Talk:Florence Griffith Joyner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Minor Edits[edit]

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)

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)

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)

Flojo[edit]

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)

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)

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)

The arguments you guys are making are nonsense. some bla bla "expert" with zero direct knowledge of flojo thinks this, thinks that, that's not good enough. It wouldn't fly in any factual publication other than wikipedia (which is sad in itself). what the hell is a doping expert anyway. I don't remember that course in college, do you? whether or not varying other nationalities sites say this or that doesn't really matter. I would edit them if i could understand them. Quite frankly I wouldn't expect any better from them, she wasn't an athlete that came from their respective countries. I remember that olympics vividly and the speculation wasn't as widespread or reported as you have seem to think it was. it was a footnote at best put forth by either people who lost, unassociated people or "experts" trying to get their 15minutes of fame by throwing grenades (controversy) on TV, or people who think what she did couldn't be done. the bar for an encyclopedia is fact or no fact. not so and so who doesn't matter isn't in a said such and such. 76.213.249.49 (talk) 09:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV[edit]

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)

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 11 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 11 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)
  • Cls14, read again, he is talking about "gradual progression" during the years of 1980-85! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.182.105.32 (talk) 18:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
  • 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[edit]

"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).

Also Removed[edit]

"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)

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)

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)

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

Duh, could the truth have anything to do with it? Nah, this is Wikipedia, you're right. --66.229.61.232, 16:32, 6 October 2007

I think that she was a druggie cheat and that the times she ran are testament to this. However there isn't any proof of this apart from her times and if Wikipedia is going to be accurate it needs to report facts. Basically we know she's guilty but we can't proove it so we shouldn't write about it. Cls14 (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Quarter-finals or semi-finals?[edit]

"She stunned the world when — known as a 200m runner — she ran a new 100m World Record of 10.49 in the quarter-finals of the US Olympic Trials."

The link below to the ABC video of her performance mentions the semi-finals as the occasion of the record. Is that correct? Could someone more athletologically apt than me check it and correct it in the entry, if necessary? Thanks a lot!

--82.207.232.154 (talk) 23:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The youtube video clearly calls it the "second round".[1] Later in that video the interviewer calls it a semi-final, but Flo-Jo says her plan now is "go to the semis, make it to the final, take the final" (or something like that). Going both by the fact it was the second round, and Flo-Jo's answer, I think it was quarter final. p.s. that video also has some discussion about the wind. Peter Ballard (talk) 12:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
And here is an official IAAF list, which settles it conclusively, because her final, semi-final and quarter-final runs are all on the list.[2] The WR was in the quarter-final. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Drug Use[edit]

Sometimes this is due to sustance abuse. For example abuse of EPO results in so many red blood cells in the blood that the blood is dangerously viscous. Even a strong heart is heavily taxed and heart problems may result, especially when the athlete is asleep, as the heart rate slows and weakens. This was speculated to have happened to FloJo. All the athlete has to do is stop the EPO usage long enough before the testing so that they still have excess Red blood cells, but EPO abuse will not be detected. By the way EPO is NOT an anabolic steroid, so tests for steroid use will not detect it. 09:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannygjk (talkcontribs)

Joyner suffocated during a severe epileptic seizure. Those who speculated that somehow EPO caused heart problems that resulted in her death are misinformed. Also in 1988 EPO use amongst sprinters was probably non-existent, and Epogen did not come out until 1989. Charlie Francis also claimed in 2006 that sprinters in the United States were using it as far back as 2000. Doubt that Francis would be so in the dark as to not know that sprinters were using it before 2000... Just some thoughts- I think EPO use in sprinting is relatively new (15 years tops). --Yankees76 Talk 23:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


I've seen a lot of humming and hawing about all this drug use nonsense. When it comes down to it, however, there is no proof, there is not a single shred of evidence to support the claims other then speculation by a bunch of armchair critics who say what she did can't be done. I'm sorry but that's absolutely absurd as our history of chalk full of people who accomplish things that can't be accomplished. That's just not a good enough reason to put a blot on her here and you all should be ashamed of yourselves for not even approaching the bar required to trash someone like this. Show some respect and put up or shut up on the proof. Otherwise there's absolutely no reason to pepper an encyclopedia entry with wild speculation

