The wind said it, not me... Link to the study: web.archive.or... Link to contacting World Athletics: worldathletics... Big thanks to @metandyhill for providing some info as well!
If you share the same sentiment as I do, PLEASE consider sending a message to World Athletics regarding your concerns: worldathletics.org/about-iaaf/contact-us A link to the study is also in the description for you to send to them as well!
*Flo Jo didn't run 10.49 on Eugene's altitude and Haywards Field fast track, if she had on that day, that record would still be 10.49 or 10.35 - 10.37 with 2.0 wind. On the other hand, Elaine couldn't have run 10.54 on any other track in the U.S. especially the Indianapolis track that Flo Jo ran in near sea level in 1988, because of that, Elaine's time isn't as impressive either for those who know about the PB fast times at Haywards Field which Flo Jo' didn't have the benefit of either.* ALTITUDE AND TRACK ALSO MATTERS!
@@imo1933 Eugene is at 126m, that is not considered altitude (if anything, it's basically sea level) what on earth are you on about. Hayward field might have a faster(er) track in terms of the way it's built, but it's not at altitude if people are running 10000m world records there lmfao.
@@RunnerBoi *Haywards Fields is recognized as the fastest track in the world, that's why the U.S. holds it's Olympic and World Championship trials on that field because some athletes need qualifying times to compete and no there's no better field to achieve that than Haywards Field, and those PB's being produced at Haywards Fields are rarely achieved anywhere else.*
@@imo1933 Yeah and are tracks not allowed to improve over time? If you're gonna go down the route that you're going, then you might as well say that Jesse Owens holds the men's 100 world record because Usain Bolt, etc. ran their times on better tracks. No one's disputing that Eugene is a fast track, but it being so is a *good* thing, not a bad one. Also, do your research, as (stating what RunnerBoi has already said) Eugene is not at altitude, so that argument is completely invalid. Go cry.
@@AthleticsEditz *As a track fan, I don't put much stock into the times achieved on Haywards Field, not by Americans or other international athletes, therefore, I didn't go crazy over Noah Lyles 19.31 200m time or Shericka Jackson 21.43 200M or Elaine Thompson 10.54 100M time nor Sydney Mclaughlin 51.41 400M Hurdles world record, until I see those times achieved on other fields, those are more gifts from the track more than the real ability of the athletes.*
Forget the wind issue...she ran the 100m in around 11sec and the 200m in around 22sec all her career and suddenly during only 3 Months (June-July-August 1988) she ran all her incredible times, improving almost 5 tens of a second. Suddenly she retires after the announcement that there will be random doping tests in that sport, beginning 1989. Comeooooooon. Don't come with "she was never tested positive", neither were Marita Koch (GDR 400m WR) and Jarmila Kratochvilova (TCH 800m WR) and we all know they were juiced. It is not possible that FloJo wasn't juiced.
& let's not get started on the strength events like the women's Shot Put world record set in 1987 by a USSR athlete & the Olympic Record set in 1980 by a GDR athlete.
Wind and doping are entirely separate issues here. If there was indeed too much wind, then the record does not count. Period. If there are strong suspicions of doping... well, I'm afraid that's just not enough to cancel a record.
Any sprinter knows that it is very difficult to reduce their 100m time by just a couple tenths of a second because it is an average 11-12 seconds for a professional race for women. Flo Jo was an average “professional” sprinter who came in 3rd and 4th to great sprinters like Evelyn Ashford. In 1985 Flo Jo ran 100m in 11 seconds and sprinters like Evelyn would beat her by 3 to 4 strides.Speed is 85% “God given” and the rest is training,diet,coaching etc. During the 1988 Olympics Flo Jo suddenly can beat every top professional female sprinter by 3 to 4 strides at 10.49 seconds. She was definitely using high doses of testosterone and Human growth hormones but would wean off the drugs 4-6 months before each track event in order to pass the drug test at the race. Then the US track Association initiated “year round” random drug testing after the 1988 Olympics in 1989 and Flo Jo suddenly retired the same year. SMH
She changed her stride pattern to not waste energy, and that's when she started winning. I saw a whole documentary on that and how she used a computer program to figure it out. She started training just to set the record. As far as drugs, I can't say. When she started training differently, her body reflected that. Lord knows!
@@motherofthreeb6337 The “changes in her stride pattern” was the result of very high knee lifts(late in her career)which is one of the classic signs of a sprinter of taking PEDs(performance enhancing drugs). Again speed(less than 200m)is mostly God given(85%) the rest is training etc. She was obviously a drug cheat. SMH
If you're going to tell a story, AT LEAST tell an honest story! Flo-Jo's signature race was the 200m, not the 100m. Most 200m-400m sprinters tend to do exceptionally well when they drop down to the 100m. Usain Bolt, Fred Kerley, Elaine Thompson, Noah Lyles, Shericka Jackson, etc, have all done quite well in the 100m once they focused and trained specifically for that race. So it is no surprise that Flo-Jo would do exceptionally well, too, once she began to focus and train for that specific race. The thing you fail to mention (or even realize) is that Flo-Jo never took track and field seriously until 1987. She wasn't giving the sport her all because she had to focus on other things - particularly working several jobs in order to provide for herself and her family (if you were familiar with her story you would know this). And despite not training 100%, she was still placing within the top three in most of her races, which is a testament to her greatness. 1987 was when Flo-Jo dedicated herself and really began to train 100%. That was the difference! Nothing more, nothing less. And for you to say "she was definitely using high doses of testosterone" without ANY PROOF shows you're an empty-headed goofball. Either provide proof or zip it, Sherlock! 😅
@@lyrical20 Not correct. None of the professional sprinters you mentioned improved their 100m time by 0.51 seconds in one year. Again, the race is less than 12 seconds and is difficult for a professional sprinter to reduce their time by that much unless are taking PEDs. This is why anyone who was ever a sprinter knows that Flo Jo was a drug cheat.
@@daw7773 well said, except for one massive factor you ignored.....Genetic factors, THEY ARE ALL on PEDs including the white and chinese athletes that finish last in the 100m, for example. The "PED" argument for me is a weak and a borderline unscientific one, it makes the suggestion that the only difference between you and say, Usain Bolt is a 6-month cycle of Test, which is laughable!!! btw lol Nobody would use test for speed above say compounds like Stanozolol or Dianabol
No they don’t need to change it. They investigated it at the time and ratified the record. The starter said he waited until the wind dropped before firing the pistol and the reading was 0.0. That leaves no basis for overturning the record. The way she tore away from the pack was mind boggling and then she followed it up with a 10.61 the next day, just 0.12 slower which isn’t surprising given it was her third run in less than 24 hours. As for peds, she tested clean so no basis for record removal there either. You can speculate all you want but there is no hard evidence that would justify removing her record.
Im surprised no-one knows how this happened. Its really simple. The operator just didn't press the button to start it. I've seen this happen with my own eyes. And I've tested it myself to see what it looks like if you think you've done it but haven't. It shows you 0.0.
Very interesting I'd luv someone to find the person and ask about the 1st 2 rounds of the 100 but it's not likely 30 years later. This might just answer a 36 year old mystery.
@@michaelkidd7896My guess is a mistake like that gets taken to the grave. And of course they may literally have actually thought they did it. I'd also like to hear from people there that day in any capacity and ask them what the wind was during that ten seconds. I think we all know the answer 😅
@@thebigpicture2032 Yep absolutely possible. Whether he forgot or simply didn't start it properly, it's almost certain that the machine simply wasn't started rather than there being something wrong with the machine, especially since it worked perfectly for every other race before and after. What's quite hilarious is there is clear video footage of the wind gauge saying 0.0 and five metres behind it in the same shot thr triple jump wind gauge is +4.9 or something 😅. And also interestingly there's no operator in the shot, which would be really strange as they normally sit behind it to, well...operate it.
Some 1 in the comments section came to a conclusion that makes a lot of sense. That the wind gauge operator may have simply forgot to press the record botton. More telling are the video comments @ 11:56. Perhaps the operator had his/her focus elsewhere and only woke up from the slumber after the first 2 Quarter finals. Why else would the recordings be 0.00 on both those races..? It could have just been that, a simply unintended mistake.
@@Llesta Reminds me of a video I saw recently (I think about the 1956 Olympics) where a discuss thrower got really upset because the officials had not been watching the throw so could not measure it.
I’ve been saying for years, it is an absolute embarrassment that this record still exists. Elaine is the TRUE WR holder in my book. World athletics, DO THE RIGHT THING AND REMOVE THIS RECORD FROM THE BOOKS. the same should be said for those women’s 400m and 800m world records. In order for our sport to continue to gain legitimacy and respect, we must get rid of the obvious doping and/or the technical error records. Having a blatantly untouchable world record is unfair to athletes.
@@StGCfiLife Even if you deleted it, her 2nd best time would have remained the record until 2021. And there's certainly been no lack of excitement around Thompson-Herah, SAFP, Shericka Jackson & Sha'Carri Richardson.
The 100m is a bit of an outlier because it wasn't run under legitimate conditions. The real big travesty is the women's shot put. When a generational talent like Valerie Adams can't come anywhere close to it, how is it helping the sport to ignore the reason performances have changed.
For reference, here are her PBs from 1982 through 1988: Year 100 m 200 m 1982 11.12 22.39 1983 11.06 22.23 1984 10.99 22.04 1985 11.00 22.5 1986 11.42 23.51 1987 10.96 21.96 1988 10.49 21.34
It’s amazing the perk up and life enhancement, that human growth hormone and anabolic steroids give you when supervised by Consultant Endocrinologists.
It's simple. it was during the cold war and the USA wanted all the records away from the russians and the east germany. the wind read 0.0, in the interview after the race, the reporter asks flo-jo if she felt like the wind was zero. to which flo-jo replied, " Yes, the wind wasn't as strong as the first round'. Note, she said the wind wasnt AS STRONG. which confirms automatically that there WAS wind. Not only that, she adds by saying her coach told her to watch the men's triple jump and if their wind was down go for the world record. If that was true, the triple jump before her race read +4.3ms 😂 so she knew it was windy. And why would a coach tell their athlete to go all out in a QUATERFINAL when she can save energy and the best possible time for the finals? make it make sense.
"Wanted all the records away from the Russians and East Germany." That's cute. You'd be really hard pressed to find any East German records that are legitimate over multiple decades--in any sport, but especially track. I have no idea why the IOC lets the East German records stand. Dozens of athletes were so damaged by all the drugs they took -- especially the testosterone -- they underwent a sex change later, i.e., basically giving up the idea that they could return to passing as female. It's an incredibly sad story. Most of them had no choice. If they didn't agree, they'd be kicked off the team and their family would lose all the state-sponsored benefits they'd gained. So, in short, one shouldn't worry too much about stripping records from the East Germans.
