The Irony of Sally Pearson’s Disqualification.

Before today, I didn’t have a clue who Sally Pearson is, and had she not been disqualified from the women’s 100 metres final, after winning it, I would have remained as clueless. In earlier days I was a very keen follower of track and field, and remember listening to radio to hear Jim Hines win the men’s 100 metres final at the 1968 Mexico Olympics (I was 14). As a teenager I could recite every Olympic gold medallist from the 100 metres to the 400 metres up to 1968, but later lost interest. In the 2000s my interest in athletics dwindled to very superficial perusals of “big games” results. So I decided to see what was going on in Delhi. And the Sally Pearson controversy hit me head on. I watched the women’s 100 metres final:



The controversy is outlined in one media report of many: The Sydney Morning Herald

In the latest report, No hard feelings: Sally Pearson forgives England team on emotional evening


So let me put it in plain English (if you’ll pardon the pun). The England team wanted to elevate their fourth-place sprinter to third place, and the Nigerian team to get their silver medallist into first place, and by disqualifying Pearson this would be made possible. Perhaps the Nigerian protest would have stood on its own, but I would suggest that the England team made it more persuasive. Thus, Australia’s first female 100 metres Commonwealth Games gold medallist in 36 years, was disqualified for “jumping the gun” counted in 1,000ths of a second. Something that was difficult to judge before the age of sophisticated computer technology and starting block sensors to measure reactions. Under the old rule an athlete could get away with one false start, but under the new IAAF zero tolerance rule since January 2010, any athlete will be disqualified after one false start. There is no question that Sally jumped the gun, possibly reacting to Turner's break, and placing her hands on her head she seemed to understand this meant instant disqualification. That she wasn't there and then has more to do with official incompetence. And here is what is so very sad. In spite of “jumping the gun”, Sally had a bad start the second time. She was trailing the field in sixth position after the start, and ploughed through every one of them to finish first. But I guess, no accolades for sheer athletic genius and talent, only to “computer technology” and envious protests.

And what is the irony? The irony is that no one will remember who “officially” won the gold medal in the women’s 100 metres final in Dehli, but everyone will remember Sally Pearson. This was not about drugs, and deliberate cheats; this was about something measured in thousandths of a second, and had little meaning to the outcome. This was not Florence Griffith-Joyner or Marion Jones. Sally’s 11.28 seconds is by no means a spectacular time, compared to Joyner’s 10.49 world record, which was drug-induced.

If other Australians feel like I do, then they will feel mixed emotions. We could all tangibly feel Sally’s pain, not the least at the incompetent officialdom at Delhi which led her on a wild goose chase, only to end in bitter disappointment. On the other hand, we are seeing a greatness in the soul of a magnificent athlete who towered above the opposition, and who is, notwithstanding “officialdom”, the fastest woman over 100 metres in the Commonwealth.

Next stop – London 2012.

“It is inevitable that some defeat will enter even the most victorious life. The human spirit is never finished when it is defeated...it is finished when it surrenders.” – Ben Stein

Postscript:

Sally's vindication; the Women's 100m hurdles Final: