an improvement of 1:12 or more than 5 percent. > > For someone in the midpoint of their career, when the efficiency of fast > twitch muscles are actually on the decline, such improvements are > literally IMPOSSIBLE without artificial means. > > The stark reality is that until 1987, Joyner had been a solid but not a > brilliant sprinter. Her best time over 100 meters did not rank in the > top forty marks of all time and her previous best at 200 was not in the > all-time top twenty. Then she turned up in Seoul with a new sleek, > muscular physique and promptly ran times that would have left some male > runners in the dust. > > Griffith-Joyner angrily dismissed the allegations that she used drugs > and volunteered to take a drug test "any?time, anywhere," but it turned > out to be an empty promise. There would be no more races, no more tests. > Months later, at the peak of her performances, she abruptly retired. The > story got more complicated the following year when Darrell Robinson, a > former national quarter-mile champion, claimed that shortly before the > Seoul Games, Griffith Joyner had paid him $2,000 for 10 cubic > centimeters of human growth hormone, which would not have been picked up > in any drug test. She dismissed Robinson as a "crazy, lying lunatic," > but she never raced again. > > To raise issues about the reliability of Flo Jo's career is no more > pernicious than raising questions about the reliability of East German > athlete's times during the 70s and 80s. Many of those athletes have > denied taking drug and they are scoffed at. Why should their denials be > given less weight or Flo Jo's denials be given more weight. Frankly, her > career and performances are suspect to even the most reasonable outside > observer. > > For all intents and purposes, these was an era of heavy drug use by > female athletes in running, field events, swimming and other areas. Like > or not, a cloud hovers over all because of this. > > > > > Included are a records of sprinters from 1975-1996 for you Suh-tistikal > types to analyze. Upon analysis, you too will find that Flo-Jo's > breakthrough in 1988 was both predictable and within the norms of > world-class sprinting. > > You malcontents should just stop your speculation, because Flo-Jo would > NEVER associate with unsavory types from the underbelly of the sports > world. > In the words of John Gotti, "You can't prove nuttin'" > > Joyner had been a solid but not a brilliant sprinter. Her best time over > 100 meters did not rank in the top forty marks of all time and her > previous best at 200 was not in the all-time top twenty. Then she turned > up in Seoul with a new sleek, muscular physique
Re: t-and-f: flo-jo
--- Dan Doherty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > For those of you that did not know it, Flo-Jo passed away a couple of > years ago. Why don't we just let her rest in peace! I presume because not everyone shares the belief that death is some sacred state that cannot be discussed. As far as I know, freedom of speech does not dictate that we cannot talk about those deceased. Otherwise, teachers would have a heck of a time coming up with history lesson plans. If there is reason to doubt the validity of something historical, then there is certainly reason to discuss it. How about a show of hands -- who is of the "let her rest in peace" mindset *and* feels she was on drugs? And who of those that choose to discuss it feel she was not on drugs? In other words, is the common sentiment that we should not discuss it just another defense mechanism against acknowledging the possibility? Dan = http://AbleDesign.com - AbleDesign, Web Design that Can! http://Run-Down.com - 8,000 Running Links, Free Contests... @o Dan Kaplan <|\/ <^- [EMAIL PROTECTED] _/ \ \/\ [EMAIL PROTECTED] (lifetime forwarding address) / / (503)370-9969 home, (503)945-6622 work __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/
Re: t-and-f: flo-jo
Andre posted: >Flo-Jo's doctor believes the world's fastest woman was a drug cheat I don't know whether she was or not, but when it comes to the continual trashing of her reputation, I think we would be wise to follow these words written about 23 centuries ago by the Greek philosopher Aristotle: "In addition to believing that those who have ended this life are blessed and happy, we also think that to say anything slanderous against them is impious, from our feeling that it is directed against those who have already become our betters and superiors." from "Of the Soul" quoted in Plutarch "A Letter to Apollonius 27" Kurt Bray _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.
