I agree that marijuana should no longer be on the list of banned substances for athletes. It's a tragedy that Sha’Carri Richardson will not be allowed to compete in the 100 meter dash at the Tokyo Olympic Games.
However, it's worth understanding a bit of the context surrounding her suspension:
- The maximum allowed level of THC in the bloodstream is 150 nanograms per milliliter. This is very high.¹ For all practical purposes, it means that anti-doping authorities have already declared that they don't care if you smoke a joint or three during your free time.
- All top athletes are well aware of the drug rules. The substance testing regime is incredibly intrusive, which makes it a constant presence in the life of every athlete competing at the international level.
- Richardson tested above the allowed level. There was really nothing that anti-doping officials could do at that point. They had to suspend her.
- American authorities did everything they could to help Richardson, reducing her suspension to a single month, the minimum allowed.
- As I often think in cases like this, Richardson was ill-served by her friends, who should have been helping her avoid marijuana as a way of coping with the loss of her biological mother. Instead, my guess is they were egging her on.
This whole thing is still a tragedy, and there's a growing consensus that anti-doping rules should be used solely to root out performance enhancing drugs. Government pressure has driven the inclusion of many recreational drugs as well, but those days may finally be coming to an end. Good riddance.
UPDATE: Based on feedback I've gotten, I've toned down the original text. I thought that Richardson's THC level indicated a substantial use of marijuana, but that's not necessarily the case. She clearly tested above the allowed level, which is pretty generous, but she wasn't necessarily bingeing or anything like that.
¹For comparison, in states that allow marijuana use the most common level used to indicate impaired driving is 5 nanograms.
"Richardson was ill-served by her friends, who should have been helping her avoid massive marijuana binges as a way of coping with the loss of her biological mother. Instead, my guess is they were egging her on."
This is a really weird thing to publicly guess about with absolutely no evidence.
I'll bet she probably doesn't smoke and it probably was edibles.
The THC content in a lot of edibles can be highly variable, to the point where it easily could become a public health issue.
Along with unregulated supplements, which obviously are already a public health issue.
If you take it into the body to be absorbed it's either a food or a drug, and there is no third thing.
Agreed.
> I'm guessing this because I think it would be hard to smoke this much pot (or edibles or whatever) all alone. But maybe not. What do I know?
It is almost traditional for first-time users to eat edibles, and way too much of them. It is downright cliche. (Remember this? https://www.huffpost.com/entry/maureen-dowd-tries-marijuana_n_5442224)
My guess is more, she ate way too much of a brownie the night before. But what do I know?
And blood tests can be abnormally high.
The amount tested in the blood has amazingly little coincidence with disorientation level.
This. Blood levels are not well correlated with impairment. The cops like a nice low level so they can meet their quota.
It’s funny this is a thing in the media. Y’all are sharks.
In my own limited experience, I've never found the stuff to be "performance enhancing." More like "performance killing." A cheerful note: recreational mj was decriminalized in New Mexico this week. Next year, people can start growing their own (within limits).
In my experience the euphoria-inducing and painkilling qualities of the substance can indeed enhance performance on a run. I personally don’t think the athletic authorities are being unreasonable to list cannabis as a prohibited substance. That said, it’s really hard to imagine it helps with sprinting, but perhaps it’s difficult or untenable to ban it for some runners and not others?
She's a sprinter, not a marathoner. And the things that make it work for training also make it not work for long duration events... So it really isn't.
Why would the "things that make it work" for long distance training runs render it non-helpful for a long distance race (say, distances above 800M)? THC is known to enhance endurance, and also possesses analgesic qualities, and these are going to be even more helpful during a race than during a training run. Do you suppose the anti-doping authorities add any old substance to the banned list, with zero scientific basis?
I don't disagree the possible benefits of THC are far more dubious when it comes to sprinting, but it's likely impractical or non-tenable to allow substances for some track athletes and not for others.
This is obviously a terrible situation for this young athlete, and for US track and field, and it sucks for fans of the sport like me, too.
But I think a lot of folks are conflating their "weed should be legal" sentiments with a very different issue. For the record I enjoy cannabis; I think it's enormously stupid for government to ban it; and I also think the anti-doping authorities might well have substantial justification for banning it.
And needless to say Richardson knew the rules.