So you think it came down from the Reagan administration and they somehow MAGICALLY knew it was going to be THAT windy, that DAY, that AFTERNOON, like it was ALL planned in advance, because it was SO CRUCIAL for us geo-politically to have those records? How many track meets have winds that high during a track meet?? 1 in 50? Less?
@ericzhou8980 no no no forget tailwind. The weather was not in flo-jo's control Why is there more videos on why flo-Jo's world record isn't legal, than how juiced up the women's 800m and 400m record holders are.
@@ericzhou8980he’s saying that off topic of the video but relating to it by saying those records also need to be removed because records like the women’s 400 and 800 were done when those olympians were juicing off their minds
Imagine Bolt running 9.63 and never coming near that result ever again...the dude ran 9.6-7 most of the time and wasn't even giving it his all hahahaha she was on something for sure...
@@antoninmorin4564 You sound very credulous and naive. If you think Koch and Flo Jo miraculously are better than every single female who followed them over the next 35+years despite the huge advances in training, recovery, nutrition and footwear...then I cant help you. Weird how all the 1980s male records have been obliterated huh? Its just the womens 100-800m records that ALL stand. They ALL doped. Everyone in track knows this.
In that quarterfinal one wold expect the wind to help all of the athletes similarly. While many had PBs the Flo Jo's margin of victory was huge. Her improvemnt over her times earlier in the season was about 0.3 sec, a huge amount in the 100m. I think it most likely that she was on PEDs and also aided by the wind to reach that world record. Kersey was her coach and he is still coaching world class athletes.
You can see the guy in green with a white hat at the end of the race has his t-shirt flapping due to the wind.. Anyway, I still have to find a single person, even remotely aware of the facts, that believes Flo-Jo's 100m record it's legitimate. And most likely I will never meet one, because I live across the world from her family and friends.
Just as family and friends and fans can be biased towards their own, if you are about fairness and truth, you gotta factor in any bias of envy from those who are not her fans. ( Not saying if her record is bunk or not, just adding in to what you are implying here. )
I think it's legit. She dominated at the Olympics that year also. She ran with regular shoes instead of the springs the use now. Now you can remove your comment
Her husband is unlikely to believe it's legitimate, I heard a commentator around that time point out he left his sport due to ped suspicions......and then became her trainer.
How so? She didn’t run that time until after the Covid year shut down testing… Same with Shelley Ann setting a personal record after not being tested for a whole year.
The world 100 m and 200 m belongs to Florence Griffith Joyner aka flo Joe’s so dirty mind fool fool foolishness people sometimes you have some people that is gifted by JAH YOU ALL hatters keep chasing flo Joe’s you dirty mind dumb people and women of track and field that is hating on flo Joe’s that is why you all will never get that record you know why because you all is carrying a dirty mind on for Florence Griffith Joyner aka flo Joe’s every time big track and field time come around you all start to disrespecting Florence Griffith Joyner aka flo Joe’s keep on hating you all still chasing and she is resting in peace with JAH IN MOUNT ZION ware you foolish people will never go
Love how you present the case. But when saying to dismiss “doping”, all of your “preserve the records” appeals goes out the window. Which is probably why this is an exercise in futility. Change the record because the preponderance of evidence suggests there was wind, but ignore the pervasiveness of performance enhancing drug usage??? Good video though
He's very fair. He doesn't address the intense allegations about FloJo juicing. It seems impossible that that was not so, but you would have to show why that is true.
@@felixumukoro4119 The Eastern Europeans still have some of those sketchy records in 400m and 800m where it's blatant that those competitors were juicing so I don't see why not.
It's all political wars and who can get away with what. Many British athletes stated their urine tests were collected whilst Americans threw theirs in the trash RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE OTHERS, not even trying to hide the political bias. It was described as a terribly kept secret within the community but wrong to share outside for fear of looking like a sore loser. Watch which athletes praise others......they know. Some Brits did cheat too, not sure many got away with it. I think some learned to quit whilst ahead, one in particular quit fairly early at a peak, after going through a massive physiological "change". Different sport but the only reason Armstrong got busted was because the US Postal service sponsored the team which made it a federal crime. (Could be wrong there if any experts read this?)
@@MR12AMAZING I think the "Super Big Countries" with money are the only ones that can get away with such thing IF they want to. Small countries would not get away with having those ratified..
Someone mentioned her second best time wouldve been a record until 2021. That was all during the same span of about 30 days. You mean to tell me that a woman whose best time entering the 88 season was 10.98, all of a sudden run almost a half second faster than she's ever run before ? And then retire after that season. Just as they were introducing random drug testing ? STOP IT ! And besides the drugs, which is probably what killed her, the wind readings were either manipulated or ignored. The gauge read 0.0. although it was clearly and visibly moving. Lastly, there were at least a half dozen runners who ran their best ever time, some by as much as 3 to 4 tenths of a second, never to be repeated again. Us track folks know that this kind of stuff is not possible under normal conditions. So by that logic, i guess ETH should be the WR holder in the 100m. Strike Marita Kochs record in the 400m as well. That was just criminal. Me and many other track enthusiasts said as much WHEN it happened 36 yrs. ago. In T & F on THAT level, you don't improve that much in a few months, crushing who were the best in the world at the time.
I adored Flo Jo, but I never thought the 10.49 was legitimate. There were a number of things happening in the 80's era of track that were questionable. Out of respect for fans of certain athletes, I'll leave that alone. Having said that, Elaine is the rightful owner of the record in my opinion.
LOL any true track fan worth their salt knows very well that that "record" is a farce. Even athletes know this but they know they can't speak up because that would literally be going against their employer. Flo-Jo is an absolute legend with a technique that is only matched by a fit ETH, but as much as i love what she did on the track, reality must be faced. I will not be contacting world athletics because i simply adore Flo-Jo too much lol. Still doesn't mean that we have to ignore the FACT that her best time was indeed 10.61.
Can we adore our athletes WHILE expecting accuracy and integrity as well, or are we enabling cheating and/or inaccuracy to rule the day? Maybe it's not about "winning fair and square", but entertainment and that's all it is.
It was the wind definitely. Other athletes set personal best times in that heat and never ran that fast again. I looked up their individual professional profiles.
I was going to write the same. If there was wind (which I believe there was), it would impact all the runners. Flo-Jo finished almost 5 meters ahead of the closest runner; which roughly equates to 0.5 secs. Wind may aided her (as well as the others) but there must be something else. It could be her technique, drugs, both, or whatever but we will never know...
In that race she ran maybe the most beautiful technical race of all time! However, the wind gauge was clearly faulty. I mean it spinning so fast if you put your finger in there it would have cut it off!😳
Fascinating. Didnt know there was a controversy. What this video is missing are reports of female runner times in events where the racers had a 3+ m/s tailwind.
This is not even the most questionable world record in women's sprinting. The fact that Marita Koch still holds the record in the women's 400 is an absolute travesty. And that's WITH proof that she was using PEDs.
The difference is that there isn't a question about Koch actually running that time. The 100m record clearly didn't have a valid wind reading. Anyone with a brain can look at the evidence and see that it was wind aided, it's obvious without even going into it very far.
@@HamishGarland Well FloJo also "actually ran that time". I'm not sure your complaint makes a lick of sense. There is a ton of speculation about the 100 record which I generally think is credible. The 400 though? We have the records of the doping program, doses, drugs, and when they were administered. We KNOW she was cheating. We don't KNOW how fast the wind was blowing for the 100 record. I stand by my statement: the womens 400 is the most questionable world record in womens track and field.
Does anyone know what flojo's time would have been if we simply adjusted the wind from +4.3m/s (hypothesized from the triple jump times addressed earlier) down to +2.0m/s?
@KorZen10 *These Are The Accepted Effect Of Various Wind Speeds By The International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) On A 100m Time Of 10.00 s.* *With a +1 wind you're adding 0.06 to her 100M time of 10.49 which equals 10.55* *With a +2 wind you're adding 0.10 to her 100M time of 10.49 which equals 10.59* *With a +3 wind you're adding 0.14 to her 100M time of 10.49 which equals 10.63* *With a +4 wind you're adding 0.18 to her 100M time of 10.49 which equals 10.67* *With a +5 wind you're adding 0.21 to her 100M time of 10.49 which equals 10.70* *Any wind aided time between +1 to +3 is still a fast time today considering the track Flo Jo ran in 1988 and we're not even considering the shoes they're using today.*
@@jaredbowen3527 The wind was likely ABOVE +4ms, so adjusting to 2ms max wind she should have recorded between 10.59s to 10.63s, average say 10.61s which was her actual real PB. 10.49s is absolutely out of the question.
I've studied this for over 25yrs. There's are as many videos/studies addressing this. However, one fact remains. Once a record is ratified, it's ratified. Retrospective changes would need to be made to over 647 disputed results and records. How many soccer matches (before electronic referees) had disallowed goals, that afterwards were seen to be valid by playing back the video? Same for tennis. The record shouldn't have been ratified, but what's done is done. Her record has galvanised runners.
"One of the few records from the 80s that still stands"... umm, actually the women's 100m, 200m, 400m and 800m world records were all set in the 1980s and they all still stand.
This is interesting but not new. The IAAF commissioned an investigation in 1995 and from the investigation, it was estimated that the wind reading was between+5.0 and +7.0 for that race which is way over legal limits. And so a footnote was put beside the time with a reference to the investigation. So it is well known. A simple google check of Flo Jo and you will see the footnote beside the time. The bigger questions are if the IAAF knows this from 1995, why let the record stand? Why have a record with a footnote beside it? If this was not USA, would USATF sit by and allow the record to stand? But I am hopeful that the new generation of Sprinters are motivated rather than hindered by this record.
Maybe it's a generic cap on all track and field events, because if for example you did a 400m+ race, there would be one leg where you're in headwind and one in tailwind. Momentary fluctuations in the wind could give you an illegal boost.
@@ARCANEmateCLAN I'm not sure why it exists, but this rule is for 100m, 200m, Long Jump and Triple Jump. I don't know what the rules are for wind in 400m+.
The progression of world athletics records publication from WA has for years noted alongside this record the +4.3 wind speed in the triple jump just before the race, the wind blowing across the track explanation by Omega, the possible incorrect alignment of the gauge, the possible warm up problem of the gauge etc. The 2024 publication which has just been released includes a further note stating "subsequently the gauge was removed by the IAAF Technical Committee from the list of approved anemometers after clinical tests were carried out supporting the “warm up” problem."
This race had a strong field -- but no one other than FloJo ran an especially good time, and FloJo won by many yards in a race that is typically decided by hundredths of a second. That is hard to reconcile with a strong wind-aided time.
@@mblunt00 What exactly does that have to do with anything?! The man said she NEVER tested positive for anything and that's the truth! And she was the most tested sprinter during during the Olympics.