Re: t-and-f: flo-jo
At 22:06 3/09/00 -0700, A.J. Craddock wrote: >I see nothing there about Flo-Jo. > >Where is it? > >Tony Craddock > Sorry about that, bad cutting and pasting on my part try: http://www.olympics.smh.com.au/athletics/2000/09/04/FFX3FIA2KCC.html Story is below Flo-Jo's doctor believes the world's fastest woman was a drug cheat 10:48AM, Sep 04 A granite slab etched with a black-and-white photograph marks her resting place in El Toro Memorial Park. Flo-Jo, who died aged 38 in September 1998, is the fastest women who ever lived: the holder of two world records for the 100m and 200m that may never be beaten. Yet just 11 days before the Sydney Games, there is open speculation that Florence Griffith Joyner used drugs. An investigation by British newspaper The Sunday Telegraph has added further fuel to suspicions, with a coach speaking of her drug use, and Dr Robert Kerr, a sports injuries specialist who treated her, telling of his conviction that she was a cheat. According to fellow athletes, coaches, doctors and officials, Flo-Jo was on banned drugs before she won three gold medals and a silver in the 1988 Seoul Olympics. Two years earlier Flo-Jo, who won silver in the 100m at the 1984 Los Angeles Games, was on the wane. Disillusioned with athletics, she stopped training in 1986 and gained almost 30kg. A year later husband Al Joyner became her coach. Her subsequent transformation shook athletics. Flo-Jo went from being outside the top 10 in 1987 to smashing the world 100m record in Olympic qualifying the next year, with a time of 10.49s. In Seoul, she won the 100m in a wind-assisted Olympic record time and set a world record for the 200m - 21.34s. She also won a gold medal in the 4x100m relay and silver in the 4x400m relay. Her times, however, were not all that had changed. Her physique had altered beyond recognition. She had bulging muscles and huge veins. Observers said her voice was deeper and her jaw had elongated, known side-effects of the banned human growth hormone (hGH). Then Flo-Jo, who explained her rapid improvement on everything from her new diet to doing up to 5,000 sit-ups a day, surprised the world by retiring in February 1989, just months before the introduction of mandatory out-of-competition drug testing. In the past, the only person to make public allegations against Flo-Jo based on first-hand evidence was Darrell Robinson, a former US 400m runner who claimed he had supplied her with hGH. She dismissed him as a "liar", but did not sue and he stands by his claims. Now, others connected to Flo-Jo have spoken out. Kerr, who treated Flo-Jo for an ankle injury, said: "From the combination of her physical appearance and her increased performance, I believe she was on drugs." Kerr should know: before steroids were outlawed in 1975, he prescribed them to many athletes. Even more explicit was the evidence of a leading coach, who said he had been told by a woman athlete who trained with Flo-Jo before the 1988 Olympics that she took hGH and other steroids, but did not like to inject herself. "Each girl thought she was the only one injecting Flo-Jo but, in fact, they all were and so she was multiplying her doses," he said. Other athletes had told him Flo-Jo used drugs from 1981. Pat Connolly, a former US athlete turned coach, said she was also convinced of Flo-Jo's drug abuse but claimed US officials had not wanted to catch their top athletes, preferring them to win drug-assisted than lose. "I don't think Flo-Jo is to blame as much as the establishment that allowed her and others to get away with it," she said. Her views have been echoed by Dr Robert Voy, the chief medical officer of the US Olympic Committee for five years until 1988, who claimed his work was constantly undermined. At the weekend Voy said: "Many people at USOC were in the business for one reason: to bring home gold. Just how the athletes accomplished that, few cared." Voy said positive test results were hushed up. He believes that if Canadian Ben Johnson had been American, he would never have been caught in Seoul. He told of a discus thrower being unconcerned when he failed a drugs test: the results were never made public and weeks later he won a medal at a championship. "It seems that nothing has changed today," he said. Al Joyner has continued to deny his late wife took performance enhancing drugs. The Sunday Telegraph, London André Sammartino Reckon you know your stuff? Come try our Olympics track and field tipping comp http://surf.to/bayside