Yeah, she definitely eats. I do as well. Smoking screws up your lungs and physical training.
It seems a bit rich to say “the rules are the rules” in the same week that Bill Cosby’s rape case was fixed. The rules, such as they are, seem infinitely malleable to the point of irrelevance when and attempt is made to apply them to the rich and powerful. If this woman started a Go Fund Me, my guess is that in a couple of weeks she’d have more than enough money to hire the fixers or buy the necessary judges and politicians.
I have mixed emotions about this (given my advanced age)
On the one hand yes recreational MJ is not a bad thing
ON the OTHER hand she's been through intrusive testing for PEDs most of her adult life - she was told what the limits were and she was apparently allowed to have, as Drum put it a joint or three but this girl did 500% MORE than than would be allowed even in "approved" states.
After she was caught the officials got her the minimum sentence
I know - it's romantic to think it's a woman athlete of color so she needs to be given leeway.
But in this case - NO, sorry.
There are limits, the limits are known and even though no one else was involved or affected by this - she does have regulations pertaining to her work that she needs to follow......
Her gender and race aside, if there’s no rules for some, why should there be rules for others? If she had Cosby’s wealth and fame, I have little doubt the matter would be discretely handled.
That makes zero sense. Does the reversal of Cosby's conviction mean we should let all the rapists out of prison?
Generally speaking, I’m hesitant to let rapists out of prison ever. But if we accept what seems to be the operative principle that the rich and famous can rape with impunity, are we imprisoning rapists for raping or for being poor and poorly connected ?
If she is competing at an international Olympics she needs to go there as a member of the U.S. Olympic team. THEY set the rules.
If you don't comply you are out.
Wealth has nothing to do with this either. She got tested, she knew the test would take place and she knew the limits.
The only thing she might NOT know is the level of MJ in the stuff she was ingesting (assuming it was an edible). According to some folks posting here THAT varies widely
I do feel badly for her as she just lost her mother and perhaps this is a result of THAT loss. But that is not an excuse.
We have rules - she knew that. We test - she knew that too. We set limits - she knew that as well.
I do NOT favor bending the rules for this situation.
At one level, I think you’re right. At a different level, it seems to me that if the rich and famous enjoy impunity, why not make an exception for less well connected but apparently deserving people?
There was nothing discrete about how things with Cosby were handled.
Quite so. Everything followed the proper form but the outcome was preordained. My point is that if this woman had enough money behind her, a way would be found.
Neither was there anything preordained about it. An earlier prosecutor screwed-up.
This decision was very unusual and relied almost entirely upon a sort of bank shot about Cosby’s supposed reliance upon the prosecutor’s supposed (but strangely undocumented) promises that if, at his civil trial, he would confess (he didn’t) and tell the truth (which he also didn’t do) then he wouldn’t be prosecuted by one particular jurisdiction in Pennsylvania. I have never in more than 20 years in the criminal justice system even heard of a court accepting this kind of informal immunity or accepting this kind of bizarre claim of reliance on such an informal claim of detrimental reliance in the context of a civil lawsuit. As the court’s acknowledgment of the unusual nature of its decision and how it runs contrary to established case law suggests, this was a decision to free Bill Cosby and it’s not going to apply to any poor slob who claims to have been tricked into confessing in the future.
An addendum to my earlier response:
It's worth reading the actual decision to understand just how poorly supported it and dependent upon motivated reason it was. Just to be even more clear, Castor (the former D.A.) doesn't seem to have actually promised that if Cosby testified in the civil trial he’d be immunized and he certainly didn't enter into the kind of written understanding that the courts have generally required.
If I’m reading the facts correctly, there was no formal understanding about immunity and the court doesn’t cite such an agreement. Castor simply declined to prosecute from which Cosby’s expensive lawyers supposed inferred that he would be "unable" to invoke his 5th amendment rights against self-incrimination (which more accurately translates into the Cosby lawyers exploiting their assumption that the prosecutor was in the tank for them so they didn't have to take the PR or legal risk involved in taking the 5th. There's a world of difference between those two things).
The courts then decided that there was an immunity agreement to be enforced, albeit not a written one, nor even an explicit promise. But somehow it was "understood". There’s a million cases on non-rich, non-famous defendants who thought they had an informal, unwritten deal with the prosecutors and I don’t believe any of those defendants have ever been successful using the theory that was accepted by this court. And I would be willing to be that none of them ever will.
