Sha’Carri Richardson Tests positive

The Gallant Pig Man wrote:

Robinson screwed up big time. There's no getting around that. But I'm sick of this reefer madness BS. It is an outrage that marijuana is still on the banned substances list and it's long, long past time for USADA to remove it. It's a puritanical control mechanism that serves no valid purpose. And now they're going to eliminate the fastest woman in the world from competition over it? F*ck them.

Its not Richardson on her own that is generating angry it is a build up of nonsence coming from athletes first its coleman christmas shopping in the testing window then we have hoolihan coming up with the burrito junk and now we have richardson doing this. It is the build up of athletes being clowns everyone is fuming from the hoolihan junk so they will react badly to this. Also the sheer hypocrisy of Brojo and Gault and everyone being apolagetic to americans being banned while slating people from other countries is also anoying people. It is a build up of being overloaded with junk from the atletes and the american media

I don't feel sorry for her. She knows it is banned and even if you don't agree with it you still abide by the rules until they are changed.

It is super easy to just not smoke pot so don't.

Faulknerism wrote:

If smoking weed in violation of an antiquated rule makes Phelps and Sha'Carri "dumb", how would you characterize refusing to remove and illogically enforcing an antiquated rule to prohibit use of a non-performance enhancing drug that is legal in the state where the athlete used it and that has proven medicinal benefits? How would you characterize stigmatizing the people who use this drug while promoting extremely harmful opioids that have caused the largest mental health and homelessness crisis in American history??

If your answer is "Them's the rules", you need a lesson in logical fallacy.

1. You need to learn more about what logical fallacies are before you try to use that concept in your arguments.

2. What’s up with you and rastus not understanding that rules are rules. She knowingly broke a rule? Should there not be consequences? Why do some rules need to be followed while others can be ignored?

Your stance makes no sense. It’s not racist or right wing to want people to follow rules. If you don’t like the rule on weed, get it changed.

Faulknerism wrote:

agip wrote:

nah anyone who uses a banned substance DURING THE OLYMPIC TRIALS, knowing the substance is banned and knowing you would be tested that week...is stupid and dumb or whatever word in that family you want to use.

that is not a neo-nazi view.

The issue, son, is not whether it is a dumb thing to do (although I think it can more correctly be characterized as an anxiety and grief-ridden thing to do, considering the circumstances), but rather the impulse behind people like you labelling her as dumb, and your inability to separate deed from person when you have a pre-existing bias against said person. Do you follow?

as I wrote twice, there is a fine line that I am not willing to die on:

whether there is a meaningful distinction between being stupid and making stupid decisions.

when someone calls someone 'stupid' they almost always mean 'you have made stupid decisions.'

they are not commenting on the person's innate intelligence.

Rastus wrote:

agip wrote:

nah anyone who uses a banned substance DURING THE OLYMPIC TRIALS, knowing the substance is banned and knowing you would be tested that week...is stupid and dumb or whatever word in that family you want to use.

that is not a neo-nazi view.

It's not known when she took it, could've been a month before the trials as anywhere in a 30 day span will show in your wee wee. And the point anyhow is calling someone stupid when you don't know them personally is Nazi-like...it's an American Pastime.

this implies she took it during the trials.

unless she was in oregon for a long time beforehand, I don't know.

NYT:

In an interview with NBC on Friday, Richardson blamed the positive test on her use of marijuana as a way to cope with the unexpected death of her biological mother while she was in Oregon for the Olympic trials. Richardson, who was raised by her grandmother, said she learned about the death from a reporter during an interview and called it triggering and “definitely nerve-shocking.”

Aha!! Here's the difference. Lochte knows Phelps, you and no one else on here knows Sha'Carri yet are comfortable calling her names.

And in spite of this Lochte "testimony" Phelps is still regarded highly...Sha'Carri? There's is a social media lynching for something one hell of a lot less dangerous than what Phelps did.

Faulknerism wrote:

No Shortcuts wrote:

I get what you are saying, but marijuana happens to be illegal in the country that is hosting the Olympics this year. The punishment for use and sale of cannabis are pretty severe in Japan. You can disagree with Japan’s laws, but WADA is a global agency, and they can’t just cater to the USA’s laws and standards of conduct. Imagine if she had tested positive in Tokyo.

And she didn't smoke weed in Japan, so what's your point exactly? I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you or someone close to you has smoked weed in the past. If they/you take a business trip to Japan, should you now suffer penalties there b/c of your actions here? Your logic, such as it is, is astoundingly clueless.

What's your point exactly? She's not being arrested, she being suspended. It doesn't matter if she smoked weed in Eugene, Tokyo or on the moon, WADA's rules are you can't test positive for it, no matter where you are in the world. US laws are irrelevant to her suspension. Only WADA's rules apply, and USADA is bound to abide by those rules.

As far as if she had tested positive in Tokyo, she would have been in trouble with more that just WADA, and that could have caused a fiasco. Cannabis is illegal in Japan, and if she's going to be placed on the relay team, that better be explained to her. And I'm not arguing Japan's laws or WADA's rules are reasonable, just that they exist. Get them changed if you want better outcomes.

agip wrote:

Rastus wrote:

It's not known when she took it, could've been a month before the trials as anywhere in a 30 day span will show in your wee wee. And the point anyhow is calling someone stupid when you don't know them personally is Nazi-like...it's an American Pastime.

this implies she took it during the trials.

unless she was in oregon for a long time beforehand, I don't know.