@@kandiekane. Marion Jones' situation has NOTHING to do with Flo-Jo. Flo-Jo was tested thoroughly throughout her career and NEVER failed a drug test. Period! What happened to Marion Jones is her business.
@RunnerBoi Never knew the story behind her WR, or ever thought it would be so interesting. Thank you for the video and the information. Your arguments are compelling. No way zero wind without no wind at all. No way two winds negating wind exactly. No way a qualifying heat negating the curve. No way every athlete performing better all together. No way parallel jumping the same time with racing the wind is at only one place. You convinced me 100%. Thanks!
Have been aware for a while, but am thankful for the call to action. Just sent them (World Athletics) this: Flo-Jo's 100m WR was very clearly wind-aided, and should be annulled. If you do even fairly minimal statistic modelling, you see this, and the more you consider alternative explanations, the more you realise that they do not hold water. The most likely reason (assuming no conspiracies) is an electrical problem, particularly some sort of cable connectivity issue with the anemometer. It's shocking and awful that the record was ever ratified, but the much worse thing is that we continue to pretend to believe this absolutely absurd nonsense. For past 35 years female sprinters have suffered the consequences of competing against an impossibility that never really happened. Do your duty, and make sure that future women don't suffer the same.
@user-sy4vw1vb2g All great runners fizzle out eventually. Thompson-Herah set her 10.54 legitimately, regardless of what she's doing this year, and it is more legit than that fake record from FLO-JOKE.
@@evilsimeon well, the video does a good effort to prove that the wind direction was not as stated. And then for 100 m and 200 m she set comfortably the biggest record improvement there’s ever been and ran faster in both by half a second, than she ever did before - for one season - which again is unheard of, and then she immediately retired! Purely in terms of biomechanics that’s virtually impossible to improve that much out of nowhere in one go over one season.. Yes, she passed every drigs test as most athletes did back them and was subsequently found to have cheated later as testing regimes got better- but as I said, she retired so was never tested again. If that’s not enough for you to have any suspicion then that’s on you.
Crazy thing about The late Great Flo Jo is that She was Holding back.Imagine if She had Fully let go.Mann! She would have really set a Miraculous precedent.
Original commentary at the time suggest before the race that it will be the fastest run ever but wind aided. At the end of the race both commentators instantly dispute the wind gauge 0.0 reading! You can see the official at 14:51 onwards white flag blowing hard just as they start too!
@RJ12347 To be honest I don't trust any of them I cludung all of today's athletes.The female American 🇺🇸 400m hurdler seems real suss.She takes 6m9nths off each year from races then comes back like Ivan Drago from Rocky from Rocky.
Marita Koch was a constant runner at high level for 10 years or so, Flo Jo came out of nowhere just in one year, 1988 she crashed all records with a smile on her face even without the final meters of the races.
If 400m is suspicious, Flo Jo's records must also be suspicious too. This video is not about the PEDs, but about the wind. From that POV, 400m and 800m are legal.
I agree with the egregious mistake with Flo Jo’s 100m recorded. Elaine Thompson should be the world record holder. All things being even with all people being on the sauce. Good video.
I think there’s more to this story Though I think the wind might be a large factor. But the fact remains there’s a massive problem in your logic and is why they had to ratify that you’re objectively incorrect to ignore: if you can’t find the fault with the reading, simply calling it “strange” and not ratifying is highly problematic and legally not sustainable. The every fact that meteorologically it’s possible to have gusting, shifty wind that can confuse instruments then be something different or atleast appear different 100m later is why it’s inappropriate to say this is wrong to ratify. It would be irresponsible to just flat out say this is ridiculous to ratify. Bc you can’t ACTUALLY say the reading is wrong. It’s strange, but that’s not proof it’s wrong. There’s quite a few holes in your argument that interestingly I think it more open minded, you might have been able to close off while telling this story. But rewatching this knowing you missed this stuff imo changes how one thinks of this time. Ultimately, this was IMO a wind aided time but I wouldn’t say too far over the limit given her performances that uniquely aligned to alleged enhanced performance of a particular cycle at that time to which IMO was hard to ignore. If it’s deleted, it’s not bc of wind. BUT it should stand as the instruments were investigated and if anything this was a problem that wasn’t an error and more so a product of difficulty measuring information in particular gusty conditions . Meaning this would have happened 10/10 regardless of the instrument. For that reason you must ratify. You can’t rely on the technology every time but once then simply ignore the weird one. You have to problem the error then solve for it but there was no major flaw in the technology at the time that could be determined. For instance, was the immaculate reception a catch? IMO hell no, the angle simply doesn’t seem possible. Franco Harris’ hands simply couldn’t be under the ball given his body position. but lack of video evidence showing the angle needed can disprove that. Shall we say that no longer counts in the moment bc it looks weird? Nope. We use the data we have and trust. Bc that’s what we have . Until we can prove otherwise which you haven’t here and can’t be done . The other factors below tilt the story back to the more “credible” as you’ve made things sound impossible that actually aren’t. For starters, 4:39 did you actually look this up though? Bc Devers is not correct for instance. And it was really early in his career. It was her PB but there’s also some element of this was the biggest stage of some of their careers. Same with Echols. Hers I agree is more problematic but she ran 10.9 a year before this was early in her career with no win recorded and a day after this PB you mention she broke 11 with a legal wind then 11 flat in the final. Diane williams ran 10.9 a year prior with a wind aided 2.3. She ran a 10.94 with a 0.6 legal aid years before. My point is, those are very doable. Out of context atleast. That’s step 1 bc youve framed them as if they aren’t. That’s not true but we should level set this stuff BEFORE diving in. Otherwise you’re at risk of confirmation bias. Additionally, you compare the quarters to heats in terms of wind and that’s entirely out. That’s a red herring. Heats were at 1310; quarters at 1545. WAYY too much time between. Adding to that, I’ve run at IUPUI before - the winds do whip at times like they do at the chute in Eugene down the stretch. For instance on the men’s side at the 88 trials, the wind went from heat 1-4 as such: +3.1 +2.0 -0.6 +1.9 We only say 0.0 is strange bc it’s literally NO wind but don’t forget it’s 1988 and while tech has advanced there were still things hard to read. A cross wind was aknowledged on the broadcast before the race. It’s famously hard to read crossing winds. If you get shifty winds at the start of the race, it may not be the same wind at the end of the straight. For Indianapolis that’s truly not insane. And Anecdotally, I can say from personal experience it’s not true to suggest you don’t set PBs in qualifiers or heats early. That’s uniquely untrue. In fact it’s very common. You’re most relaxed and in flow state so when alone if you have lane 4, you can drive your knees and not think. I ran a 10.3 then false started the Big East final haha I means it’s funny now but wasn’t back then. Even FloJo at Seoul set 3 Olympic records in the build up to her gold medal that same year. Moreover, speaking of the games there were not one but TWO readings of 0.0 in the string of many heats back to back. So to say it’s odd to have 0.0 readings is again not in good faith bc it’s not. It’s strange to have wind of 0.0 as well as +4 within 20 minutes. But not impossible.
Please send me literature that suggests that "swirling winds" can cause 0.00 readings. Hell, even find me a case where a crosswind has produced a 0.00 reading on an anemometer in any fashion. And if you think it's a crosswind, a 91 degrees reading would not have posted an exact 0.00m/s reading on *two separate occasions*, because that's not perfectly perpendicular to the track. I'm aware that athletes run differently in various rounds of a championship event, but the paper does use biomechanical analysis to adjust accordingly when plotting their points on the "expected performance" curve; something I clarified to prevent this very comment. Furthermore, PED's are not relevant at all here. It was 1988; the entire world was on very robust and in some cases, life-threatening doping protocols to where the level field was even-ish anyways (the women's shot/disc were doping beyond doping but that's a different story on its own). This was remedied slightly after stricter testing came into play, but obviously designer compounds and smarter dosages became the standard very quickly after. I disagree that we just have to trust the people behind the timing equipment in this particular instance when they've gone on record making shit up about this record (e.g. the swirling winds theory that for some ungodly reason people subscribe to) The idea of a crosswind happening in back-to-back heats also has to be discounted too because the triple jump right next to the track recorded exclusively tailwinds for every single solitary jump. In essence, you're effectively arguing a miracle beyond a miracle that would also signify these miracle winds allowed runners to run the best times in the world in such a superficial stage of the trials (for some at least). Because remember, this was two heats *in a row* this happened, not just one isolated instance, which is what so many people forget that make this infinitely less likely. The odds of that happening while another event parallel to it was recording exclusively tailwinds is effectively impossible. The sport is not new to equipment malfunctions or shaky rules, and it's especially not new to not properly answering to said concerns when it's not convenient for them to do so. Sure, empirically, it can't be proved that the wind gauge messed up, but statistically speaking, it overwhelmingly favors that the record was not investigated and ratified properly, and you can even find newspaper articles of the record very quickly getting ratified with almost no proper diagnosis or second-thoughts about it.
Wow, someone saw what he wanted to see in the video. He never "simply" called it strange. He went to great lengths to not only show how the 0.0 reading has negligible probability, but that it is demonstrably untrue given the triple jump that was running simultaneously. He also didn't say that no one sets PRs in heats - only that it's uncommon to go all out when you have the victory. Any track runner (including me) will confirm that. The real thing here is that none of these arguments ALONE are slam dunks. It's when you put them all together that it becomes pretty irrefutable. You are picking them apart (and in some cases misinterpreting them) in an effort to cast them as straw men. Swing and a miss, though....
It's the record period. No body was close to her and only a very few have been close to her since. Everyone else was running in the same wind and look how far behind they are and she is dragging a lot of hair behind her too. Just like Bolt she is the greatest in my opinion.
Sir, this is not true. Elaine's time of 10.54 had a wind reading of +0.9. This is not "blatantly wind-aided" as you are indicating. I do not know why ppl just "blatantly" state things that are not true or facts when these things can be easily checked to suit their argument. Come on man, do better. Have a blessed day.
@@n.kcooper530 We know Flo-Jo’s 10.49 was BLATANTLY wind aided because we could see the evidence of it all around by just using our eyes! Yet the wind reading was officially 0.0m/s. It’s the same with Elaine Thompson’s 10.54 run. Watch the race and see the evidence of the swirling wind at Hayward field - it’s obvious!
@@n.kcooper530 Watch the race again. There is clear evidence of the swirling, very strong wind. The 0.9m/s doesn’t match up with what we see with our eyes!!!
Most Def. A coach who was in Indy told me as much. The winds were off the chain and no way was there any wind legal race that day. He told me that ETH is the true WRH.
This is circumstantial cause you don’t know what the windspeed was. It may have been 5mph or 0 mph, and without knowing this you have no case. If you look at here gap a 10.49 wind aided… then you would have to say the rest of the field did a 10.8 or so wind aided which they would probably do without wind. You want us to believe in the finals the top qualifiers in the field all had a really bad almost 11sec time (was upper 10’s cause of wind)?