RE: t-and-f: flo-jo
> Three is presumably a whole lot more on this floating around the Web: > > Flo-Jo's doctor believes the world's fastest woman was a drug cheat . > > (much more in this story...) > > http://www.theaustralian.com.au/common/story_page/0,4511,1161376%2 Ahhh. You guys just don't give up with the Flo-Jo drug conspiracy theories, do you? What follows is a short abstract of her career, which shows, without a doubt, with the benefit of hard work, determination and courage - ANYTHING can happen. Included are a records of sprinters from 1975-1996 for you Suh-tistikal types to analyze. Upon analysis, you too will find that Flo-Jo's breakthrough in 1988 was both predictable and within the norms of world-class sprinting. You malcontents should just stop your speculation, because Flo-Jo would NEVER associate with unsavory types from the underbelly of the sports world. In the words of John Gotti, "You can't prove nuttin'" Her career 100 m 200m 1982 11.12[8] 22.39[10] 1983 11.06[6] 22.23[5] 1984 10.99[3] 22.04[5] 1985 11.00[6] 22.46[7] 1986 unranked unranked 1987 10.96[6] 21.96[2] 1988 10.49[1] 21.34[1] 1982-1987 100m (11.12-10.96) avg=11.026 diff=0.16 rankavg=5.8 1988 100m (10.49) diffPR=(-0.47) diffavg=(-0.536) 1982-1987 200m (22.46-21.96) avg=22.216 diff=0.50 rankavg=5.8 1988 200m (21.34) diffPR=(-0.62) diffavg=(-0.876) 1975 1. Renate Stecher DDR 50 11"13 2. Andrea Lynch GBR 52 11"16 3. Silvia Chivas CUB 54 11"17 4. Irena Szewinska POL 46 11"23 5. LyudmilaMaslakova URS 52 11"31 6. Linda Haglund SWE 56 11"35 7. IngeHelten GER 50 11"37 7. Patty LoverockCAN 53 11"37 9. Pam Jiles USA 55 11"38 10. Alice Annum GHA 48 11"40 1976 1. AnnegretRichter GER 50 11"01 2. IngeHelten GER 50 11"04 3. Brenda MoreheadUSA 57 11"08 4. Renate Stecher DDR 50 11"10 5. Chandra CheesboroughUSA 59 11"13 6. Chantal RegaFRA 55 11"15 7. Marlise Oelsner DDR 58 11"17 8. Martina BlosDDR 57 11"19 9. LyudmilaMaslakova URS 52 11"20 10. Evelyn Ashford USA 57 11"21 1977 1. Marlise Oelsner DDR 58 10"88 2. AnnegretRichter GER 50 11"03 2. Monika Hamann-MeyerDDR 54 11"03 4. Silvia Chivas CUB 54 11"16 5. Brenda MoreheadUSA 57 11"18 6. Lyudmilla Storozhkova URS 55 11"21 7. Andrea Lynch GBR 52 11"22 7. Sonia LannamanGBR 56 11"22 9. Evelyn Ashford USA 57 11"25 10. Irena Szewinska POL 46 11"26 1978 1. Marlise Oelsner-GohrDDR 58 10"94 2. Brenda MoreheadUSA 57 11"14 2. Lilieth Hodges JAM 53 11"14 4. AnnegretRichter-Irrgang GER 50 11"16 4. Evelyn Ashford USA 57 11"16 4. Marita KochDDR 57 11"16 7. Silvia Chivas CUB 54 11"17 8. Linda Haglund SWE 56 11"18 9. Monika Hamann-MeyerDDR 54 11"20 10. LyudmilaMaslakova-Zharkova URS 52 11"23 1979 1. Marlise Oelsner-GohrDDR 58 10"97 1. Evelyn Ashford USA 57 10"97 3. Brenda MoreheadUSA 57 11"11 4. Marita KochDDR 57 11"12 5. Lyudmilla Kondratyeva URS 58 11"15 6. Christine Brehmer DDR 58 11"18 7. Angela Taylor CAN 58 11"20 8. AnnegretRichter GER 50 11"22 8. Beverly Goddard GBR 56 11"22 10. Liljana Panayotova-Ivanova BUL 56 11"23 1980 1. Marlise Oelsner-GohrDDR 58 10"93 2. Marita KochDDR 57 10"99 3. RomyMuller-SchneiderDDR 58 11"02 4. Lyudmilla Kondratyeva URS 58 11"06 5. Ingrid Auerswald DDR 57 11"08 5. Barbel Wockel-Eckert DDR 55 11"08 7. Sofka Popova BUL 53 11"15 8. Linda Haglund SWE
Re: t-and-f: flo-jo
