The Washington Post (paywall) has an article up this morning about why marijuana is still on the WADA banned-substance list. The short of it seems to be a holdover from the War on Drugs (Clinton’s Drug Czar Barry McCafferty seems to have been particularly vociferous about it being included on the list), bureacratic intertia, and image-conscious corporate sponsors.
As for why I believe Richardson, @BigT and @mhendo have summarized my thoughts well. More fundamentally, I think it’s good practice to believe people until they’ve given me a reason not to believe them, particulary when the truth or falsity of their claims have no impact on my life.
Yes. I’m saying your post hoc rationalization for why it could be seen as providing a competitive advantage doesn’t hold up, because drugs that provide those effects are not banned. Anyone can take a non-prohibited substance that provides those effects.
But it may provide those benefits with fewer downsides than other options. If other athletes are on Prozac with it’s associated side effects but she can take marijuana without those side effects, she’ll have an advantage. That may be a reason to take it off the list, but regardless, it’s on the list right now.
The homophobic tweet was from six years ago, when she was 15 years old. I think that people should own their words, but I’ve also maintained consistently that people should be given the opportunity to redeem themselves if they change their attitudes, especially if their indiscretions occurred when they were kids. As I’ve said a number of times, I wouldn’t like to be judged on the worst things I said as a teenager.
I mean, I know of some full-grown adults who use terms like “gold digger” and “liar” and “attention whore” when talking about female victims of assault and rape, and they’re still unapologetic about it.
And none of this is relevant to your initial use of the term “diva,” which made no mention of her social media past, and was focused only on the marijuana incident. Like I asked before, what is it about this particular incident, and her reaction to it, that led you to call her a diva?
Especially given the fact that Richardson’s use of weed might well have been totally legal.
Testing athletes for recreational drugs that are not in any way performance enhancing is a product of the drug panic of the 1980s, when they wanted to test everyone, and it was absurd and at least a little bit racist from the get go.
Wasn’t this battle already won, when it happened before?
I seem to recall a Canadian snowboarder testing positive for weed, (this would be well before weed had been legalized in Canada!) losing his medal, but then…after some protesting it was reinstated as it was designated NOT performance enhancing!
I’m confused that they aren’t all over that precedent.
Perhaps I’m misremembering parts of it? I can’t remember his weird last name, but wasn’t his first name Rob? Anyone else remember this?