Why would there be any limit for counting a WR if there is a head wind which makes the race more difficult? If you can set a record with a head wind then you obviously would have set it with no wind.
Furthermore, you notice how the naysayers NEVER question Flo-Jo's 200m record? Why? Because there was no controversy regarding the wind. It was a clean race and Flo-Jo STILL dominated the field and set a new world record that's still untouchable to this day. If a sprinter can set a new world record in the 200m, then common sense should tell you that they can set one in the 100m, too, as the 100m is the easier race of the two! Flo-Jo was simply the greatest female sprinter ever and that's something a lot of people have a hard time accepting! Stop trying to diminish that great woman!
I mean...she "retired" just when more stringent drug testing was set to start in 1989. There's alot of reasons to be suspicious. Furthermore, it was the 80's. The worst decade for drug use in the sport's history.
Russia,East German and everyone else was juicing in the 80's.Flo Jo record stands.We all know she was on the juice.But so was everyone else.They juice now, with more sophisticated masking.Nothing new.Marion Jones got thrown under the bus 🚌.
@@danielainger And 7 of the 8 runners in the men's 100m (Johnson's race) turned out to have been dirty at one time or another, including Carl Lewis and Linford Christie who got to keep their Olympic titles.
There 's no way where Flo Jo could be faster than Elaine Thompson Herah, i'm not blaming Flo Jo for at that point in time she was the best but i'm blaming the person's that were responsible for the correct time and for one reason or another the messed it up for generation's i believe that people are still alive who were a part of the system who know's that the record is wrong but because of one thing or another they've refused to come forth.
21.34 and 10.49 we’re both set in 1988. Both have been untouchable for over 30 years! if you question the 100 why not the 200? And she still the only female to hold two world records at the same time! If letters haven’t mattered yet, don’t waste your time now! Sorry, dude only a faster woman will change it!!
You may be right (and probably are), although we’ll never know for sure, but I find it odd that people never seem to mention her 200M record that seems in line with this 100M record and is, so far, untouchable. Given her 200M time and her lead at the end of this 100M race, I’m not so sure 10.49 is impossible. And the standard for deleting a record should not be 51% “preponderance of the evidence” unlikely, it should be something equivalent to “beyond a reasonable doubt” after both sides are adequately argued. ❤️✌🏻✌🏻❤️
Thank you. It was her 200m splits that made her husband realize she could win the 100m at the next Olympics. The "juice" allegation are even more pathetic when she was competing against entire COUNTRIES that had state-sponsored testosterone therapy for their female athletes, and the effects were quite visible.
I can agree with your final sentiment, although I still would err on the side of the data concluding it's "beyond a reasonable" doubt. There's an article where just about everyone involved with the timing metrics gave their statement/testimonies about the legitimacy of the record, and they were either superficial, or at worst, baseless theories with no promising data (And if there is any, it's counteracted pretty easily)
If all eight women in the same heat had very fast time, I will agree FLO JO had a wind assisted time. However, if other seven women in the same heat didn't all have faster time, I have to say the incredible time was not due to wind assist. It was due to FLO JO's super human capability.
Excellent, EXCELLENT analysis. Now I can stop acknowledging that ridiculous "record" because I knew it was tainted: either by juicing or....now...by this new information. The fastest woman in the world comes from Jamaica. And her name is Elaine Thompson-Herah..
She's the GOAT of female sprinters. Her record stands! Whats next, trying to diminish MJs accomplishments? Babe Ruth's homeruns? Mike Tyson's 80s domination? New generation thinks that all of the worlds greatest athletes are now? We didn't evolve dummies. We invented drugs to help. Bo Jackson still has the fastest 40 time almost 40 years ago. This new generation trying so hard to diminish the past and build up the current. Try harder! Btw, those same drugs helped Barry Bonds hit more homeruns! And to the nerd saying Flo Jo did cycles and then got off 4 to 6 months before events....the same can be said for every sprinter in the last 30 years...including Bolt
To completely discount PEDs is ridiculous. Both Bolt’s and Flojo’s WRs are unreachable because they used PEDs, likely HGH, in a manner that would not show up on testing
Listen, the great, fine and super-talented Flo Jo was moving. That is the simple truth. You can see it in her run. What most likely happened is that she did not fully "step on the gas" during the preliminary rounds. She saved a lot of her energy for the gold.
In athletics officials are volunteers, literally anyone with money to get on courses(which are really easy to pass btw) can become an official and local meets literally pull upon random people from the clubs including parents sometimes, and we are talking about the 80s here. So yeah, probably wouldn't be unusual to find someone who isn't the brightest officiating an event, even a high standard one like olympics or worlds lol.
Absolutely. I wrote about that earlier in this thread. Someone also pointed out the women's 400m as well and they're right. Both runners were straight up science experiments.
This 100m record is base upon corruption in the sport, if she was from another country that record wouldn't stand, flo jo is the sprinter in history who didn't defend ur Olympic title, all because drug testing was introduce the following year, an she retired at age 26, who does that, then she died 19mounts after
If you share the same sentiment as I do, PLEASE consider sending a message to World Athletics regarding your concerns: worldathletics.org/about-iaaf/contact-us
A link to the study is also in the description for you to send to them as well!
*Flo Jo didn't run 10.49 on Eugene's altitude and Haywards Field fast track, if she had on that day, that record would still be 10.49 or 10.35 - 10.37 with 2.0 wind. On the other hand, Elaine couldn't have run 10.54 on any other track in the U.S. especially the Indianapolis track that Flo Jo ran in near sea level in 1988, because of that, Elaine's time isn't as impressive either for those who know about the PB fast times at Haywards Field which Flo Jo' didn't have the benefit of either.* ALTITUDE AND TRACK ALSO MATTERS!
@@imo1933 Eugene is at 126m, that is not considered altitude (if anything, it's basically sea level) what on earth are you on about. Hayward field might have a faster(er) track in terms of the way it's built, but it's not at altitude if people are running 10000m world records there lmfao.
@@RunnerBoi
*Haywards Fields is recognized as the fastest track in the world, that's why the U.S. holds it's Olympic and World Championship trials on that field because some athletes need qualifying times to compete and no there's no better field to achieve that than Haywards Field, and those PB's being produced at Haywards Fields are rarely achieved anywhere else.*
@@imo1933 Yeah and are tracks not allowed to improve over time? If you're gonna go down the route that you're going, then you might as well say that Jesse Owens holds the men's 100 world record because Usain Bolt, etc. ran their times on better tracks. No one's disputing that Eugene is a fast track, but it being so is a *good* thing, not a bad one. Also, do your research, as (stating what RunnerBoi has already said) Eugene is not at altitude, so that argument is completely invalid. Go cry.
@@AthleticsEditz
*As a track fan, I don't put much stock into the times achieved on Haywards Field, not by Americans or other international athletes, therefore, I didn't go crazy over Noah Lyles 19.31 200m time or Shericka Jackson 21.43 200M or Elaine Thompson 10.54 100M time nor Sydney Mclaughlin 51.41 400M Hurdles world record, until I see those times achieved on other fields, those are more gifts from the track more than the real ability of the athletes.*
Forget the wind issue...she ran the 100m in around 11sec and the 200m in around 22sec all her career and suddenly during only 3 Months (June-July-August 1988) she ran all her incredible times, improving almost 5 tens of a second. Suddenly she retires after the announcement that there will be random doping tests in that sport, beginning 1989. Comeooooooon. Don't come with "she was never tested positive", neither were Marita Koch (GDR 400m WR) and Jarmila Kratochvilova (TCH 800m WR) and we all know they were juiced. It is not possible that FloJo wasn't juiced.
Yes totally agree.
Facts.
In Dubio Pro Reo, like it or not😅
& let's not get started on the strength events like the women's Shot Put world record set in 1987 by a USSR athlete & the Olympic Record set in 1980 by a GDR athlete.
Wind and doping are entirely separate issues here.
If there was indeed too much wind, then the record does not count. Period.
If there are strong suspicions of doping... well, I'm afraid that's just not enough to cancel a record.
Any sprinter knows that it is very difficult to reduce their 100m time by just a couple tenths of a second because it is an average 11-12 seconds for a professional race for women. Flo Jo was an average “professional” sprinter who came in 3rd and 4th to great sprinters like Evelyn Ashford. In 1985 Flo Jo ran 100m in 11 seconds and sprinters like Evelyn would beat her by 3 to 4 strides.Speed is 85% “God given” and the rest is training,diet,coaching etc. During the 1988 Olympics Flo Jo suddenly can beat every top professional female sprinter by 3 to 4 strides at 10.49 seconds. She was definitely using high doses of testosterone and Human growth hormones but would wean off the drugs 4-6 months before each track event in order to pass the drug test at the race. Then the US track Association initiated “year round” random drug testing after the 1988 Olympics in 1989 and Flo Jo suddenly retired the same year. SMH
She changed her stride pattern to not waste energy, and that's when she started winning. I saw a whole documentary on that and how she used a computer program to figure it out. She started training just to set the record. As far as drugs, I can't say. When she started training differently, her body reflected that. Lord knows!
@@motherofthreeb6337
The “changes in her stride pattern” was the result of very high knee lifts(late in her career)which is one of the classic signs of a sprinter of taking PEDs(performance enhancing drugs). Again speed(less than 200m)is mostly God given(85%) the rest is training etc. She was obviously a drug cheat. SMH
If you're going to tell a story, AT LEAST tell an honest story! Flo-Jo's signature race was the 200m, not the 100m. Most 200m-400m sprinters tend to do exceptionally well when they drop down to the 100m. Usain Bolt, Fred Kerley, Elaine Thompson, Noah Lyles, Shericka Jackson, etc, have all done quite well in the 100m once they focused and trained specifically for that race. So it is no surprise that Flo-Jo would do exceptionally well, too, once she began to focus and train for that specific race.
The thing you fail to mention (or even realize) is that Flo-Jo never took track and field seriously until 1987. She wasn't giving the sport her all because she had to focus on other things - particularly working several jobs in order to provide for herself and her family (if you were familiar with her story you would know this). And despite not training 100%, she was still placing within the top three in most of her races, which is a testament to her greatness. 1987 was when Flo-Jo dedicated herself and really began to train 100%. That was the difference! Nothing more, nothing less.
And for you to say "she was definitely using high doses of testosterone" without ANY PROOF shows you're an empty-headed goofball. Either provide proof or zip it, Sherlock! 😅
@@lyrical20 Not correct. None of the professional sprinters you mentioned improved their 100m time by 0.51 seconds in one year. Again, the race is less than 12 seconds and is difficult for a professional sprinter to reduce their time by that much unless are taking PEDs. This is why anyone who was ever a sprinter knows that Flo Jo was a drug cheat.