On Sunday, September 03, 2000 10:47 PM Malmo said: > Ahhh. You guys just don't give up with the Flo-Jo drug conspiracy theories, > do you? > > What follows is a short abstract of her career, which shows, without a > doubt, with the benefit of hard work, determination and courage - ANYTHING > can happen. > > Included are a records of sprinters from 1975-1996 for you Suh-tistikal > types to analyze. Upon analysis, you too will find that Flo-Jo's > breakthrough in 1988 was both predictable and within the norms of > world-class sprinting. OK .. I have to ask the question .. How do these statistics tell you that FloJos's "breakthrough" in 88 was predictable and within the norms of world class sprinting ?? She went from PRs of 10.96 & 21.96 (marks that were PRs NOT consistent running) .. To PRs of 10.49 & 21.34 in ONE season .. A season preceded by 2 seasons in which she first quit the sport for a year and had tremendous weight gain .. And then came back and set her pre-88 PRs .. She dropped her 100 PR by .47sec and her 200 PR by .62 sec !!! That would be the equivalent of Mo Greene running 19.24 or MJ running 9.62 Or Inger Miller going 10.32 & 21.15 !!! The statistics you use are great as they compile data from some of the greatest sprinters in women's history ... They include Marlies Gohr, Marita Koch, Evelyn Ashford, Merlene Ottey, Chandra Cheesborough, Heike Dreschsler, Pam Marshall, Silke Gladisch, Barbel Eckert, Renate Stecher, Jarmila Kratochvilova, Katrin Krabbe, and Gwen Torrence ... A virtual Who's Who of women's sprinting ... And NO ONE, not even the string of East German's who were verified to have been on highly sophisticated doping programs, have the increase/spike in performance that FloJo had .. So, questions about drug use aside, how do you explain FloJo's 88 season as "predictable and within the norms of world class sprinting" ?? Conway Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: t-and-f: flo-jo
netters Though I rarely comment on these issues. Here is one now. Conway Wrote: > So, questions about drug use aside, how do you explain FloJo's 88 season as > "predictable and within the norms of world class sprinting" ?? Extremely bad wind reading measures? As I recall in Indianapolis there was quite a debate about that as on the film there are objects (coke cups?) blowing down the field as FloJo is running. Or am I just creating that image? Seems to me that I have heard it argued that her 10.68 is generally more accepted as a "real" time? Go ahead and slap me around if i am off on this. But not to much I got in late last night from a clinic and am now only starting on my 3rd cup of java. Good Training, Michael Rohl
Re: t-and-f: flo-jo
> Ahhh. You guys just don't give up with the Flo-Jo drug conspiracy theories, > do you? > > What follows is a short abstract of her career, which shows, without a > doubt, with the benefit of hard work, determination and courage - ANYTHING > can happen. Question: if Flo-Jo had been East-European, and never officially caught doping, despite unofficial accusations and public denials, would you be defending her as devotedly? Would you say, for instance, that Jarmila Kratochilova's career ".. shows, without a doubt, with the benefit of hard work, determination and courage - ANYTHING can happen."? It is always tragic when a sportsman or -woman achieves the highest pinnacle and is wrongly accused of drug abuse. This works both ways though. As the East Germans showed, it was perfectly possible to take drugs and go undetected. And as a conversation with any gym rat will reveal, it is not now, and never has been, particularly difficult to obtain illegal performance-enhancing drugs in the US -- or anywhere else, for that matter. (For those who wish an on-line experience go to http://www.goheavy.com and browse the "Drugs" message board. You will notice that the participants are almost all American. You will also notice that a significant number of questions asked concern masking the effects of various drugs for powerlifting or bodybuilding contests with drug testing). Fair is fair. The same mindset that leads me to doubt the honesty of Kratochilova's career leads me to doubt the honesty of Flo-Jo's. I do not assume a priori that athletes with a US passport are inherently more ethical than athletes with a Czechoslovakian passport. My sincerest apologies to her (or her memory) should she in fact be innocent. But it will take some convincing to remove my doubts. The times you posted do exactly the opposite. Cheers, Elliott Oti
Re: t-and-f: flo-jo
Whatever did happen to Dawn Sowell? 1989-100m 10.78 Number 1 ranked 1989-200m 22.04 Number 1 ranked A.C.