NYT:

In an interview with NBC on Friday, Richardson blamed the positive test on her use of marijuana as a way to cope with the unexpected death of her biological mother while she was in Oregon for the Olympic trials. Richardson, who was raised by her grandmother, said she learned about the death from a reporter during an interview and called it triggering and “definitely nerve-shocking.”

So, there is doubt as well as mitigation because of her state of mind due to a loved one passing. Yet you call her dumb anyhow. Such compassion.

1. Phelps himself referred to himself as 'stupid' after one of his dumbsh/t moves

2. Richardson is 21 with no medals. When she wins some medals she will be more respected

3. Many people don't respect phelps as much anymore because of his stupid mistakes.

But honestly, this is all whether calling someone stupid is referring to her mistakes or her innate intelligence.

I'm not sure the distinction is all that meaningful at this point.

Rastus wrote:

agip wrote:

this implies she took it during the trials.

unless she was in oregon for a long time beforehand, I don't know.

NYT:

In an interview with NBC on Friday, Richardson blamed the positive test on her use of marijuana as a way to cope with the unexpected death of her biological mother while she was in Oregon for the Olympic trials. Richardson, who was raised by her grandmother, said she learned about the death from a reporter during an interview and called it triggering and “definitely nerve-shocking.”

So, there is doubt as well as mitigation because of her state of mind due to a loved one passing. Yet you call her dumb anyhow. Such compassion.

I'm pretty sure richardson considers her move pretty dumb too, pal.

Faulknerism wrote:

Samuel Mahele Akili wrote:

This is not the point the point is why would you have weed when you know it is banned if it is unfair you campaign for change you don't do it while it is banned

I teach Critical Thinking. What you are performing is a basic logical fallacy: The "appeal to authority."

no you are all wrong she has missed a chance of 100m gold because she took weed we are not appealing to authority we are appealing to common sense stop trying to be smart and clever.

It is indeed a logical fallacy-- the appeal to authority-- when one has no logical basis for their belief other than a statute of dubious merit.

Precious Roy wrote:

WADA and USATF need to have an emergency meeting and remove marijuana from the banned substances list and let Richardson compete. Marijuana is not a PED. Athletes can get TUEs for depression/anxiety that are many times more powerful than marijuana.

The marijuana ban is an anachronism. Marijuana is legal in many states and countries. USATF and WADA's ban on weed serves no purpose other than to assert some bizarre paternalistic domain over athlete's personal lives.

T&F athletes should demand that Richardson be allowed to run and threaten a boycott if she is banned. This is just the dumbest thing to ever happen in Olympic history.

[/quote]

And I'm not arguing Japan's laws or WADA's rules are reasonable, just that they exist. Get them changed if you want better outcomes.[/quote]

The US legal system works (badly but it functions) because prosecutors have discretion over what rules and cases they enforce. Common sense has a chance.

WADA actions against a non-PED represent egregious overreach. It's simply obvious that POT rules have totally broken down in the US. They are not in effect. To ban someone from the Olympics on the basis of a smoke is a crime in itself.

Samuel Mahele Akili wrote:

Faulknerism wrote:

I teach Critical Thinking. What you are performing is a basic logical fallacy: The "appeal to authority."

no you are all wrong she has missed a chance of 100m gold because she took weed we are not appealing to authority we are appealing to common sense stop trying to be smart and clever.

Yes, you are appealing to authority, the rule being the authority. Your "common sense" is not mine. It doesn't make common (or any other kind of) sense to me to prohibit personal use of marijuana in athletics or any other profession. The opioid crisis is the indirect result of our stigmatization of marijuana.

I don't have to try to be smart or clever. You don't need to be smart to see how illogical this rule is and therefore that its enforcement is wrong.

agip wrote:

In an interview with NBC on Friday, Richardson blamed the positive test on her use of marijuana as a way to cope with the unexpected death of her biological mother while she was in Oregon for the Olympic trials. Richardson, who was raised by her grandmother, said she learned about the death from a reporter during an interview and called it triggering and “definitely nerve-shocking.”

WHAT??? She learned of her mother's death from a reporter ? ?! That is absolutely gut-wrenching. That reporter should have inquired privately whether Sha'Carri was aware of her mother's death before bring it up with her during the interview. Just disgusting.

Is there any way possible that...and hear me out...

She had a burrito the night before from a food truck and the food truck is also a mobile marijuana dealer/shop and the weed when it was given out to customer spilled a little on the flat top used to cook the burrito meat??!

I mean, it's possible, right?

You really don’t know what an appeal to authority argument is.

You double down but can’t see that you are using it wrong.

By your use of it and by your logic, it’s wrong for me to say someone should get a ticket for speeding.

Come back with something better please, but at a minimum google what an appeal to authority and study up.

Are you sure there weren't other drugs in his/her system prior to death, as there are typically less than 20 deaths/year in the US due to marijuana poisoning.

And among the twenty potential overdoses, most seem to involve some sort of allergic reaction, and aren't straightforward deaths due to a lethal THC concentration.

As much as it probably is possible to ingest a lethal amount of THC, I doubt Richardson needs to worry about doing so.

this is getting so much mainstream media attention on twitter...

everyone supporting her