@@daw7773 well said, except for one massive factor you ignored.....Genetic factors, THEY ARE ALL on PEDs including the white and chinese athletes that finish last in the 100m, for example. The "PED" argument for me is a weak and a borderline unscientific one, it makes the suggestion that the only difference between you and say, Usain Bolt is a 6-month cycle of Test, which is laughable!!! btw lol Nobody would use test for speed above say compounds like Stanozolol or Dianabol
Bro, I didn't realize this was a controversy until now, and the data right there. World athletics needs to change this NOW!
It isn't controversial except from those that prefer someone else
@@derekhough-jm9gc a minority considers her clean.
Her record won't be erased though.
Its been controversial for years. Between the wind gauges and the likely ped use, Flo Jo's record has been suspect for years.
@@anthonyanderson9303 Indeed.
No they don’t need to change it. They investigated it at the time and ratified the record. The starter said he waited until the wind dropped before firing the pistol and the reading was 0.0. That leaves no basis for overturning the record. The way she tore away from the pack was mind boggling and then she followed it up with a 10.61 the next day, just 0.12 slower which isn’t surprising given it was her third run in less than 24 hours.
As for peds, she tested clean so no basis for record removal there either. You can speculate all you want but there is no hard evidence that would justify removing her record.
Im surprised no-one knows how this happened. Its really simple. The operator just didn't press the button to start it. I've seen this happen with my own eyes. And I've tested it myself to see what it looks like if you think you've done it but haven't. It shows you 0.0.
Very interesting I'd luv someone to find the person and ask about the 1st 2 rounds of the 100 but it's not likely 30 years later. This might just answer a 36 year old mystery.
@@michaelkidd7896My guess is a mistake like that gets taken to the grave. And of course they may literally have actually thought they did it. I'd also like to hear from people there that day in any capacity and ask them what the wind was during that ten seconds. I think we all know the answer 😅
Well I guess he forgot two races in a row
@@thebigpicture2032 Yep absolutely possible. Whether he forgot or simply didn't start it properly, it's almost certain that the machine simply wasn't started rather than there being something wrong with the machine, especially since it worked perfectly for every other race before and after. What's quite hilarious is there is clear video footage of the wind gauge saying 0.0 and five metres behind it in the same shot thr triple jump wind gauge is +4.9 or something 😅. And also interestingly there's no operator in the shot, which would be really strange as they normally sit behind it to, well...operate it.
Maybe Al Joyner snuck over from the TJ and turned it off?
did no one in this comment section actually watch the video before commenting??
Only a couple of people commenting did.
Some 1 in the comments section came to a conclusion that makes a lot of sense. That the wind gauge operator may have simply forgot to press the record botton. More telling are the video comments @ 11:56. Perhaps the operator had his/her focus elsewhere and only woke up from the slumber after the first 2 Quarter finals. Why else would the recordings be 0.00 on both those races..? It could have just been that, a simply unintended mistake.
@@Llesta Yes, of course. Unfortunately, there is no evidence as to what happened to cause the wind gauge to show 0.00.
I was there on the day. The wind was blowing strongly in the direction from start line to finish line.
@@Llesta Reminds me of a video I saw recently (I think about the 1956 Olympics) where a discuss thrower got really upset because the officials had not been watching the throw so could not measure it.
I’ve been saying for years, it is an absolute embarrassment that this record still exists. Elaine is the TRUE WR holder in my book. World athletics, DO THE RIGHT THING AND REMOVE THIS RECORD FROM THE BOOKS.
the same should be said for those women’s 400m and 800m world records. In order for our sport to continue to gain legitimacy and respect, we must get rid of the obvious doping and/or the technical error records. Having a blatantly untouchable world record is unfair to athletes.
Indeed. It killed the excitement potential of the W 100m event. Travesty.
Just because flo jo was black
..
@@StGCfiLife Even if you deleted it, her 2nd best time would have remained the record until 2021. And there's certainly been no lack of excitement around Thompson-Herah, SAFP, Shericka Jackson & Sha'Carri Richardson.
@@mnqobimzelemu The 2nd all time is black too your argument doesn't make any sense
Your an embarrassment along with this channel....Def unsubscribing
Heartbreaking that some of these female records from the 80s still stand...100m, 200m, 400m, 800m
One day, I hope to see at least one of these records fall, the "easiest" is the 200m imo
The 100m is a bit of an outlier because it wasn't run under legitimate conditions.
The real big travesty is the women's shot put. When a generational talent like Valerie Adams can't come anywhere close to it, how is it helping the sport to ignore the reason performances have changed.
For reference, here are her PBs from 1982 through 1988:
Year 100 m 200 m
1982 11.12 22.39
1983 11.06 22.23
1984 10.99 22.04
1985 11.00 22.5
1986 11.42 23.51
1987 10.96 21.96
1988 10.49 21.34
It’s amazing the perk up and life enhancement, that human growth hormone and anabolic steroids give you when supervised by Consultant Endocrinologists.
Yep, roid abuse pure and simple. Very very obvious.
The 100-200-400-800 WR are all from the 80’s that’s 40 years ago
Let that sink in
😂😂
The doping Era. 😂
It's simple. it was during the cold war and the USA wanted all the records away from the russians and the east germany. the wind read 0.0, in the interview after the race, the reporter asks flo-jo if she felt like the wind was zero. to which flo-jo replied, " Yes, the wind wasn't as strong as the first round'. Note, she said the wind wasnt AS STRONG. which confirms automatically that there WAS wind. Not only that, she adds by saying her coach told her to watch the men's triple jump and if their wind was down go for the world record. If that was true, the triple jump before her race read +4.3ms 😂 so she knew it was windy. And why would a coach tell their athlete to go all out in a QUATERFINAL when she can save energy and the best possible time for the finals? make it make sense.
i don't think anyone whos watched the video can defend the record
America wanted to be seen as superior over rivals countries they even claimed to plant flags on the moon 😂😂😂😂
The Russians and East Germans were clean victims…LOL…
"Wanted all the records away from the Russians and East Germany." That's cute. You'd be really hard pressed to find any East German records that are legitimate over multiple decades--in any sport, but especially track. I have no idea why the IOC lets the East German records stand. Dozens of athletes were so damaged by all the drugs they took -- especially the testosterone -- they underwent a sex change later, i.e., basically giving up the idea that they could return to passing as female. It's an incredibly sad story. Most of them had no choice. If they didn't agree, they'd be kicked off the team and their family would lose all the state-sponsored benefits they'd gained. So, in short, one shouldn't worry too much about stripping records from the East Germans.
So you think it came down from the Reagan administration and they somehow MAGICALLY knew it was going to be THAT windy, that DAY, that AFTERNOON, like it was ALL planned in advance, because it was SO CRUCIAL for us geo-politically to have those records?
How many track meets have winds that high during a track meet?? 1 in 50? Less?
OK
Let's also reconsider the women's 400m world record and 800m world record
Why? I'm not a sprinter but the video was talking about how the tailwind wasn't measured correctly.
@ericzhou8980 no no no forget tailwind. The weather was not in flo-jo's control
Why is there more videos on why flo-Jo's world record isn't legal, than how juiced up the women's 800m and 400m record holders are.
@@ericzhou8980he’s saying that off topic of the video but relating to it by saying those records also need to be removed because records like the women’s 400 and 800 were done when those olympians were juicing off their minds
@@ericzhou8980 Because they're just as fraudulent as the women's 100 WR.
Especially the women's 400 meter world record....the longest standing track and field record of all times....40 years and counting.
Women who ran that year also ran times that they never ran ever during that race and never did after. The whole record is a sham.
💨💨💨💉🩸
She spoke like a MAN.
@@belzoni5430Google Victor Conti drug distributor.
@@belzoni5430I thought it had to do with the wind.
Imagine Bolt running 9.63 and never coming near that result ever again...the dude ran 9.6-7 most of the time and wasn't even giving it his all hahahaha she was on something for sure...
She used drugs, i don't recognise anything she achieved in athletics.
Produce her testing results and put the matter to bed then.
@@Dinan5iver2 Lol yeah and I bet you think marita koch is clean too. The entire generation was doped.
You have no clue whether today's runners are on PEDs. Jamaica is infamous for using PEDs. The US, Russia and China too.
But you don't have proof ?! Hopefully you're not a judge in life
@@antoninmorin4564 You sound very credulous and naive. If you think Koch and Flo Jo miraculously are better than every single female who followed them over the next 35+years despite the huge advances in training, recovery, nutrition and footwear...then I cant help you. Weird how all the 1980s male records have been obliterated huh? Its just the womens 100-800m records that ALL stand. They ALL doped. Everyone in track knows this.
In that quarterfinal one wold expect the wind to help all of the athletes similarly. While many had PBs the Flo Jo's margin of victory was huge. Her improvemnt over her times earlier in the season was about 0.3 sec, a huge amount in the 100m. I think it most likely that she was on PEDs and also aided by the wind to reach that world record. Kersey was her coach and he is still coaching world class athletes.
No hate, she was probably on something, and the tailwind helped. The time won't stay forever, then we can move along.
Records fall when advances in doping are made, records stop falling when advances in testing are made. Its been like thay for a long time.
You can see the guy in green with a white hat at the end of the race has his t-shirt flapping due to the wind.. Anyway, I still have to find a single person, even remotely aware of the facts, that believes Flo-Jo's 100m record it's legitimate. And most likely I will never meet one, because I live across the world from her family and friends.
Just as family and friends and fans can be biased towards their own, if you are about fairness and truth, you gotta factor in any bias of envy from those who are not her fans. ( Not saying if her record is bunk or not, just adding in to what you are implying here. )
@@machtnichtsseimann You say bias, but I tend to believe that that record is invalid based on pretty strong evidence, not opinions or preferences
I think it's legit. She dominated at the Olympics that year also. She ran with regular shoes instead of the springs the use now. Now you can remove your comment
Her husband is unlikely to believe it's legitimate, I heard a commentator around that time point out he left his sport due to ped suspicions......and then became her trainer.
She trained with Ben Johnson and suddenly went from a good college runner to setting a time that no one has come close to since.
totally doped
The World Record belongs to Elaine Thompson Herah. No question.
No me
Well, in your dreams!
How so? She didn’t run that time until after the Covid year shut down testing… Same with Shelley Ann setting a personal record after not being tested for a whole year.
The world 100 m and 200 m belongs to Florence Griffith Joyner aka flo Joe’s so dirty mind fool fool foolishness people sometimes you have some people that is gifted by JAH YOU ALL hatters keep chasing flo Joe’s you dirty mind dumb people and women of track and field that is hating on flo Joe’s that is why you all will never get that record you know why because you all is carrying a dirty mind on for Florence Griffith Joyner aka flo Joe’s every time big track and field time come around you all start to disrespecting Florence Griffith Joyner aka flo Joe’s keep on hating you all still chasing and she is resting in peace with JAH IN MOUNT ZION ware you foolish people will never go
Jamaicans just be wanting to be included
Love how you present the case.
