This wasn’t really mentioned much, but she likely had edibles, and likely had a lot of them. And not all pot leaves you in the couch drooling like cheech and Chong. Some of it can cause a rush of energy. There’s a sativa I have taken that basically acts on me better than any energy drink ever could. I’ve done a long 50 mile bike ride on that stuff. Cleaned my whole house. Written a novel.
And whatever she had in her system, if it was when she said she took it before the competition, there was a goodly amount in her through the competition as well.
That’s the other end of this. These rules. Along with Some other stuff like rules about clothing and equipment are disproportionately enforced against or impact non-white, non-western athletes. Typically women as well.
In particular black women are often subjected to a lot more scrutiny around doping, usually down to claim rooted in their bodies no matching expectations based mostly in white western beauty standard. It’s also been shown that non white and female athletes tend to see harsher punishments for a whole host of the rules. It’s been a burbling scandal for a decade or so in all sorts of sporting organizations but especially the IOC.
If it is the case that three different agencies have a 30 day rule for pot use by an Olympic athlete, then I wholeheartedly retract my comment and join the “this is bullshit” crowd. I would also hope she would not use pot anywhere close to the relay, endangering the rest of the team’s chance for a medal, as that would be monumentally unfair to them. That’s not the impression I got, though.
I have no great love for the IOC, but many of the rules for athletes are to ensure a level playing field. If they’ve decided weed doesn’t affect that playing field, then this shouldn’t be an issue.
Just to be clear here, it’s not the IOC that’s the problem in Sha’Carri’s case. It’s IAAF, USATF, WADA, and USADA that are the issues here. USATF for not picking her anyway, IAAF for having the doping ban, WADA and USADA for the “random off competition testing procedure” not being as random it should be regarding minorities.
The IOC has plenty of its own problems, but it’s general standpoint on doping is “whatever the sanctioning sports body for the event says is what we agree with.” It’s why a transgender athlete can lift weights by meeting IWF standards, and yet those same standards are disqualified as being “not women” by IAAF for Namibian track stars. And it’s why the IOC is okay with all of this.
It’s complicated, though. 2,800 people at AED, about 400 in DC, lost their jobs in 2010 because senior management didn’t want to report a fraud incident to USAID. For an incident that was less than they paid for coffee at their DC HQ in a year. It’s not a 1:1 comparison of unjust rules, but reporting fraud is an ambiguous rule: if the organization covers the loss out of their own funds, does it really need to be reported? I’ve heard arguments for and against (I am solidly for).
Fraud enforcement is just as discriminatory as pot use, though: who gets house arrest and a fine vs.years of imprisonment?
Regarding pot use for federal contractors; most of our peers take a “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach. It’s as horrible as the original, but it’s where we find ourselves while our industry groups work to try to change the rule. It’s not about protecting the organizations (else we would just conduct random testing to demonstrate compliance), but striking a balance between the competing laws we find ourselves faced with.
110% Agree for America. They literally said it was the reason. I don’t know the history of why/when drugs like weed were made illegal in other countries. France? Germany? Jamaica?? Certainly the “Drugs are bad, mmkay?” rhetoric had a global reach. I know in some places this was directly due to American pressure to stifle production (Central and South America). But I don’t know for the rest of the world (Europe, Africa, Asia) how the war on drugs formed and spread to these other nations. If anyone has a good summary to listen to, that would be nice.
Though I am going to accept this premise moving forward.
I agree again. Though in my limited experience, organizations rarely “do the right thing”. They do what the codified rules say to do. If they do do the right thing, it is to change their rules, but never make up for the past.
This it to protect the organization, not the athlete/employee. If they follow the rules they won’t get sued by someone claiming the exception made shafted them and showed preferable treatment to another.
Like I would never expect my job to go to bat for me if I broke a rule even if it was a dumb rule. I would expect them to find someone to replace me.
There is the swimming cap controversy, and rejection of some athletes because their bodies naturally produce a higher than allowed amount of hormone, and other issues that show blatant discrimination. So clearly the international sports community has a lot of work ahead of it. I wonder if there are other rules that slight Asian, Hispanic, or other athletes as well. Probably.
At any rate both the US and the International Orgs can start by removing the BS ban on at least weed.
It would be nice, and just, if the USATF made a principled stand on this, but I am not surprised they chose this path of “least resistance”.
You might want to look a little more into that. And the issue isn’t necessarily the IOC, but the total group of inter related sporting organizations.
Just as example the reason the typical women’s gymnastics outfit features bare legs and covered arms, is down to the idea that it lengthens the legs and shortens the torso visually. Which makes typically petite gymnasts, conform a bit more to expected beauty standards. That being required can be argued to be about even playing fields and standards. But apparently gymnasts prefer shorts and bare arms.
This has a material negative impact on performance since competitors can be docked for getting a wedgey and the sleeves get in the way. And until religious and cultural exceptions were added had a bigger impact on athletes of certain backgrounds and nations. Head coverings were a big sticking point as well, as in a number of other sports.
I think it was the NCAA that recently allowed shorts and half sleeves for college competition in the US without an exemption. Against pressure from international bodies.
A lot of this stuff has a pretty weird root that’s nothing to do with fair competition when you poke it with a stick. And especially galling when you see shit like Olympic Boxing where medals are straight up bought, almost openly. Or major athletes revealed to be doping heavily for years, with minimal scrutiny.
As I understand it it’s more rooted in tested levels of multiple marijuana constituents in the window before and after competition.
The criticism over previous rules that have lead to changes revolved around how the previous cut offs couldn’t deal with the way marijuana sticks around post intoxication. With different consumption methods, types of pot and what have leading to different levels. And different people clearing them at different rates. It’s more based on classic zero tolerance testing than anything else.
Thank you for correcting me. Yes, those rules definitely have nothing to do with fair competition. I was thinking about rules regarding substances, and even then, I am probably wrong, and appreciate any correction.
Doesn’t mean you did it better. Than yourself or someone else. There’s a lot of research on the subject, and what I’ve seen it shows it’s detrimental. If there was even a glimmer it increased athletic performance it would be banned as such. But it doesn’t seem to be listed as a performance enhancer.
Like wise I don’t think you can make that many assumptions about what she had and whether she was still intoxicated. It’s not even clear to me that their testing could even catch that or tell the difference.
I can tell you I definitely did my 50 mile time better from it. By a lot. Probably because I didn’t feel much in the way of pain or injury, it was a good ride. And yes, we can’t assume what she had and whether she was still under the influence, we do know from the CAS evidence made public that when she was tested from when she said she partook would indicate she was legally under the influence when she was running by the laws of her home state of Texas and by the laws of Oregon.
FYI, she has been replaced on the relay team (which she was not disqualified for, scheduling-wise) by a runner who is still recovering from COVID long-haul symptoms. If she has a relapse, the Venn diagram of treatments for the COVID symptoms and drugs banned by the sport is almost a simple circle.