Re: t-and-f: flo-jo
>How about a show of hands by those who feel that the Flo-Jo "issue" has been >discussed enough on this list. Both sides have made their arguments many >times over, and I'm sure very few people have been persuaded to change their >minds based on the information presented here. There are some who will always >believe she was "dirty" and others who think otherwise. If anyone has >something new (factual, not anecdotal) to add to the mix, then let's hear it. >Otherwise, let it go. > >Walt Murphy I agree, if this had come up again out of the blue. What's changed is a little investigative journalism turning up a big-name doctor who treated her and is convinced she was using (based on what?- I'd like to question the Doc myself- we want "beef")- and fellow athletes who apparently say they injected her themselves because she was squeemish about injecting herself. We want names- who are these fellow athletes?- must they remain anonymous? We've had the supposition over her one-year fantastic physical change and drop in times before- nothing new there- but the direct testimonials by people who were very close to her are what's new. Up until now all we had as far as direct testimony was Mr. Robinson- and his story was tainted by his having troubles of his own. Now we've got a whole bunch of people saying they personally saw her getting injected with the stuff, or even injected her themselves. Is Al gonna turn around and call them ALL liars? And what would be the motivation that Al would say they have for lying? Wouldn't they have MORE motivation to just keep quiet- since it says something about their own aiding and abetting twelve or thirteen years ago? It would appear that the scales are starting to tip in the direction of a guilty verdict. Convince me otherwise. RT
Re: t-and-f: flo-jo
On Mon, 4 Sep 2000 18:29:51 -0400, you wrote: >For those of you that did not know it, Flo-Jo passed away a couple of years >ago. >Why don't we just let her rest in peace! > >Dan Doherty Let's say the IAAF throws out all world records set before 2000. Is an exception made if the record-setter is deceased? Whether they're deceased or not is totally irrelevant to the question of whether their records are credible or not. I don't know why there's more sympathy for people after they die. Like they're martyrs or something. Maybe you feel sorry for them because they're no longer here to defend themselves? Flo-Jo had plenty of years to reveal anything she wanted to reveal- I don't think if she were alive anything would be different. What she said on the topic is documented, and boils down to a single word- denial. BTW- anything we say on this list has absolutely no bearing on how she 'rests'. RT
Re: t-and-f: flo-jo
>How about Attila the Hun? Maybe we should canonize him, too, while we're >in a forgiving mood. >Give me a break! >Tony Craddock Okay, okay, I vote to KEEP Attila on the Survivor dinner list. I've always wanted to have a barbarian over for supper to prove to my wife that my table manners aren't so bad after all. RT
Re: Re: t-and-f: flo-jo
In a message dated 9/4/0 8:26:46 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: <> How about a show of hands by those who feel that the Flo-Jo "issue" has been discussed enough on this list. Both sides have made their arguments many times over, and I'm sure very few people have been persuaded to change their minds based on the information presented here. There are some who will always believe she was "dirty" and others who think otherwise. If anyone has something new (factual, not anecdotal) to add to the mix, then let's hear it. Otherwise, let it go. Walt Murphy
Re: Re: t-and-f: flo-jo
You mean it's OK to railroad the world's fastest human (Canadian) out of the sport with a trumped up drug test (the only alleged drug positive in the entire Seoul Olympics) and give his medal to an American, but we have to leave poor Flo-Jo's (American) supernatural accomplishments alone because she's dead? That would certainly neatly take US Track and Field management out of the complicity loop wouldn't it? How about Attila the Hun? Maybe we should canonize him, too, while we're in a forgiving mood. Give me a break! Tony Craddock ___ 08:38 PM 9/4/00 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 9/4/0 8:26:46 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: < there is certainly reason to discuss it. How about a show of hands -- who is of the "let her rest in peace" mindset *and* feels she was on drugs? And who of those that choose to discuss it feel she was not on drugs? In other words, is the common sentiment that we should not discuss it just another defense mechanism against acknowledging the possibility? Dan>> How about a show of hands by those who feel that the Flo-Jo "issue" has been discussed enough on this list. Both sides have made their arguments many times over, and I'm sure very few people have been persuaded to change their minds based on the information presented here. There are some who will always believe she was "dirty" and others who think otherwise. If anyone has something new (factual, not anecdotal) to add to the mix, then let's hear it. Otherwise, let it go. Walt Murphy
Re: Re: t-and-f: flo-jo
I don't know. Which event did he compete in? Re: Flojo. I can't see either side swaying the other in this argument at this point barring a confession from Flojo (unlikely) or Al (possibly less likely). Steve S.