But when saying to dismiss “doping”, all of your “preserve the records” appeals goes out the window.
Which is probably why this is an exercise in futility.
Change the record because the preponderance of evidence suggests there was wind, but ignore the pervasiveness of performance enhancing drug usage???
Good video though
Finally an American not defending this obviously faulty record. The rest of the sprint world knows it's busted.
Plenty of Americans have done that. When will y’all realize how many Americans there are?
He's very fair. He doesn't address the intense allegations about FloJo juicing. It seems impossible that that was not so, but you would have to show why that is true.
Does anyone believe that this record would have been ratified were she a Non-American?
It wouldn't have.
@@felixumukoro4119 The Eastern Europeans still have some of those sketchy records in 400m and 800m where it's blatant that those competitors were juicing so I don't see why not.
It's all political wars and who can get away with what. Many British athletes stated their urine tests were collected whilst Americans threw theirs in the trash RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE OTHERS, not even trying to hide the political bias. It was described as a terribly kept secret within the community but wrong to share outside for fear of looking like a sore loser.
Watch which athletes praise others......they know. Some Brits did cheat too, not sure many got away with it. I think some learned to quit whilst ahead, one in particular quit fairly early at a peak, after going through a massive physiological "change".
Different sport but the only reason Armstrong got busted was because the US Postal service sponsored the team which made it a federal crime. (Could be wrong there if any experts read this?)
NFW.
@@MR12AMAZING I think the "Super Big Countries" with money are the only ones that can get away with such thing IF they want to. Small countries would not get away with having those ratified..
Someone mentioned her second best time wouldve been a record until 2021. That was all during the same span of about 30 days. You mean to tell me that a woman whose best time entering the 88 season was 10.98, all of a sudden run almost a half second faster than she's ever run before ? And then retire after that season. Just as they were introducing random drug testing ? STOP IT ! And besides the drugs, which is probably what killed her, the wind readings were either manipulated or ignored. The gauge read 0.0. although it was clearly and visibly moving. Lastly, there were at least a half dozen runners who ran their best ever time, some by as much as 3 to 4 tenths of a second, never to be repeated again. Us track folks know that this kind of stuff is not possible under normal conditions. So by that logic, i guess ETH should be the WR holder in the 100m. Strike Marita Kochs record in the 400m as well. That was just criminal. Me and many other track enthusiasts said as much WHEN it happened 36 yrs. ago. In T & F on THAT level, you don't improve that much in a few months, crushing who were the best in the world at the time.
I was a toddler and I heard about this years ago and wonder why they still keep this as official record
Because she's American.
I adored Flo Jo, but I never thought the 10.49 was legitimate. There were a number of things happening in the 80's era of track that were questionable. Out of respect for fans of certain athletes, I'll leave that alone. Having said that, Elaine is the rightful owner of the record in my opinion.
LOL any true track fan worth their salt knows very well that that "record" is a farce. Even athletes know this but they know they can't speak up because that would literally be going against their employer. Flo-Jo is an absolute legend with a technique that is only matched by a fit ETH, but as much as i love what she did on the track, reality must be faced. I will not be contacting world athletics because i simply adore Flo-Jo too much lol. Still doesn't mean that we have to ignore the FACT that her best time was indeed 10.61.
and 10.61 is absolutely insane. Testament to her talent and technique. way ahead of her time.
@@ozzy9348agreed. this is the record that should have been ratified and it would still stand for 35 years
Can we adore our athletes WHILE expecting accuracy and integrity as well, or are we enabling cheating and/or inaccuracy to rule the day? Maybe it's not about "winning fair and square", but entertainment and that's all it is.
For me, it was Performance Drugs. Look at what distance she is in front of everybody, the Wind would have Helped Everyone!!!
Everybody's on PEDs
It was the wind definitely. Other athletes set personal best times in that heat and never ran that fast again. I looked up their individual professional profiles.
The wind did help everyone but it was quarterfinals where she set the record so she was running a bunch of scrubs
I was going to write the same. If there was wind (which I believe there was), it would impact all the runners. Flo-Jo finished almost 5 meters ahead of the closest runner; which roughly equates to 0.5 secs. Wind may aided her (as well as the others) but there must be something else. It could be her technique, drugs, both, or whatever but we will never know...
@@SmoyKa that kind of gap is very typical in heats especially in women event.
In that race she ran maybe the most beautiful technical race of all time! However, the wind gauge was clearly faulty. I mean it spinning so fast if you put your finger in there it would have cut it off!😳
Flo Jo was on PEDs. Wind had little to do with her incredible improvement on her PB time. Trouble is she wasn't caught.
Was she really
@@Maz-zb9ufYes
Stop hating on her dumb ass.
But if she was I'm sure almost all of them were
Thats not the point of the video
Fascinating. Didnt know there was a controversy. What this video is missing are reports of female runner times in events where the racers had a 3+ m/s tailwind.
And trust me, there’s more, but in a different direction. Remember the testing wasn’t as it is now either.
Athletics officials need to watch your video!
Excellently researched
This is not even the most questionable world record in women's sprinting. The fact that Marita Koch still holds the record in the women's 400 is an absolute travesty. And that's WITH proof that she was using PEDs.
The difference is that there isn't a question about Koch actually running that time.
The 100m record clearly didn't have a valid wind reading. Anyone with a brain can look at the evidence and see that it was wind aided, it's obvious without even going into it very far.
@@HamishGarland Well FloJo also "actually ran that time". I'm not sure your complaint makes a lick of sense. There is a ton of speculation about the 100 record which I generally think is credible. The 400 though? We have the records of the doping program, doses, drugs, and when they were administered. We KNOW she was cheating. We don't KNOW how fast the wind was blowing for the 100 record. I stand by my statement: the womens 400 is the most questionable world record in womens track and field.
Stop whining and go beat it.
Does anyone know what flojo's time would have been if we simply adjusted the wind from +4.3m/s (hypothesized from the triple jump times addressed earlier) down to +2.0m/s?
a website told me 10.55 so Elaine would of just broke her record which is crazy 😭
@KorZen10
*These Are The Accepted Effect Of Various Wind Speeds By The International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) On A 100m Time Of 10.00 s.*
*With a +1 wind you're adding 0.06 to her 100M time of 10.49 which equals 10.55*
*With a +2 wind you're adding 0.10 to her 100M time of 10.49 which equals 10.59*
*With a +3 wind you're adding 0.14 to her 100M time of 10.49 which equals 10.63*
*With a +4 wind you're adding 0.18 to her 100M time of 10.49 which equals 10.67*
*With a +5 wind you're adding 0.21 to her 100M time of 10.49 which equals 10.70*
*Any wind aided time between +1 to +3 is still a fast time today considering the track Flo Jo ran in 1988 and we're not even considering the shoes they're using today.*
@@jaredbowen3527 The wind was likely ABOVE +4ms, so adjusting to 2ms max wind she should have recorded between 10.59s to 10.63s, average say 10.61s which was her actual real PB. 10.49s is absolutely out of the question.
I've studied this for over 25yrs. There's are as many videos/studies addressing this.
However, one fact remains. Once a record is ratified, it's ratified.
Retrospective changes would need to be made to over 647 disputed results and records.
How many soccer matches (before electronic referees) had disallowed goals, that afterwards were seen to be valid by playing back the video?
Same for tennis.
The record shouldn't have been ratified, but what's done is done.
Her record has galvanised runners.
@@jaredbowen3527well at 8:11 someone apparently claimed that the wind was 2.8 Ms at quarter final 1.
Really well-produced video..
Defenitley need to get rid of the record
"One of the few records from the 80s that still stands"... umm, actually the women's 100m, 200m, 400m and 800m world records were all set in the 1980s and they all still stand.
And they were all drug aided. Check out also some of the women's throwing records.
I think that record was wind aided and drug assisted 😅
YES😂😂
Well that's your Opinion... The fact is that she the WR Holder
@@RJ12347 lol 😂 I still believe she was a drug cheat! And there’s a lot of evidence her time was also wind aided
@@Page1travelfitnessyour Jamaican beliefs don't mean deadly squash it unless you have hard proof so suck it up buttercup the record stands
This is interesting but not new. The IAAF commissioned an investigation in 1995 and from the investigation, it was estimated that the wind reading was between+5.0 and +7.0 for that race which is way over legal limits. And so a footnote was put beside the time with a reference to the investigation. So it is well known. A simple google check of Flo Jo and you will see the footnote beside the time. The bigger questions are if the IAAF knows this from 1995, why let the record stand? Why have a record with a footnote beside it? If this was not USA, would USATF sit by and allow the record to stand? But I am hopeful that the new generation of Sprinters are motivated rather than hindered by this record.
Why is there a headwind limit 😭 isn’t it way harder with headwind anyway
I think it's in case if they can't get the direction
He's asking why there's a headwind limit of 2.0
Maybe it's a generic cap on all track and field events, because if for example you did a 400m+ race, there would be one leg where you're in headwind and one in tailwind. Momentary fluctuations in the wind could give you an illegal boost.
@@ARCANEmateCLANit’s not though, pretty sure wind limits don’t apply to any events with a full lap
@@ARCANEmateCLAN I'm not sure why it exists, but this rule is for 100m, 200m, Long Jump and Triple Jump.
I don't know what the rules are for wind in 400m+.
On a side by side comparison it shows that FloJos 10.49 is one step in front of Elaine's 10.54. The video is out there.
She would have run 10.35 today with faster tracks and technically efficient shoes. Her running form is impeccable. No female sprinter comes close.
Elaine Thompson's form comes close.
The progression of world athletics records publication from WA has for years noted alongside this record the +4.3 wind speed in the triple jump just before the race, the wind blowing across the track explanation by Omega, the possible incorrect alignment of the gauge, the possible warm up problem of the gauge etc. The 2024 publication which has just been released includes a further note stating "subsequently the gauge was removed by the IAAF Technical Committee from the list of approved anemometers after clinical tests were carried out supporting the “warm up” problem."
There were crazy times and jump distances in that meet that were all wind aided.
This race had a strong field -- but no one other than FloJo ran an especially good time, and FloJo won by many yards in a race that is typically decided by hundredths of a second. That is hard to reconcile with a strong wind-aided time.
She never tested positive for anything
She retired right after Olympics and never ran again. DUH!!!!
neither did Lance Armstrong! so that means nothing
Neither did Marion Jones, but she admitted to cheating.
@@mblunt00 What exactly does that have to do with anything?! The man said she NEVER tested positive for anything and that's the truth! And she was the most tested sprinter during during the Olympics.
