Jump to content

Talk:Florence Griffith Joyner

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 66.229.61.232 (talk) at 00:31, 7 October 2007 (Duh, could the truth have anything to do with it?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconBiography Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Minor Edits

I fixed a bit of grammer here and there so that sentences were readable. Also removed a reference to Ben Johnson which was simply too general to be relevant, and removed a statement about the longevity of a record (due to improved current athletics) implies the drug use of the athlete holding of the old record, which is not logical. There are clearly examples of old records, especially in women's sports, seemingly being out of reach by the current stable of relatively 'clean' athletes. But there are also old records on the books held by widely-believed-to-be-clean athletes. Such a deduction can't be made at this time. --Daydreamer302000 14:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also there is quite good reason to believe it was significantly wind aided despite the 0.00 wind gauge reading at the time. David D. (Talk) 20:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken out the statement that 'Many people believe her death was the result of steroid use' (paraphrased). This desparately needs a source as it's a pretty important claim. Atleast a 'citation needed' should have been there. But if there are in fact 'many' such people, a reliable source shouldn't be that difficult to find. --Daydreamer302000 14:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flojo

Flojo did take drugs and the auptopsy did state that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.21.141.62 (talkcontribs) .

the autopsy didnt specify that at all, a quick google search will show you that there has never been any evidence that she had used performance enhancing drugs. but that just means she was a very good cheat - virtually all athletes use them and they're a prerequisite to get to the top. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.38.201.63 (talkcontribs) .

What are the sources for the accusations against Florence Griffith Joyner? This article is highly biased. Kemet 12 May 2006.Did Flo-jo have any kids?Kiera 26 March 2007

The main sources for the accusations are that Flo-Jo died at quite a young age considering that she was a fighting fit ex-athlete. Most people in a peak physical condition such as her's should certainly live far longer than 38. It is clear and generally undisputed amongst people in the medical profession that either it is an extremely odd coincidence that she died at such a young age and set such outrageously fast times or that it is a result of blood-replacement type practices before races and/or drug use during her career. Coming from a person indifferent to whether or not she did indeed take drugs, I can see that it is blatantly obvious that she is a cheat. Let's stop making excuses and theories and make statements from what we have in front of us. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.167.73.133 (talkcontribs) .
Riiight, because no one dies of freak accidents in their lives, and seizures don't affect the physically fit. Give it up already. Not a single shred of proof of Flo-Jo cheating = no cheating. Period. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.163.100.203 (talkcontribs) .

OK, lets all just settle down. I see no sources for any claim, for or against, that Flo-Jo took proformance enhancing drugs. Comments such as "Flo-Jo took drugs and the autopsy said so." are bogus and POV without sources. We all need to abide by WP:CITE as well as remembering toassume good faith. Also rembember to sign your posts using ~~~~. Thanks for your understanding. xxpor ( Talk | Contribs ) 19:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, Griffith Joyner didn't take drugs! East German's Marita Koch either? Has Marita Koch been arrested by drug tests? No. Her records are still valid. Just like Flo-Jo's. They didn't take drugs; they just had... extra-terrestrial DNA! Give us a break... --ΚΑΛΛΙΜΑΧΟΣ 08:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am from Germany, having participated in a documentation about drugs in GDR. Marita Koch has been discovered having taken drugs. She herself denies, but it is a prooved fact by some publications having been found after the german reunion and examined by e.g. german top hurdler Harald Schmidt.