Sgeine (talk) 23:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think removing the entire controversy section was justifiable. It is a fact that Flo Jo was a controversial athlete and this should be acknowledged; if not in a separate section then worked into other parts of the article. There are no BLP issues, and to remove all mention of the suspicion that dogged her for much of her life is just a whitewash. Of course unsourced speculation is inappropriate, but here is nothing wrong with reporting what reliable sources have said about her. We don't have to prove she took drugs to do this. To adhere to WP:NPOV, we cannot simply pretend that there was no controversy. Pawnkingthree (talk) 09:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
The problem with your reasoning is the 'reliable sources'. If someone of enough notable stature, notable enough to be mentioned on wikipedia, states publicly "Hey, I think she took drugs", does that mean that we should mention it here in wikipedia? The answer to that question alone is itself debatable. However, a strong point against mentioning such things in that debate would be the fact that no matter who your 'reliable source' is, and how many sources you might think you have, no one, not you, not I, not any agency, not any of those 'reliable sources' has any evidence to back up their statements to the positive. Not even closely associated heresay (friends or ex-coaches who might have witnessed a purchase, or overheard an implicating conversation,... anything). Just speculation, based on other 'reliable source' speculation. Do you really believes this qualifies for inclusion into this article? If yes, fine. But look at the article. It certainly has a nicer flow, is clearly factual, and invites no bias in any manner as it stands now. Unless there is something more than reliable sources with only their opinions, I believe the article should stay that way. Perhaps a separate article on the subject would be more appropriate? I agree with you that it was a notable topic of some discussion on its own, just not worthy or appropriate of mention in this article. --Daydreamer302000 (talk) 11:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Daydreamer302000 (talkcontribs) 11:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Pawnkingthree; there has been so much controversy about this particular athlete that I believe it should at least be mentioned. Here in Belgium for one, the consensus in the media when talking about Florence Griffith-Joyner's world record is one of high doubt. I am no expert on the matter, so I can't tell if she indeed took performance enhancing drugs, but the controversy should at least be mentioned. Jellevc (talk) 09:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I have just checked Flo-Jo's Dutch, French and German Wikipedia entries and all three of them note the doping controversy. Another reason for it to be added to this article, if you ask me. Jellevc (talk) 09:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


Yes, whether or not she actually took drugs (and there is no definitive proof that she did), there is ongoing controversy about the issue covered in multiple reliable sources and there is no excuse for not including this controversy in the article providing it is properly sourced.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I just want to add to the entries Jellevc mentioned (Dutch, French and German), the Italian and Hebrew entries, which also mention the doping controversy. So, the whole world should know about these doubts, except for the English speakers? I'm sorry, but that sounds stupid to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.77.114.69 (talk) 07:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jackyd101 and Jellevc etc about mentioning the doping controversy. It should be mentioned with properly sourced. I've also checked the Chinese entry and it is mentioned there too. 75.83.60.2 (talk) 18:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with those who think that the controversy should be acknowledged - this is an encyclopedia so completeness is an issue. 82.0.128.21 (talk) 15:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Another in favour here. We need to mention that there were rumors. It's not just "armchair critics". They are in many reliable sources. Googling 'Flo Jo steroids' gives reliable sources such as The Observer[3], The Cincinnati Enquirer (which in turn cites Joaquim Cruz)[4] and Sports Illustrated (which cites Gwen Torrence, who admittedly has accused other people too)[5]. Of course the article should also be more explicit in saying that her cause of death was not steroid related.[6] But to not mention the rumors is too much of a whitewash. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's a fact of life that it is questioned if she used steroids. I myself am a Flo-Jo fan, but to leave out a serious controversy is biased and misleading. It may bother people but it the information should be included.Mcelite (talk) 04:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Another agreement here. It is absurd to suggest that a topic so talked about should be ignored in wiki. I can only presume that the objections to it are coming from "fans", which is not meant to be what determines wiki content. I suggest to go ahead and enter a "Controversy" section, containing something along the lines of:

Although there has been persistent talk of possible doping to explain Griffith-Joyner's exceptional times {give refs to articles}, no evidence has ever been produced.

