The American sprinter Sha’Carri Richardson, who was set for a star turn at the Tokyo Olympics this month, could miss the Games after testing positive for marijuana.
This story, with her being a talented young black woman adding to the situation, is getting a lot of attention. So, e.g., on a blog that railed against steroid rules in MLB (tiresomely -- performance enhancements are just that, negatively affect health, and not enforcing the rules will burden those who don't want to use them), labeled her "another victim of the War on Drugs." That is the general line of the readership and probably some others.
I would push back some. My basic reaction is that it is stupid and immature on some level to break the rules here. You can find the rules stupid (see below). There are stupid rules. We need to act maturely here all the same. Given the stakes, using marijuana is stupid. It isn't even like some athletes who maybe are unclear about what exactly isn't allowed.
Marijuana is not some sort of hazy issues. It is against the rules. Maybe, as one person noted, it is seen as even more important to strictly apply the rules because local law in Tokyo (the location of the Olympics) is stricter than it is generally in the United States. I don't know. But, the bottom line is there are drug testing rules. By now, they are well known. This isn't like (if that was really a thing) "hey, Bonds was unfairly treated since they didn't really follow the rules." They do.
She's a sympathetic case going by the coverage. The article notes that she found out about a death in the family, triggering her anxiety. She used marijuana to relieve it. I'm not going to handwave that as one person sneered when answering a comment of mine saying you can deal with sadness (how the blog framed it) in other ways.
But, it's true. There are other ways. This isn't just someone with a strict on the job drug testing regime at CVS or something. You have to follow rules, even when it sometimes hard to do so. AGAIN, this is not belittling the stress involved. But, that is part of maturity. Yes, maybe you should give people a break in various instances. Still, the criticism is not merely focused on why she took the marijuana. It is that the rule is simply stupid.
Following links, clarification is made why the rule is in place. One standard response is that it is simply stupid to think marijuana use is helps competitiveness -- doesn't it more likely do the reverse? Well, that too would be problematic! Nonetheless, there is a report citation that very well shows it also can help competition in certain cases.
A constant appeal here is that there are a ton of things out there that might help competitive advantage. Okay. So, what, anything goes? If there was some drug in place to improve competitive advantage by 10x or something, is that okay? We saw the lengths taken, e.g., by Soviet bloc countries here. Athletes are skilled enough. It is not absurd to have limits here.
It is hard to draw lines here, but in real life, lines are actually drawn. Lines that will in various cases be debatable or even bad along the edges. This might suggest (see below) zero tolerance is bad. Still, it is far from apparent that banning marijuana is stupid here. Its familiar qualities would interfere with competition. It is akin to not allowing people to use it within a certain period of time and then driving. Games where fractions of a second can win a contest will also mean even small effects matter.
Does marijuana being "bad" color the situation? I would not be shocked if it did. Still, taking this perfectly scientifically, it is not absurd to deem it problematic -- again, it need not just be a positive enhancement. "Well, it just will hurt her" doesn't cut it. The sanctity of the overall contest as well as the good of the team matters here too.
The "war on drugs" causes a lot of harm. But, this is not a criminal law. There is no evidence in the early accounts I have seen to suggest she is being selectively targeted. One person, who is usually reasonable, cited someone years ago whose medal was not taken away. She didn't have a medal taken away. She isn't being allowed, for now, to compete because she failed the drug test. It isn't the same thing.
[A reply noted that not only was the wrong name given, but the specific case involved someone who had some excuse, and that the rule involved was changed. The person admitted being too lazy to look up the facts.
That's human when just commenting on the latest thing, but sometimes it leads to confusion. After years of admittedly too much focus on online debates, and public things in general, one of my concerns ... hobbyhorses if you like ... is more educated discourse in general here.]
Since I'm careful, though I was accused not to be, I'll say here that there is some concern big picture that ANY drug policy here will result in discriminatory results. But, this isn't a case of someone being found to have marijuana in their possession or something. It is actual use. If that is problematic, and this is a theme on that blog, it is bad to regulate competitive drugs that enhance in general. I reject that as extreme.
Someone cited another thing that received attention regarding not allowing a certain type of swimming cap that is used by those with hair that is common for many black athletes. See?! It isn't the same thing. It is again not shown that black athletes with failed marijuana tests are selectively being denied. Or, that -- like the swimmers -- somehow this burdens black people specifically. Marijuana is used by whites and blacks.
And, again, there is evidence that marijuana will negatively (one way or another) affect athletic performance. The cap issue is unclear -- maybe the rule is in place allegedly because other caps give an alleged advantage. At some point, looking up every specific thing is a bit much, but again, there is more to weigh there given the specific needs of black athletes.
[I later saw AOC reference how marijuana policy is racist in a tweet opposing the disqualification. Again, how is this relevant exactly? If she took another banned substance that mirrored the effects of marijuana to deal with her emotions after finding out about her biological mother's death, would it be okay to disqualify her?]
Bottom line, it is reasonable to say that if she broke the rules arising from an emotional event in her life, that a zero tolerance rule is unjust. Push comes to shove, I usually find these things nuanced. Still, the broad responses to me are annoying too. On a basic level, people in her position are careful to follow rules given the stakes. Even stupid rules. And, it isn't even clear how stupid this rule is as a whole.
The best approach here is a "let those who commit no sin throw the first stone" approach. Zero tolerance is often a bad policy. If people just left it at that, my response would be much less "can we grow up a bit?" But, even that is problematic when you are part of a worldwide system. If that is a problem, the problem is not merely the U.S. enforcing the rules here.
If you want to blame someone, blame the World Doping Agency. As one reply, thankfully reasonable, noted: "This wasn't just American anti-weed obsession. It was a recent evolution, led by multiple constituent bodies in sport. In international sports, the USOC actually has surprisingly little pull for its size." If true, the rule might still be stupid, but let's focus on the real problem.
Again, if problem there is. These things tend to be a lot more complicated than at first blush. And, hopefully, long term, discussion will help clarity there. Knee-jerk reactions are human, but also dubious.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!