These judges obviously wanted to spring Cosby. They couldn't find anything helpful in the law or the previous cases. So they just invented a new rule which, again, I would be will be bet will not be applicable to non-rich, non-famous defendants in the future.
Mitch:
I'm not going to say it was rightly decided because I haven't gone back and read all the cases on immunity and the Fifth Amendment, but you are giving the decision the least charitable reading.
The basic problem is we know in some sense he relied on the non-prosecution decision, because he testified in the civil case, and his lawyers would have never allowed them to do that if they had not gotten some form of assurance that he no longer faced Fifth Amendment jeopardy.
And when you realize that fact, it suddenly becomes- not quite as different from what happens to non-rich defendants as you are portraying. There's a whole bunch of caselaw as to handle vague statements from prosecutors and law enforcement that induce a defendant to incriminate him- or herself, and sometimes such statements have been held to create implied immunity. It's a complicated issue, which is why you got such a stark division on a court full of highly accomplished, intelligent jurists.
I don’t think I’m giving the least charitable reading to the court’s opinion. The cases are universally and abundantly clear that, where immunity is concerned, a wink and a nod are never sufficient. The court itself acknowledges that there was neither a formal immunity agreement nor a formal declination agreement that conditioned the decision not to prosecute on Cosby’s waiving his right against self incrimination in civil litigation.
There was an assumption by Cosby’s legal team that posturing as someone who had nothing to hide and wouldn’t take the fifth was safe because the DA was in the tank. But, as even the court tacitly acknowledges, that’s never been considered the kind of detrimental reliance that could convert the hope that a criminal defendant would testify before a civil court into a binding immunity agreement. This is something entirely new and which I would be will to bet will be be successfully invoked by criminal defendants who are not Bill Cosby.
"The cases are universally and abundantly clear that, where immunity is concerned, a wink and a nod are never sufficient."
That's false. You can start at page 975 of this article and you will see the cases are all over the place on implied promises of immunity:
https://www.google.com/search?q=implied+promises+of+immunity&oq=implied+promises+of+immunity&aqs=chrome..69i57.6900j0j9&client=ms-android-tmus-us-revc&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8
Re 500%, Kevin has asserted states allow 5 nanograms and the failure level of the test taken and failed is 150 or higher. That would be an increase of 30x.
150 - 5 is 145
145 /. 5 is 29
29 x 100 is 2900
2900% more than allowed in approved states. Modulo and hoisting petard math errors on my part of course 🙂
Rick-
Thanks for the math help - I sure as heck need it. And I am not afraid to say it either.
I do not like comparisons but 2900% MORE than allowed for alcohol would cause her to die.
I think the best thing is to let this rest. If she wants she could withdraw citing her mother's recent passing and that would go a long way to killing this story
In the meantime take a look at the limits imposed by the governing bodies and adjust if needed.
This was not a PED case it was recreational pot and there is a HUGE difference. One helps her compete - the other helps her deal with the loss of Mom.
Those are different tests for different things.
Cosby was released precisely because “the rules are the rules”. Even though he was almost certainly guilty of the crimes, the prosecution did not follow the rules of due process.
As I’ve previously argued at some length, if you read the decision itself (as opposed to summaries) it’s pretty clear that whilst this prosecutor isn’t the sharpest knife in the drawer he did, in fact, follow the rules. It’s very clear that the court crafted a new rule which almost certainly applies only to people who are Bill Cosby.
Again, there was no formal immunity agreement in place and thus nothing upon which Cosby could reasonably have relied to his detriment. There was an assumption made by Cosby’s legal team that the criminal justice system had decided to roll over and play dead but that in no way supported the court’s outlandish claim that Cosby had been “forced” to waive his right against self incrimination. If you real the decision, it’s abundantly clear that the “rules are the rules” for the great unwashed but they’re extremely flexible who those with wealth, fame, and power.
You my be right. I didn't read the ruling. And, even if I had, I'm not a lawyer so I may not have had the best interpretation of it. I was just going by the explanations and opinions of the talking heads on tv. From what I saw it seemed like they all agreed that it was (unfortunately) the correct ruling.