Fig (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Never anywhere has someone broken his/her career when arriving on top...except for doubtious reasons... http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/more_sport/athletics/article4312239.ece —Preceding unsigned comment added by So6sechs (talkcontribs) 17:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It is blindingly obvious to any objective observer that Flo Jo took drugs. It is simply impossible to go from running a life time best over a 10 year career of 10.96 to suddenly, in the twilight of your career, running almost half a second faster (and then conveniently retiring). That is the equivalent of knocking 2 seconds off the 400m world record when you have never previously run close to world record pace. Even the most one eyed American athletics fan can see the reality here. That said, there is no evidence of drug taking so we cannot state categorically in an encyclopedia entry that she was a drugs cheat even though we can conclude that she probably was. Sadly (or deservedly depending on your POV) she took that evidence to the grave with her. The same applies to Marita Koch and Jarmila Kratochvilova whose 400m and 800m world record times were clearly drug assisted. Again, not a shred of proof but we all know it. What makes me laugh are those people who defend Flo Jo to the hilt but are prepared to condemn Koch and Kratochvilova. Presumably these are the same people who think the earth is only 6,000 years old and that mankind walked around with dinosaurs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.168.43.250 (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

  • As is mentioned, there is no evidence of drug taking, meaning she never tested positive, and no credible evidence has been presented to say she was using steroids - all the article can do is make reference to the controversy (without giving it undue weight) and include notable information from reliable sources. Our own individual beliefs or speculations are worthless to Wikipedia unless we're a published experts on the subject.
  • Personally I don't think you can immediately point at Joyner and assume she took PEDs or steroids just based on appearance and the quickness of her ascent. It's not as "blindingly obvious" as it seems. For example, people will point out that alot of female sprint records remain unchanged in the last 20 years as evidence that Joyner was using drugs and retired just in time to avoid being caught. Maybe true, but it could also mean that the talent pool in female sprinting just isn't as big as there are more options for women in sports since the late 1980's. Ben Johnson's steroid fueled 9.79 in 1988 has been matched or shattered by numerous sprinters, and yet only Carmelita Jeter has even come close to the women's record held by Joyner. Why is that? The men are beating random drug testing? Hardly, considering how many male sprinters have beaten 9.79, it's unlikely that they're all using drugs and just haven't been caught. More likely is improved training techniques, nutrition and injury recovery. Even with these advances, women have been unable to surpass Joyner's records simply because there hasn't been anyone with the talent to do so. Marion Jones is arguably the most prolific sprinter since FloJo, but her talent even with drugs didn't allow her to come close to the World Record. More likely the women's sprinting genetic equivalent of Usain Bolt is probably playing soccer and the Tyson Gay is probably a lawyer. There's not nearly as much money in women's track & field as there is in mens, meaning the most genetically gifted female athletes are not getting into sprinting.
  • Casual fans of the sport will also point as evidence of PED use by Joyner that her sudden speed increase occurred "late" in her career (the twilight ). Really? Have a look at at Jeter's recent performances: she was 30 years old when she ran 10.64 in 2009. Joyner was 28 in 1988 when she broke the record for the first time. Jeter's time at the 2009 IAAF World Athletics Final was the fastest time in 12 years. Joyner broke a record that was only 4 years old. So a younger Joyner, beating a newer record was using drugs, but a 30 year old breaking Evelyn Ashford, Merlene Ottey and a drug fueled Marion Jone's records is clean? I'm not implying that Jeter is not clean, but using her "advanced age" when she set the record as evidence that Joyner was dirty is ridiculous.
