Lolo Jones: American Sprinter Will Shine in 100m Hurdles
Today at 4 p.m. ET, Lolo Jones is back and will shine in the Women’s 100-meter hurdles—a race that she infamously lost at these same games four years ago.
We all felt the pain and sorrow after she devastatingly stumbled over the ninth hurdle in Beijing and lost that elusive gold medal.
But guess what? She’s back for redemption.
This doesn’t go without saying that the road isn’t going to be tough. There are plenty of tough competitors in the field tonight including who most people believe to be the best hurdler in the world, Aussie Sally Pearson, and reigning Olympic gold medalist Dawn Harper.
Jones got to tonight’s finals by qualifying for the semifinal race with a strong opening race in the preliminaries at 12.68 seconds. That time was just behind race favorite, Sally Pearson.
If Lolo Jones wants to win a gold medal tonight she’s going to have to run a near flawless race. She’ll have to be quick off the blocks and really stay clean over the hurdles because one misstep and we could see a disaster similar to Beijing.
I don’t believe we’ll see that though, simply because of the lessons and experience she gained with her fault in 2008. She’s going to enter this race with a clear mind, go out and just do what she does best.
With a career personal best of 12.43 seconds, Lolo Jones can actually go faster than the time it took to win the 100-meter hurdles at the 2008 Olympics, in which Dawn Harper ran a 12.54.
If I was a betting man—which I am—I’m putting a little on Lolo Jones to take the Women’s 100-meter hurdles in stylish fashion given everything she went through in 2008. Redemption is a provoking emotion and I think we’ll see that justly tonight.
So, this is what I suggest for you, if you can get to a computer around 4 p.m., do it. Head to the Olympic live stream and watch Lolo Jones do her thing because girl’s got swag and she’s fast.
Just don’t blink, because you might miss just how fast she’s going to go.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?