I see that "progressives" no longer have a problem with whataboutism, eh Mitch? Or is that "Moscow Mitch?" LOL
I don't follow how you got from what I said about the Cosby case to "progressives no longer have a problem with whataboutism". Perhaps a bit less cryptic and a bit more exposition and we can have a dialogue.
Your argument is weak if it solely rests on accepting an arbitrarily designated (THC) value of a substance that has no inherent competitive benefit.
Just saying.
BTW, this is my same retort for anyone who accepts an arbitrary cutoff level of natural testosterone in female athletes.
The cut-off for women is a replacement for the old sex tests. They are looking for internal testes, because internal testes produce levels of T that are far above what cis non-intersex women produce.
So it isn't arbitrary. They are testing for a level that indicates an organ associated with males. Maybe they are wrong to do it, but it isn't arbitrary.
In light of recent "trans" activism, it's clearly wrong to discriminate on the basis of sex, or gender, or gender identity, or even sexual practices. We need to restore all those gold medals that Soviet athletes would have earned in the 1960s. Why shouldn't have kleinfelder men have competed as women? Why shouldn't have women been goosed up on "Big T"?
To be honest, although this looks like plain ol' internet trollism, this is a question legislatures and school boards are now grappling with. If one assumes there are any innate physical performance-related differences between "males" and "females" (whatever that's supposed to mean nowadays), can we somehow assure "fair competition"? Or does anyone care anymore?
Bear in mind the high school issue is somewhat different. It's a lot more justifiable to impose extremely purist and intrusive gender rules on elite competitions where lots of money is at stake, as opposed to high schools, where it kind of pointlessly hurts trans girls who want to compete.
(reply to limitholdemblog)
That's a good point about high school competition... but then, assuming that any of these folks want to go on into college and/or professional athletics, or compete in the Olympics, they can justifiably argue that they were "led on" by first being allowed, then being barred ... UNFAIR! (and they'd have a good case.)
Speaking as a member of the 95% or more who would never get on the team in high school, or even middle school, the whole "competition" issue is just a privileged elite thing. I think it's irrelevant to the great mass of students and their parents.
It isn't as if trans-humans are being barred from PE class ... or are they? (And if so, why aren't the kids rejoicing? Has PE changed that much?)
No, they are not testing for testes, your statement is false and does not comport to medical science.
Let alone athletic advantage.
Crissa, they absolutely are. The history dates back 85 years to controversies about Stella Walsh, an intersex athlete at the 1936 Berlin Olympics. The IAAF has prohibited athletes with certain intersex conditions from competing as women ever since then, because they have "male" organs that produce "male" levels of testosterone and the entire point of having a women's competition is to segregate a category for people who don't carry this advantage.
There's just SO much dishonesty coming from trans activists and some of their lefty allies on this issue, because they don't like that elite sports don't just recognize their theories of gender identity and the unimportance of biological sex.
The issue is internal organs. We can go back to physical inspections if you want. But the testosterone is a proxy for that. The ONLY women the testosterone test is excluding are (a) intersex women with testes, (b) cis dopers, and (c) trans women who don't get their hormone levels down.
If you think all those people should compete as women, say it outright. But the criticism of the testosterone test is an attempt to not have to say "i think a woman born with testes should be able to compete in elite women's sports without getting her testosterone down" when that is what the person really believes
Males carry in the neighborhood of 10x more testosterone; cryptorchidism "internal" testes produces values vastly higher than 5 nmol/L -- the IOC's cutoff for women in certain sports.
What's considered "low" testosterone levels in males is still higher than the 5 nmol/L cutoff.
This is an arbitrary number:
Again, they are testing for TESTES. They can either go back to doing it directly, which everyone hated, or they can pick a number that Genel knows damned well the reason for but is pretending he doesn't.
If you want to argue "women born with testes should compete at the Olympics as women", argue that! A lot of people believe that. But don't pretend not to understand why there is a testosterone test that is designed to detect internal testes. Everyone knows why they picked the number they did.
@limitholdemblog
I thin you're confusing my argument -- that the level set is arbitrary -- with one that you are pushing.
When a consulting member of the IOC whose suggestion was the one that the IOC went with says that it's arbitrary, how can you dispute that the number is arbitrary?
@limitholdemblog
Also, the irony of the IOC demanding that such people take drugs to lower their testosterone, in order to compete.
Imagine that.