  • Everyone points out that she came out of nowhere in 1988 after not being a top 10 ranked sprinter before (a previous PB of 10.97). However one could argue that before 1988 she simply wasn't coached properly. It's no coincidence that after Al Joyner became her coach her times improved dramatically. He changed her training, changed her running style, and changed her focus and attitude. He started training her with weights - so it's no surprise she gained muscle - just like most people who start weight training for the first time do. Just adding steroids do not overcome poor running technique or lack of drive. They only help decrease recovery time to facilitate training more often. If you look at the video of the 1988 Olympics 100m final, she is not overly muscular at all compared to the rest of the field (in particular the Bulgarian who pulled up lame and finished last) - and would probably stand out in a women's sprint lineup today for being small. And yet being small in today's lineup, she would win by 2 meters. Drugs don't do that.
  • Finally, she retired upon learning that the US would implement random drug tests. Possibly. However by then Darrell Robinson had already claimed she paid him to get GH for her in the spring of 1988, meaning she'd be dogged by steroid rumors for the rest of her career even if she continued to run and test clean in 1989/90. And if even if she was randomly tested, GH would not have been detected, nor would EPO have been detected in 1989 as someone claims above - so what would she be afriad of? This is not even taking into account that Robinson was paid $50,000 for this story, was mentally unstable and would try to commit suicide twice later on in life (once by drinking antifreeze). One could just as easily defend her sudden retirement by saying Joyner retired to start a family after achieving all she could in track and that Robinson was lying about Joyner and Lewis for financial gain while his own career was fading. FloJo gave birth on Nov. 13, 1990 after all. And maybe she also realized that she'd never again approach the times she ran in 1988. 10.49 was most likely wind assisted. And the track in Seoul for the 1988 Olympics was a very fast track (look at the times in the men's 100 m finals - 4 sub 10 second runners), making it very unlikely she would break her record by or at the 1991 World Championships, for which she would be 31. She retired a millionaire.[7]
  • I'm not trying to explain away the drug rumors - just pointing out that rumors and "expert" opinions could be twisted to go either way. Unfortunately, what the media chooses to cover and what is misinterpreted by non-athletes or would-be track experts like those IP addresses posting above is usually the sensationalistic negative aspects, as opposed to more rational thought. My whole point is, we need to accurately report without giving it undue weight exactly what is printed by reliable sources only - and not assume that because the entire article is not about her supposed drug use that it's because her "fans" are suppressing it. The fact is, it's only been rumored by the press, a few so-called "drug experts", disgruntled/jealous competitors and casual fans that Florence Griffith Joyner used drugs. She never tested positive, her death has not been proven to be linked to drug use, and no credible evidence has been presented to show she was cheating. And that's all an encyclopedia can say. It's not up to us to speculate and all of our own personal opinions based on our own POV should not be included here at all. --Yankees76 Talk 23:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps related here, the article currently reads "Track athletes commonly retired in their late 20s, . . . " and continues into her husband's justification for her retirement. I think that unattributed statement is stretching beyond NPOV. It is almost unprecedented in the modern era, since the advent of professionalism which happened around the beginning of her career, for an athlete to retire at the peak of their success. Most will continue to run for appearance fees as long as their name recognition gets them paid. Her name recognition at the time was perhaps the greatest ever. She could have made good money for four years or more without making the effort to train. Anybody around the sport would know that too. The point being, her retirement was early. For us to give the excuses she used as factual and to suggest it was common is improper. So I'm removing that line. Feel free to discuss why you think it should be replaced. Trackinfo (talk) 06:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Fashion[edit]