Re: Re: t-and-f: flo-jo
Re: Flojo. I can't see either side swaying the other in this argument at this point barring a confession from Flojo (unlikely) or Al (possibly less likely). Steve S. Speaking of Al Joyner, didn't I see that he had been named an assistant coach at UCLA? Don't recall any discussion regarding that particularly in light of recent litigation and the latest allegations regarding Florence. Keith Whitman Head Cross Country Coach Assistant Track & Field Coach University of Nebraska at Kearney Office (308) 865-8070 Home (308) 338-1115 http://www.lopers.com/xcountry/default.htm Fax # (308) 865-8187
t-and-f: Flo-Jo and the 10.49
FLO-JO AND THE LEGEND OF THE 10.49 The story so far: At the US final Olympic tryouts at Indianapolis in 1988 Florence Griffith Joiner lowered the world record for 100m from 10.76 to 10.49. Others in that and the next quarterfinal also turned in superfast times. The wind reading in both races was officially zero, compared with +5.0 in quarterfinal 3. Peter Huertzeler of the Omega crew was quoted by "Track and Field News" as saying he had thoroughly checked the "machinery" and found it was working correctly, but admitted he had never seen two consecutive zero readings before. Flo-Jo herself said she did not believe her 10.49. Bert Nelson in TFN agreed, and so have an increasing number of track statisticians in the ensuing years. Australian physicist Nick Linthorne has produced strong statistical arguments to support all the doubts but the IAAF still recognises the time. NOW READ ON. At the recent New Zealand schools championships there were not two successive zero readings, but five. Out of the 25 100m readings, in fact, over half (14) were zero. True, both days were unusually calm. But not calm enough, because out of 87 readings in all track races there were no others within 0.5 m/s of zero, in either direction. That is, they were always over +0.5, under -0.5, or zero. Twelve months earlier and 1000 km away, using a similar integrated setup and same brands of software, there were also five successive zeros on a day when, as at Indianapolis, winds were gusting over 5 m/s. A possible explanation of all these aberrations is that the anemometers were automatically resetting to zero before the real reading had been registered. Alternatively (or additionally) program errors may be affecting the resetting process. Such errors are the reason why virtually all digital timers are inaccurate in varying degrees, even timing an interval of one second. That would also help explain the following succession of readings at the earlier NZ meet: 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.8, 1.8, 1.8. Statistics of 13,000 wind readings over a period of 50 years suggest that even at NZ's least windy tracks the odds of having five genuine zeros would be over 800 million to 1 against. So any meet referee encountering more than an occasional zero would be wise to disconnect the anemometer and have it operated by an intelligent human. In a recent BBC documentary, researchers into "artificial intelligence" cheerfully admitted that programs can be so complex that no human being can properly understand them or predict how they will behave. (Some would say the same applies to a great deal of reach-me-down software!) And computers, of course, are no more infallible than the people who instruct them. Since it is now obvious that automatic equipment is prone to phony zeros, and that whether or not it is operating as intended is no guarantee of accuracy, the IAAF no longer has any reason not to remove Flo-Jo's 10.49 from the record book. More importantly, the designers of such equipment no longer have any reason to be satisfied with it, and would be well advised to institute reviews just in case somebody's algorithms have succumbed to his biorhythms. - "that horse's ass, P.N. from New Zealand" - M M Rohl
Re: t-and-f: flo-jo & the meaning of life
Fair enough. I just prefer people to be honest as to why they do or do not want to discuss things, regardless of what is actually being discussed... Heck, when we get right down to it, does anything we discuss on this list or do in life really matter? It's all a matter of opinion and/or philosophy, and it's all been discussed numerous times by others... Dan --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > In a message dated 9/4/0 8:26:46 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > < there is certainly reason to discuss it. How about a show of hands -- > who > is of the "let her rest in peace" mindset *and* feels she was on drugs? > And who of those that choose to discuss it feel she was not on drugs? > In > other words, is the common sentiment that we should not discuss it just > another defense mechanism against acknowledging the possibility? > > Dan>> > > How about a show of hands by those who feel that the Flo-Jo "issue" has > been > discussed enough on this list. Both sides have made their arguments many > times over, and I'm sure very few people have been persuaded to change > their minds based on the information presented here. There are some who > will always > believe she was "dirty" and others who think otherwise. If anyone has > something new (factual, not anecdotal) to add to the mix, then let's > hear it. Otherwise, let it go. > > Walt Murphy = http://AbleDesign.com - AbleDesign, Web Design that Can! http://Run-Down.com - 8,000 Running Links, Free Contests... @o Dan Kaplan <|\/ <^- [EMAIL PROTECTED] _/ \ \/\ [EMAIL PROTECTED] (lifetime forwarding address) / / (503)370-9969 home, (503)945-6622 work __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere! http://mail.yahoo.com/