It turns out, the IOC has no problem forcing some athletes to take drugs.
It's arbitrary in the sense that they had to pick a specific number, in the same sense that 0.08 percent blood alcohol for drunk driving is arbitrary.
But it's not "arbitrary" in the sense that the term is usually used. They picked a number that accurately separates intersex women with internal testes from other cis women who do not have internal testes. That was the purpose of the number.
As for the IOC requiring "some athletes to lower testosterone", you have to understand that the baseline is simply not allowing trans women to compete as women. And the reason for that is that despite what some of the more loopy trans activists say, a trans woman who takes no hormones and gets no surgeries is basically a male for purposes of sports competition. So the rule of "you are whatever you identify as", which works fine most of the time, doesn't work in elite sports. Otherwise, some male sprinter will just transition and set a world record. (Indeed, it's even worse than that in some sports- someone could get seriously hurt if a person transitioned in a sport like wrestling without taking hormones.)
So your choice is between "don't allow trans women to compete as women at all" or "let them compete but impose special hormone and waiting period requirements that require them to physiologically transition to something closer to the norms of cis women". Elite sports have generally chosen the more trans-inclusive of the two available rules.
But they are simply not going to say anyone who declares a transition can instantly compete with no hormone reduction. Because that would basically destroy elite women's sports.
That is arbitrary, and no, your statement is basically untrue.
I am confused, why was this not settled with Ross Rebagliati at the Nagano Olympics?
That people like AOC made this an issue about Systemic Racism I think is a very clear example of the previous post about the Left going too far. The performative bullshit and signaling is just absurd.
As someone who has enjoyed pot most of my life I think the rule is archaic. But it is the rule. There were jobs I wouldn't even think of applying for because of drug tests back in the day. That's just how it is/was.
Good analogy.
+1
Completely wrong about the "baked" comment. Regular recreational or medical users can easily have a ng/ml level of 400, 500, or even higher. In my line of work, 150 ng/ml is considered LOW, and it in no way indicates any degree of impairment or excessive use.
Test
Tragedy?
There are many tragedies in the world today, but a single 21-year-old athlete who apparently ignored what is probably, for sprinters, an inappropriate rule regarding drug use hardly qualifies. No matter how inappropriate the rule is, Ms. Richardson was not compelled by necessity to violate it.
Is cannabis a performance enhancing drug? According to one expert I heard, it depends. For sprinters like Ms. Richardson, almost certainly not. But in events that require calm, relaxation (the shooting part of the biathlon?) it could be helpful. but that would also vary from individual to individual. Obviously, that would require the flexibility to have different standards for different events and those standards should be based on evidence, not supposition. Expecting that from Olympic committees is probably not very realistic.
I don't know why Ms. Richardson chose to consume marijuana. She was responsible for knowing the risk and surely consuming marijuana is not the only way to deal with life's stresses. In all likelihood, she will be back. She's only 21 and if she exercises good judgment, will probably prosper beyond the wildest dreams of
most people. She doesn't seem to have lost lucrative sponsorships and given the typical thrust of sports reporting, this setback, not tragedy, will probably contribute to the hyperbole that will surround future myth making.
Her response to these events gives reasons to expect she accepts responsibility and has learned a lesson. That's a huge step in the direction of a happier future. Good luck to her.
War on drugs. I don’t know if I’d call her a victim. But I’m guessing this war is claiming real victims and I’m also guessing it has a lot to do with drugs. Or maybe humanity is just really this awful.
CHICAGO (CBS) — At least 82 people have been shot, 14 of them fatally, since 5 p.m. Friday and in a violent holiday weekend in Chicago.
In shooting violence over Independence Day weekend in 2019, at least 68 people were shot, five fatally. On the holiday weekend in 2020, nearly 80 people were shot and 15 were killed. One of those shot was 14-year-old Vernando Jones. July 4 is the anniversary of his death, and the FBI is offering a $25,000 reward for anyone who has information leading to the conviction of his killers.
"Progressives" don't care when it's just black people shooting other black people in the ghetto. Get with the program, counterrevolutionary!
Hey, I grow a couple plants in the back yard and think MJ ought to be as legal as the tomatoes growing 15 feet away. But guess what? I'm not an Olympic athlete who's too stupid to read the rules. If she's looking for who's at fault, she should find the nearest mirror.