No remark on her one legged running outfits? Like when/why she started that maybe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.31.68 (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

yeah, i'd never heard about any "fingernails" and i didn't even know she'd died, but she was world-famous for those one-legged suits! 173.9.95.217 (talk) 18:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Fashion does seem like a reasonable topic to add to this article. I have found a few articles that at least mention her style/fashion. I will try to add them to the article eventually, but here are some sources if anyone else wants to get started. [8] [9] [10] Knope7 (talk) 01:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Queen Song[edit]

In what way is Flo-Jo referenced in the Queen song "Rain Must Fall"? Vigfus (talk) 14:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


No, I didn't get that either. There is a couplet (You want a clean reputation/ But now youre facing complications) which could be taken to refer to her - but equally to any other athlete, politician, newspaper magnate or rock star of the time. I'm not sure that really counts as a reference... 216.31.202.145 (talk) 11:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Dave Redford
I assume it's a reference to Freddie Mercury yelling "Flo Jo!" just before the guitar solo kicks in.
While it probably was inspired by her name- it's too coincidental that the album was recorded around the time of the 1988 Olympics- I suspect there isn't any significant meaning to its use beyond the fact it sounded good as an exclamation? Ubcule (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Sir Mix-a-lot Song[edit]

In the Sir Mix-a-lot song "Baby Got Back," he says, "You can have them bimbos / I'll keep my women like Flo Jo." There should be a "cultural references" section. Doubledragons (talk) 13:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

"As opposed to after her death..."[edit]

In regards to the comments made by Whoopi Goldberg for Hollywood Squares...was that necessary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.43.96.3 (talk) 20:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Personal life[edit]

She eventually married Al Joyner and had a child with him - where is that in the article? A complete article should include information about her personal life as well. 68.20.35.90 (talk) 01:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Surname[edit]

Then Griffith-Joyner or Griffith Joyner? --84.245.229.37 (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Judging from the Library of Congress and her official website, the non-hyphenated version was her official name. I have requested that the page be moved. SFB 18:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Clean[edit]

She was tested all the time and never once had a positive drug test. She has been gone now 15 years let her RIP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.253.155.86 (talk) 06:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Lance Armstrong never tested positive either. As much as I'd want her to have been clean, the general consensus is she was on something. I recall the reaction to her wins, and none of it was positive. The thing that stands out most in my memory is a split screen was done of Flo Jo which showed the change in her physique from 1987 to 1988: she was a different person, as were her times. This dramatic improvement was put down to a change in training regimen; if you believe that I've got a bridge to sell you. Her times still stand (to date) and nobody has even come close to breaking them. Her wins will always have an asterisk beside them. Carlos Rojas77 (Talk) 22:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Lance Armstrong has tested positive repeatedly. The absence of fact does not give reason to make fact up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1319:402C:D88E:577F:988:9648 (talk) 04:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

No mention of her asthma?[edit]

It seems to me I recall contemporary coverage of her being an asthmatic, and I have a questionable memory of her in an asthma medication advertisement.

A history of respiratory issues would go a long way to contributing to her death from an epileptic seizure (it's very, very, rare for them to be fatal). So perhaps it's worthy of mention. wiki-ny-2007 (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm late to this, but in case anyone sees it, I think this editor might have been thinking of Jackie Joyner-Kersee. EricEnfermero (Talk) 02:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Florence's family (especially daughter)[edit]

I just saw her daughter on America's Got Talent. Her husband is famous too, no? I think there should be mention of them and the rest of her children, if she has any. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrRQCCGAHeg Benvhoff (talk) 02:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Testosterone elimination / sources[edit]

I removed a paragraph that - the best I can tell - is a sourced description of how long it takes non-human primates and human males to eliminate testosterone from the body after an injection. I removed it because it doesn't have a clear connection to Griffith Joyner, but the paragraph was restored. This is problematic for several reasons. The cited sources don't mention Griffith Joyner at all, and even the article text doesn't explain how the information ties in. Before we even get to the point of considering issues like WP:MEDRS and primary/secodary sources/original research, it's just common sense to remove it.

Even if we could find a reliable source that explains how testosterone pharmacokinetics is directly related to Griffith Joyner's situation, we would need to find someone who could write it in an encyclopedic manner. The current grammar is poor (When administered intramuscularly for complete elimination from the body from the last injection testosterone propionate...); that kind of wording really doesn't help the reader anyway. If we want the body to completely eliminate testosterone, we don't give more intramuscular testosterone, but that's exactly what is suggested by the current wording. We just need to cut the paragraph unless we can find a source that describes how testosterone specifically impacted Griffith Joyner. EricEnfermero (Talk) 12:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