@@kandiekane. Marion Jones' situation has NOTHING to do with Flo-Jo. Flo-Jo was tested thoroughly throughout her career and NEVER failed a drug test. Period! What happened to Marion Jones is her business.
You convinced me. The raw numbers was enough of the wind from the other heats. Now I’m a keep watching to see if he addresses why the clock said 0.0.
Shouldn’t they know if the wind reader was not working.would have thought someone would have said something. Especially since they fixed it.
great video. Has there been an illegal wind time close to 10.49 that anyone has seen ?
It was the only race in history with wind. The wind actually only blew in flojos lane.
Closest I can remember was 10.57 by Sha'Carri Richardson (+4.1m/s)
@@jacob8949 nice, thanks for that info. Strange to think the fastest wind assisted time is slower than the top 2 all time ratified records
@RunnerBoi Never knew the story behind her WR, or ever thought it would be so interesting. Thank you for the video and the information. Your arguments are compelling. No way zero wind without no wind at all. No way two winds negating wind exactly. No way a qualifying heat negating the curve. No way every athlete performing better all together. No way parallel jumping the same time with racing the wind is at only one place. You convinced me 100%. Thanks!
Have been aware for a while, but am thankful for the call to action. Just sent them (World Athletics) this:
Flo-Jo's 100m WR was very clearly wind-aided, and should be annulled. If you do even fairly minimal statistic modelling, you see this, and the more you consider alternative explanations, the more you realise that they do not hold water. The most likely reason (assuming no conspiracies) is an electrical problem, particularly some sort of cable connectivity issue with the anemometer. It's shocking and awful that the record was ever ratified, but the much worse thing is that we continue to pretend to believe this absolutely absurd nonsense. For past 35 years female sprinters have suffered the consequences of competing against an impossibility that never really happened. Do your duty, and make sure that future women don't suffer the same.
Then I guess Usain Bolts 9:58 isn't real either huh??? smh
Let us know if you hear back from them!
You little snitch lol get a life bozo
Tell us you're a functional illiterate without telling us you're a functional illiterate@@calicoesblue4703
Thanks bro, I have always considered this record an anomaly including the 800m and some others from the 80s.
Elaine Thompson Hera is the official record holder in most of our eyes. 1:49 that 10:54 was legendary
No
NO. Plus, Elaine is running 11:30's this year. LOL
@user-sy4vw1vb2g All great runners fizzle out eventually. Thompson-Herah set her 10.54 legitimately, regardless of what she's doing this year, and it is more legit than that fake record from FLO-JOKE.
@@daowonimdee Are you still crying? Officially speaking, Flo - Jo owns the record. Now you can rest in peace.
@user-sy4vw1vb2g Just as "officially" as records that were records until cheaters got exposed. Flojoke is an asterisk. Deal with it.
So the wind gauge was faulty. That in itself should mean the record is void
Tail wind plus jacked up in go faster juice - cancel the record
Prove it
@@evilsimeon well, the video does a good effort to prove that the wind direction was not as stated. And then for 100 m and 200 m she set comfortably the biggest record improvement there’s ever been and ran faster in both by half a second, than she ever did before - for one season - which again is unheard of, and then she immediately retired! Purely in terms of biomechanics that’s virtually impossible to improve that much out of nowhere in one go over one season.. Yes, she passed every drigs test as most athletes did back them and was subsequently found to have cheated later as testing regimes got better- but as I said, she retired so was never tested again. If that’s not enough for you to have any suspicion then that’s on you.
100ms position SET
“Go faster juice”..😂😂😂😂😂
@@evilsimeon I think the video just did that
Crazy thing about The late Great Flo Jo is that She was Holding back.Imagine if She had Fully let go.Mann! She would have really set a Miraculous precedent.
To me, the fact that Elaine ran a "legal" 10:54, means she has the ability to break Flo-Jos record.
I am not sold.
She "had" the ability.
All of this being said, no OTHER woman has ever run a wind-aided 10:49 or below, correct? Has another female sprinter ever run this fast, wind aided ?
Good question. Before Usain Bolt we’ve seen plenty of times when the 100m record was surpassed with the wind over the legal limit.
“Win if you can; lose if you must.
But always cheat” - Jesse Ventura
Original commentary at the time suggest before the race that it will be the fastest run ever but wind aided. At the end of the race both commentators instantly dispute the wind gauge 0.0 reading! You can see the official at 14:51 onwards white flag blowing hard just as they start too!
Seems the wind was only blowing in her lane, given the margin of victory!
A very good point... which the narrator didn't consider 😮
This was only a quarterfinal, most other runners were scrubs.
The other runners set personal bests. They were just slower than Flo-Jo.
Shouldn't everyone who ran in the races with her performed their personal best as well?
No...she was on drugs, forget the wonder!
Wind...damn predictive text...
@@martinbynion1589 You're not thinking rationally pops
What about the women's 400 and 800 meters world records?
Also BS
What about the best American 400 hurdler. SHE LOOKS juiced.
Allso disnt compete for
6 months at a time
They are clean
Those white girls are natural
@RJ12347 To be honest I don't trust any of them I cludung all of today's athletes.The female American 🇺🇸 400m hurdler seems real suss.She takes 6m9nths off each year from races then comes back like Ivan Drago from Rocky from Rocky.
@@RJ12347 considering the have been several time white athletes have failed drug test
Didn't she also run a 10.54 at the 1988 games. And that would also still be a record?
Elaine Thomson ran 10_49
No, that one had a +3.0 wind reading, so never got ratified in the first place
@mystro9132 I thought Elaine’s 100m record was 10.54?
Agreed. Same with Marita Koch in the 400m.
Get rid of that JUICED record as well.
Do you know how I know she was on Testosterone?
She had a Koch.
Marita Koch was a constant runner at high level for 10 years or so, Flo Jo came out of nowhere just in one year, 1988 she crashed all records with a smile on her face even without the final meters of the races.
If 400m is suspicious, Flo Jo's records must also be suspicious too. This video is not about the PEDs, but about the wind. From that POV, 400m and 800m are legal.
Marita Koch is still alive and perfectly healthy at age 67. Even playing handball as a remarkably competent player.
I agree with the egregious mistake with Flo Jo’s 100m recorded. Elaine Thompson should be the world record holder. All things being even with all people being on the sauce. Good video.
I don’t think ETH is clean.
I think there’s more to this story Though I think the wind might be a large factor. But the fact remains there’s a massive problem in your logic and is why they had to ratify that you’re objectively incorrect to ignore: if you can’t find the fault with the reading, simply calling it “strange” and not ratifying is highly problematic and legally not sustainable. The every fact that meteorologically it’s possible to have gusting, shifty wind that can confuse instruments then be something different or atleast appear different 100m later is why it’s inappropriate to say this is wrong to ratify. It would be irresponsible to just flat out say this is ridiculous to ratify. Bc you can’t ACTUALLY say the reading is wrong. It’s strange, but that’s not proof it’s wrong. There’s quite a few holes in your argument that interestingly I think it more open minded, you might have been able to close off while telling this story. But rewatching this knowing you missed this stuff imo changes how one thinks of this time.
Ultimately, this was IMO a wind aided time but I wouldn’t say too far over the limit given her performances that uniquely aligned to alleged enhanced performance of a particular cycle at that time to which IMO was hard to ignore. If it’s deleted, it’s not bc of wind. BUT it should stand as the instruments were investigated and if anything this was a problem that wasn’t an error and more so a product of difficulty measuring information in particular gusty conditions . Meaning this would have happened 10/10 regardless of the instrument. For that reason you must ratify. You can’t rely on the technology every time but once then simply ignore the weird one. You have to problem the error then solve for it but there was no major flaw in the technology at the time that could be determined. For instance, was the immaculate reception a catch? IMO hell no, the angle simply doesn’t seem possible. Franco Harris’ hands simply couldn’t be under the ball given his body position. but lack of video evidence showing the angle needed can disprove that. Shall we say that no longer counts in the moment bc it looks weird? Nope. We use the data we have and trust. Bc that’s what we have . Until we can prove otherwise which you haven’t here and can’t be done . The other factors below tilt the story back to the more “credible” as you’ve made things sound impossible that actually aren’t.
For starters, 4:39 did you actually look this up though? Bc Devers is not correct for instance. And it was really early in his career. It was her PB but there’s also some element of this was the biggest stage of some of their careers. Same with Echols. Hers I agree is more problematic but she ran 10.9 a year before this was early in her career with no win recorded and a day after this PB you mention she broke 11 with a legal wind then 11 flat in the final. Diane williams ran 10.9 a year prior with a wind aided 2.3. She ran a 10.94 with a 0.6 legal aid years before. My point is, those are very doable. Out of context atleast. That’s step 1 bc youve framed them as if they aren’t. That’s not true but we should level set this stuff BEFORE diving in. Otherwise you’re at risk of confirmation bias.
Additionally, you compare the quarters to heats in terms of wind and that’s entirely out. That’s a red herring. Heats were at 1310; quarters at 1545. WAYY too much time between. Adding to that, I’ve run at IUPUI before - the winds do whip at times like they do at the chute in Eugene down the stretch. For instance on the men’s side at the 88 trials, the wind went from heat 1-4 as such:
+3.1
+2.0
-0.6
+1.9
We only say 0.0 is strange bc it’s literally NO wind but don’t forget it’s 1988 and while tech has advanced there were still things hard to read. A cross wind was aknowledged on the broadcast before the race. It’s famously hard to read crossing winds. If you get shifty winds at the start of the race, it may not be the same wind at the end of the straight. For Indianapolis that’s truly not insane.
And Anecdotally, I can say from personal experience it’s not true to suggest you don’t set PBs in qualifiers or heats early. That’s uniquely untrue. In fact it’s very common. You’re most relaxed and in flow state so when alone if you have lane 4, you can drive your knees and not think. I ran a 10.3 then false started the Big East final haha I means it’s funny now but wasn’t back then. Even FloJo at Seoul set 3 Olympic records in the build up to her gold medal that same year. Moreover, speaking of the games there were not one but TWO readings of 0.0 in the string of many heats back to back. So to say it’s odd to have 0.0 readings is again not in good faith bc it’s not. It’s strange to have wind of 0.0 as well as +4 within 20 minutes. But not impossible.
Please send me literature that suggests that "swirling winds" can cause 0.00 readings. Hell, even find me a case where a crosswind has produced a 0.00 reading on an anemometer in any fashion. And if you think it's a crosswind, a 91 degrees reading would not have posted an exact 0.00m/s reading on *two separate occasions*, because that's not perfectly perpendicular to the track. I'm aware that athletes run differently in various rounds of a championship event, but the paper does use biomechanical analysis to adjust accordingly when plotting their points on the "expected performance" curve; something I clarified to prevent this very comment.