Direct accusation have been expressed by various experts. E.g., from salon.com :

"[...] Many prominent doping experts with no axes to grind have expressed serious suspicions about Griffith-Joyner. German scientist Werner Franke, who is credited with exposing the drug and sports machine that turned the former East Germany into a world athletic powerhouse, says flatly that Griffith-Joyner's seizures, which first occurred in 1996, were "symptomatic of the abuse of anabolic drugs or hGH." Former world champion power lifter Mauro Di Pasquale, who was medical director to the World Wrestling Federation and World Bodybuilding Federation and now holds a similar position with NASCAR, says the details of her heart condition and death are consistent with the side effects of such drugs. Even one of Griffith-Joyner's former physicians, sports specialist Robert Kerr, who treated her for an ankle injury, has weighed in on the scandal. "From the combination of her physical appearance and her increased performance," he says, "I believe she was on drugs."--ΚΑΛΛΙΜΑΧΟΣ 08:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

I've removed the {NPOV} tag as the article seems OK to me. If you feel that it should be back, please state the specifics of what concerns you. -- I@ntalk 04:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The source which discusses the speculation about dairy products causing her death actually points to an anti milk website. I have deleted this line. Someone should find a source that does not have an ulterior interest before putting it back. Is anyone else talking about Milk killing flo-jo besides this website? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Henryjrobinson (talkcontribs) .

Prior to 1988 she had marginally broken 10 seconds for 100m, which is widely seen as the World Class benchmark of female 100m sprinting. Her yearly progression in the 100m goes chronologically as follows 1980-11.51, 1981-11.23, 1982-11.12, 1983-11.06, 1984-10.99 1985-11.00 1986-11.42 1987-10.96 1988 10.49 (World Record). Source 'The International Track and Field Annual 88/9' Simon and Schuster ISBN 0-671-69917-2

Her own results speak for themselves we see above a gradual progression from 'beginner' to internationally competitive runner over 5 years 1980-85. The progression is steady and in keeping with an injury free career. In 1986 her dip in form could have been due to injury this is common at the highest level, in fact for a period of time she had given up athletics after the 1984 LA Olympics, working as a sceretary. As stated above she only ran sub 10 seconds TWICE prior to 1988, both times were just inside the 'magic' barrier not the dramatic changes in performance a year or so later.

Prior to 1988 she was not considered to be World Record material and was more known more her good looks and incredibly long fingernails which led to her starting races on her knuckles as opposed to the standard 'on fingertips' position.

  • I'm sorry but there is no 'gradual progression' in it. The record of 10.49 seconds is so far ahead of anything else ever done that any such claim is a joke. It's like a high jumper going over something like 2.55 metres now. My take on it is that she was clearly taking drugs. As it has not been proven though we cannot ever positively officially say she was. Oh and the person above seems to keep mentioning that 10 second barrier. Women have never broken that barrier and won't do for some time. Cls14 17:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just look at the history of the 100m Woman World record. There is a new record on average every 2 or 3 years. And suddenly in 1988, the record is crushed by Florence Griffith-Joyner. For almost 20 years now, nobody has been able to surpass it. It even looks impossible to beat.

Removed

"Many have jokingly claimed that if she could just jog 100m her appearance fees and endorsement contract would be worth multiple millions during 1989. " —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talkcontribs) 04:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Also Removed

"It is rumoured that during the 4x100m relay Florence ran a 8.5sec 100m at the 1988 Seol Olympics, the reason for this is that she used he full speed from start to finish.." Such a claim is totally absurd. And I'd like to see a 100m athlete who doesn't run full speed. 137.186.222.166 23:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, such a claim isn't absurd. Runners in the 100m dash start from a stand-still. Runners in the relay (except the first) have 10m to get up to speed before running their leg. As some other food for thought, consider that times in the 200m dash are significantly less than twice that for the 100m dash. (Check records if you don't believe it.)
But a claim like that does need to be sourced. Thanks for removing it. Lunch 15:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

8.5 seconds? rofl Thats funny. Why dont you use your brain and time from when there is 100m to go until the finish. Then you'll see that the claim is indeed absurd. Carl Lewis ran marginally under 9 seconds for his 100m of the 4x100m in Barcelona.

Wow...way to insult the very people you'd like to persuade. Why would they want to agree with you?--LeyteWolfer 04:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duh, could the truth have anything to do with it?

Duh, could the truth have anything to do with it?