Aw, I can’t really take full credit; I have the unfair advantage of, y’know, alcohol.
At the time Rebagliadi was stripped of the medal and then had it given back - it was the 1998 Games, which ironically were in Japan - weed wasn’t a banned substance; stripping him of the medal was an embarrassing error. AFTER the fact, they made it so, in part because of that fiasco.
Also, that was a white boy, and this is a black girl.
Maybe that means something, maybe it doesn’t. But, with the precedent, it does look like an opening for a lot of potential lawyering to me.
Twitter and I are still not over the fact that some people believe that weed is a performance enhancer.
“Yep, after we got baked we sprinted down to the WaWa to pick up more Doritos. And that felt so good we went to the park and ran some more sprints just for fun!”
Well, it doesn’t. Rebagliati did not break a rule. Richardson did break a rule.
Using steroids wasn’t against the rules in 1908, but it is now; an athlete caught using steroids can’t point to precedent in 1908, can they? The problem is not that the rule against weed was applied to Richardson. It was applied exactly the way it’s supposed to be applied. The problem is that the rule exists at all.
Richardson is only 21, which is young for a sprinter. Hopefully she’ll get a shot in Paris in three years.
Performance enhancers are not confined to improving power or aerobic capacity.
Beta-blockers were used in shooting competitions to slow the shooter’s heart rate.
Beta blockers help fight anxiety and serve as muscle relaxants. They lower the heart rate and reduce tremors.
That’s still a major fucking stretch to me.
I don’t know about Rebagliabi, but certainly the Phelps situation a decade later suggests a different treatment between “white boys” (men) and “black girls” (women).
I won’t defend her personality. Regardless, weed is a dumb reason to bar an athlete from the Olympics. I get that it’s the rule - nobody’s denying it. But we can criticize the rule.
I agree with you. She, along with some crazy majority of 20 somethings, uses marijuana on the regular. I’m totally kosher with that. I also buy that she used it close to finding out about her birth mother’s death (her grandmother raised her).
But the way she released the information was obviously intended to make her sympathetic. The fact she didn’t outright lie about never using it before doesn’t change the fact that the selective framing of the message is cynical garbage. The info was included solely to curry favor in the press. It’s obviously worked with many of you in this thread.
I will repeat that I think her being suspended is utter and complete garbage. She’s fine, she should compete. No shade. But let’s face it, this tidbit is conveniently irrefutable and manipulative. It’s clearly intended to imply that this is an isolated incident, that she should take less responsibility for the error. On that I call bullshit.
What do you mean by “isolated incident”?
It could well be that this is, in fact, the first time that she has ever used marijuana during the prohibited window of a competition, and that the reason she used marijuana on this particular occasion, when she knew it was against the rules, is that she was coping with the very recent death of her mother. I find that scenario completely believable, and in terms of banned activity, that would, in fact, be an “isolated incident,” even if she smokes up like Cheech and Chong outside of competition periods.
You are, of course, welcome to your opinion. I just think that your obsession with making speculative inferences regarding the exact level of sincerity in her apology is pretty silly and irrelevant.
Perhaps we should hold a special Weed Olympics where all contestants are required to blaze up immediately prior to their events.
Phelps never tested positive during competition, therefore he didn’t violate the rules that Sha’Carri did. He was suspended AFTER the Olympics for using marijuana AFTER the Olympics, and was suspended longer than Sha’Carri was. It’s a very flawed comparison.
I think it’s a fine comparison.
Phelps didn’t violate any WADA rules and received a three month suspension.
Richardson (knowingly) violated the WADA rules and received a one month suspension.
To me, Richardson’s conduct (actually violating the WADA rules) calls for a punishment at least as severe as Phelps (who did not violate any WADA rules). Yet, Phelps received three times the suspension.
You don’t think race and/or gender played a role in that? Even given the fact that some people are calling for an even lower punishment on explicitly racial grounds?
This thread has discussed marijuana use by three Olympic athletes. Two of them violated no IOC/WADA rules, yet were punished more severely than the third who knowingly violated the rules (I don’t consider the fact that one of these was reversed on appeal to be significant). Like the earlier poster said, “maybe that means something, maybe it doesn’t” but it’s a pretty striking precedent.
I think it has next to nothing to do with race. And everything to do with time. Public opinion and the legal position of marijuana has changed dramatically in the last decade. Society has normalized it substantially.
Also, Phelps was photographed looking a mess and had been developing a pretty obvious self-destructive substance abuse pattern. Phelps was suspended more for embarrassing the IOC/USOC and a escalating pattern of behavior than anything else.
I’m in a career where substance use is banned and can be tested at any time. It was part of the paperwork I signed when I wanted the job. Yes, it’s a stupid rule and pot harms no one. There is also no sob story I could tell that would prevent my deservedly getting fired for it, it would be my own fault.
I don’t feel sorry for her, if she’s truly top tier then opportunity will come again, and she’ll again have the choice to violate her contract or not.
Not that I see definite indications of it in this thread, but I suspect some of the people who are wailing about how unfair it is to ban an athlete for using a non-performance enhancing “recreational drug”, are at the same time gung-ho for legalization on the grounds that pot is fantastic for relieving stress, pain and treating myriad medical conditions. I find those medical claims vastly overblown and don’t see much point to regulating athletes on this particular score.
As for facetious demands to ban meditation and psychological counseling, those require input and effort from individuals and not pharmacologic shortcuts, which in the case of at least some drugs can have deleterious long-term effects, so that it’s a bad idea to tolerate them for short-term sports success.
You’re for bannings aspirin and ice, then, huh?
What relevance does it have to our discussion then?
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I don’t give a flying fuck if pot has any medicinal value. I’m “gung-ho for legalization” on the grounds that people should be able to get high if they want to, and that locking people up for using or selling or growing weed makes a travesty of the criminal justice system.
Athletes are allowed to relieve stress, pain, and treat medical conditions. They are not allowed to take medicines that only fix their “I’m not quite athletic enough” medical condition.
The infuriating thing about MJ is that besides being the most innocuous banned/illegal drug out there, it is the easiest to detect. It has a distinctive smell, and is detectable for many days or weeks after use. If she had shot up heroin or snorted coke or taken oxy after hearing about her mom, Richardson would have tested “clean”, and WADA would have considered it a job well done, keeping their sport free of drug users.