Furthermore, PED's are not relevant at all here. It was 1988; the entire world was on very robust and in some cases, life-threatening doping protocols to where the level field was even-ish anyways (the women's shot/disc were doping beyond doping but that's a different story on its own). This was remedied slightly after stricter testing came into play, but obviously designer compounds and smarter dosages became the standard very quickly after.
I disagree that we just have to trust the people behind the timing equipment in this particular instance when they've gone on record making shit up about this record (e.g. the swirling winds theory that for some ungodly reason people subscribe to) The idea of a crosswind happening in back-to-back heats also has to be discounted too because the triple jump right next to the track recorded exclusively tailwinds for every single solitary jump.
In essence, you're effectively arguing a miracle beyond a miracle that would also signify these miracle winds allowed runners to run the best times in the world in such a superficial stage of the trials (for some at least). Because remember, this was two heats *in a row* this happened, not just one isolated instance, which is what so many people forget that make this infinitely less likely. The odds of that happening while another event parallel to it was recording exclusively tailwinds is effectively impossible. The sport is not new to equipment malfunctions or shaky rules, and it's especially not new to not properly answering to said concerns when it's not convenient for them to do so. Sure, empirically, it can't be proved that the wind gauge messed up, but statistically speaking, it overwhelmingly favors that the record was not investigated and ratified properly, and you can even find newspaper articles of the record very quickly getting ratified with almost no proper diagnosis or second-thoughts about it.
Wow, someone saw what he wanted to see in the video. He never "simply" called it strange. He went to great lengths to not only show how the 0.0 reading has negligible probability, but that it is demonstrably untrue given the triple jump that was running simultaneously. He also didn't say that no one sets PRs in heats - only that it's uncommon to go all out when you have the victory. Any track runner (including me) will confirm that. The real thing here is that none of these arguments ALONE are slam dunks. It's when you put them all together that it becomes pretty irrefutable. You are picking them apart (and in some cases misinterpreting them) in an effort to cast them as straw men. Swing and a miss, though....
As long as the organization accepted it then it is official
Idk I feel like someone will break this record Elaine Thompson came so close with 10.54
Mmmm no still a massive difference in the 100 but maybe
It's the record period. No body was close to her and only a very few have been close to her since. Everyone else was running in the same wind and look how far behind they are and she is dragging a lot of hair behind her too. Just like Bolt she is the greatest in my opinion.
Flo-Jo’s 10.49 was clearly wind aided. However, Elaine Thompson’s 10.54sec was also blatantly wind aided! Watch the race - there is loads of wind!
Sir, this is not true. Elaine's time of 10.54 had a wind reading of +0.9. This is not "blatantly wind-aided" as you are indicating. I do not know why ppl just "blatantly" state things that are not true or facts when these things can be easily checked to suit their argument. Come on man, do better. Have a blessed day.
@@n.kcooper530
We know Flo-Jo’s 10.49 was BLATANTLY wind aided because we could see the evidence of it all around by just using our eyes! Yet the wind reading was officially 0.0m/s.
It’s the same with Elaine Thompson’s 10.54 run. Watch the race and see the evidence of the swirling wind at Hayward field - it’s obvious!
@@n.kcooper530
Watch the race again. There is clear evidence of the swirling, very strong wind. The 0.9m/s doesn’t match up with what we see with our eyes!!!
Let's get that Mexico City Long Jump record removed too. It was "at altitude".
Dope video as always. Def wind Assisted...or at least a high probability.
Most Def. A coach who was in Indy told me as much. The winds were off the chain and no way was there any wind legal race that day. He told me that ETH is the true WRH.
Juice + wind
This is circumstantial cause you don’t know what the windspeed was. It may have been 5mph or 0 mph, and without knowing this you have no case. If you look at here gap a 10.49 wind aided… then you would have to say the rest of the field did a 10.8 or so wind aided which they would probably do without wind. You want us to believe in the finals the top qualifiers in the field all had a really bad almost 11sec time (was upper 10’s cause of wind)?
Truth! So damn obvious. Gake it off the books
Why would there be any limit for counting a WR if there is a head wind which makes the race more difficult? If you can set a record with a head wind then you obviously would have set it with no wind.
Furthermore, you notice how the naysayers NEVER question Flo-Jo's 200m record? Why? Because there was no controversy regarding the wind. It was a clean race and Flo-Jo STILL dominated the field and set a new world record that's still untouchable to this day. If a sprinter can set a new world record in the 200m, then common sense should tell you that they can set one in the 100m, too, as the 100m is the easier race of the two!
Flo-Jo was simply the greatest female sprinter ever and that's something a lot of people have a hard time accepting! Stop trying to diminish that great woman!
I mean...she "retired" just when more stringent drug testing was set to start in 1989. There's alot of reasons to be suspicious. Furthermore, it was the 80's. The worst decade for drug use in the sport's history.
Russia,East German and everyone else was juicing in the 80's.Flo Jo record stands.We all know she was on the juice.But so was everyone else.They juice now, with more sophisticated masking.Nothing new.Marion Jones got thrown under the bus 🚌.
You need to go back and look at the 1988 olympics everyone was juicing then, just look at Ben Johnson.
@@danielainger And 7 of the 8 runners in the men's 100m (Johnson's race) turned out to have been dirty at one time or another, including Carl Lewis and Linford Christie who got to keep their Olympic titles.
Flo Jo had a brilliant style of running,very good
Look into the womens 400m world record as well
And 800
why?
even more surprising/impressive is Elaine beating Mboma (pre T-reduction treatment) in '21 Olympics, deserves to have the WR's too over FloJo
FloJo was faster than Elaine Thompson-Herah, and until a ratified 10.48 is actually RAN in competition, I am sticking with FloJo!
There 's no way where Flo Jo could be faster than Elaine Thompson Herah, i'm not blaming Flo Jo for at that point in time she was the best but i'm blaming the person's that were responsible for the correct time and for one reason or another the messed it up for generation's i believe that people are still alive who were a part of the system who know's that the record is wrong but because of one thing or another they've refused to come forth.
@@josephvirgo-pp4fb I saw them both at their very best...Flojo was better.
21.34 and 10.49 we’re both set in 1988. Both have been untouchable for over 30 years! if you question the 100 why not the 200? And she still the only female to hold two world records at the same time! If letters haven’t mattered yet, don’t waste your time now! Sorry, dude only a faster woman will change it!!
You may be right (and probably are), although we’ll never know for sure, but I find it odd that people never seem to mention her 200M record that seems in line with this 100M record and is, so far, untouchable. Given her 200M time and her lead at the end of this 100M race, I’m not so sure 10.49 is impossible. And the standard for deleting a record should not be 51% “preponderance of the evidence” unlikely, it should be something equivalent to “beyond a reasonable doubt” after both sides are adequately argued. ❤️✌🏻✌🏻❤️
Thank you. It was her 200m splits that made her husband realize she could win the 100m at the next Olympics.
The "juice" allegation are even more pathetic when she was competing against entire COUNTRIES that had state-sponsored testosterone therapy for their female athletes, and the effects were quite visible.
I can agree with your final sentiment, although I still would err on the side of the data concluding it's "beyond a reasonable" doubt. There's an article where just about everyone involved with the timing metrics gave their statement/testimonies about the legitimacy of the record, and they were either superficial, or at worst, baseless theories with no promising data (And if there is any, it's counteracted pretty easily)
This! Isn't 21.34? She's been that record holder just as long, and it's just as impressive.
To be fair 21.34 is nowhere close to 10.49. 21.10 would be.
I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that her 10.49 was wind-aided.
If all eight women in the same heat had very fast time, I will agree FLO JO had a wind assisted time. However, if other seven women in the same heat didn't all have faster time, I have to say the incredible time was not due to wind assist. It was due to FLO JO's super human capability.
they didn;t have fast times . deevers I believe came close or was at a time she did before. & you can clearly see she's way ahead.
Wake up babe a new runnerboi video just dropped
Excellent, EXCELLENT analysis. Now I can stop acknowledging that ridiculous "record" because I knew it was tainted: either by juicing or....now...by this new information.
The fastest woman in the world comes from Jamaica. And her name is Elaine Thompson-Herah..
She's the GOAT of female sprinters. Her record stands! Whats next, trying to diminish MJs accomplishments? Babe Ruth's homeruns? Mike Tyson's 80s domination? New generation thinks that all of the worlds greatest athletes are now? We didn't evolve dummies. We invented drugs to help. Bo Jackson still has the fastest 40 time almost 40 years ago. This new generation trying so hard to diminish the past and build up the current. Try harder!
Btw, those same drugs helped Barry Bonds hit more homeruns! And to the nerd saying Flo Jo did cycles and then got off 4 to 6 months before events....the same can be said for every sprinter in the last 30 years...including Bolt
To completely discount PEDs is ridiculous. Both Bolt’s and Flojo’s WRs are unreachable because they used PEDs, likely HGH, in a manner that would not show up on testing
Elaine is the True Goddess 💯💯
At 13:10 we can see another sign (like the one showing -0.0) showing a number that looks like 4.3 (or 4.9). What is that sign showing?
Its a bullshit record... and it 100% needs to be removed
Does IT ON YOUR MARK POSSIBLE?
Listen, the great, fine and super-talented Flo Jo was moving. That is the simple truth. You can see it in her run. What most likely happened is that she did not fully "step on the gas" during the preliminary rounds. She saved a lot of her energy for the gold.
I feel like the people confirming that wind reading are too smart to be that oblivious. Anyways, great video keep em coming
In athletics officials are volunteers, literally anyone with money to get on courses(which are really easy to pass btw) can become an official and local meets literally pull upon random people from the clubs including parents sometimes, and we are talking about the 80s here. So yeah, probably wouldn't be unusual to find someone who isn't the brightest officiating an event, even a high standard one like olympics or worlds lol.
Yeah I see your point but I think Runnerboi said the owner of the company confirmed it
Maybe I missed it but did everybody in her race also set a new personal record?
That world record race must have been everyone's PB if wind was a factor or am I wrong?
7 out of the 8 runners set PBs in that race
correction. at least 6 of the 7
@@sharkwave1661 By how much? We talking 0.01 or like 0.1 - 0.3?
the 800m woman world record is the one that truly shouldn't exist. That was a whole dude running on the field lol
Absolutely. I wrote about that earlier in this thread. Someone also pointed out the women's 400m as well and they're right. Both runners were straight up science experiments.
Her mustache, deep voice, the strong tail wind on that day...conclusion: ILLEGAL record
So you apparently, You don't seem to know enough about the variations' of/in Women.
Flo Jo has a beautiful sprinting action.
This 100m record is base upon corruption in the sport, if she was from another country that record wouldn't stand, flo jo is the sprinter in history who didn't defend ur Olympic title, all because drug testing was introduce the following year, an she retired at age 26, who does that, then she died 19mounts after