In the paragraph before you see this quote: ""We performed all possible and imaginable analyses on her. We never found anything. There should not be the slightest suspicion." It claims just because it was not found during the time of testing that she wasn't using a performance enhance drug. I contrast this claim with a scientific paper (Not original research) showing the life of testosterone in the body before it becomes undetectable. Additionally in another paragraph we find this: "Griffith Joyner made public her decision to retire from Olympic competition one week after it was announced that random out-of-competition drug testing would be instituted during the 1989 season" So she quit the moment random out-of-competition testing was going to be instituted a random testing tha could have found her with performance enhance drugs in her system.
We regards to the grammar I'll see to improve that now. And this a properly sourced study and is very valid and encyclopedic. Quantanew (talk) 04:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Please see WP:SYNTH. Right now, we haven't provided a single source that discusses undetectable drugs in Griffith Joyner's system. To cobble together sources and to create some speculation that she had the ability to abuse PEDs and get away with it - when, again, no single source has been provided which says that - that is the very definition of WP:SYNTH and original research. These are really very basic WP concepts, so I am disappointed (and a bit taken aback) that it requires this much discussion to come to an appropriate understanding. EricEnfermero (Talk) 04:34, 22 July 2016 (UTC).
Adding more sources and i will expand the paragraph. Even contributed to her early death. And again this is not original research and you can't claim that is WP:SYNTH because the study explicitly talk about the mean life of testosterone. So I'm surprise that you are taken aback by this. Quantanew (talk) 05:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Please read the SYNTH link above. If the source does not mention Griffith Joyner specifically, it is likely synth and should not be added. Moreover, the article should be neutral and focus on Griffith Joyner, not the larger issue of performance enhancing drugs. The material you want to add maybe better suited for a page more directly related to PED, although neutrality will still be required. As it is, this article already puts too much emphasis on the PED allegations and talk of wind speed. Other aspects of her life need to be expanded upon. Knope7 (talk) 05:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I have removed that paragraph again as there is clearly no justified support for it in this discussion. The sources don't relate to her and its sole purpose is to insinuate cheating. Tvx1 02:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Bank teller[edit]

I see some similarities between this story saying she stopped running in college to work at a bank and this article saying she stopped running and worked at a bank after the Olympics. It's possible she did the same thing twice, but it does make me question the reliability. Thoughts? Knope7 (talk) 01:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Following the 1988 Olympics, she was an international celebrity. She was a sought after TV guest, she went into fashion design. Working in a bank would seem very out of place post-1988 Olympics. By 1984, she already had an Olympic silver medal, in 1987 she won a World Championship silver and relay gold and married an Olympic gold medalist. That doesn't really sound like bank teller territory. It is post boycott 1980 Olympics when she had nothing. She was a good high school sprinter, but an also ran at the top level, just one of three good sprinters at just her college (CSUN isn't exactly a name brand college either), no scholarship and didn't qualify for the 1980 Olympics that were boycotted and no Americans ran in. That would be a pretty bleak period of time. After the 1980 Olympics makes sense. Trackinfo (talk) 02:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the input. I should have been more clear. The first possible time period is 1979 during college, before the 1980 trials (as in the Wikipedia article currently and on the jrank site linked previously). There's also a mention of working at a bank from her mother here, which sounds more like the college time frame. I'm not 100% clear on the years for when she entered college and her date of graduation to know if a break makes sense there.
The second possible time period is 1986. CNN and LA Times, and People say 1986. To me it seems generally like CNN, LA Times, and People are stronger sources. Also from what I've read she was not a huge star after the silver at the Olympics in 1984, so I don't think her stardom precludes the 1986 date. Knope7 (talk) 03:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
ESPN Classic supports both time periods, so that's what I'll go with for now. Knope7 (talk) 20:18, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

1988 Time article[edit]

This Time article from 1988 looks promising but requires a subscription. If anyone has access, it might be a great source for the article. Knope7 (talk) 03:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Women in Green[edit]

As you may know, the Florence Griffith Joyner article has been named as one of the Hot 100 articles for Women in Green. This is part of an effort to improve important articles about women so that more Good Articles are about women. To that end, there is a lot of work that needs to be done on this article. First I am trying to find a source to support every non-obvious fact in the article. As I am doing that, I am also using those reliable sources to add relevant details. Several sections of this article, in particular anything about her experiences at the Olympics and her other professional endeavors, need expansion. I would encourage anyone who is interested to join in (or continue) to improve the article anyway you can. Please keep in mind that sources must be reliable and any controversial information needs to comply with Wikipedia guidelines. Knope7 (talk) 23:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Adding images[edit]

I think a few more photos would improve this aticle. I do not see any other photos available in commons. Would anyone be able to find more photos with an appropriate license to add? In particular, a photo of her on a track and/or wearing one of her famous one leg running uniforms would be great. Knope7 (talk) 01:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Florence Griffith Joyner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC)