Sha’Carri Richardson Tests positive

MeHereYouWhere?! wrote:

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?

EXONERATED!! Have you ever considered sitting for the bar, or are you already practicing law??

If you suffer from anxiety or nerves then weed is a PED. It helps you relax, get better sleep between rounds and help with nerves right before the race.

Faulknerism wrote:

Samuel Mahele Akili wrote:

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.

So are you saying Richardson was right to do this?

THC is considered a substance of abuse. By WADA and USADA rule she can smoke pot when not in competition. She can't smoke it when in-competition. Sha'Carrie went on the Today show and said she knew what she was allowed to do and what she wasn't allowed to do, she decided to do the wrong thing. She's definitely hurting mentally because she said that she's always trying to be happy on the outside and people don't know what's she's really going through. Yes, she made a mistake, yes it was a dumb decision, no she's not a bad person. She's 21 years old and being put in situations most 21 year olds aren't mature enough to handle. She's banned for a month. She'll get the help she needs and be better for it.

"... for weed"

The title of this thread is unnecessarily inflammatory by using a phrase associated with doping and not specifying.

The Scot wrote:

Yawn^7 wrote:

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.

+1

So, if WADA later revises their banned substance list, will you then admit that you were illogically appealing to authority? Imagine having such a hard-on for law literalism that you would rather allow the most exciting female track athlete miss out on the Olympics than admit that sometimes rules are not just and are not there for their purported purpose. I can't help but wonder if there are just some people who still think of weed or eclectic black females as boogeymen or something. I sure hope common sense prevails, despite the obvious undercurrents of boot-licking still prevalent in our society.

DMV Bay wrote:

IRK..Especially since the ghettos started in the Jewish communities.

Also, the punishment for weed is pretty harsh compared to the lack of punishment at all for cocaine use, especially in the NHL, where the use is quite rampant.

Double standards, among other things, for sure.

Not a double standard. WADA doesn't oversee the NHL.

Plus, the major sports in the US market their stars, they don't want them to test positive, that would ruin their product, so see no evil and turn a blind eye. Ever notice how the only guys coming up positive in the MLB are minor league guys. The NFL doesn't even try to test, just fake it.

Faulknerism wrote:

Yawn^7 wrote:

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.

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.

The stupidity argument rests on her decision to violate a rule while fully aware of the consequences. She risked quite a bit for arguably very little reward, and thus, many will reasonably claim she made a dumb decision.

Of course, if she reasoned that the likelihood she'd fail a test was very small, and the benefits associated with smoking some weed when she did were actually rather large, I might question her risk assessment, but stop well short of labeling her dumb.

Whether the rule is antiquated or not is irrelevant in any analysis of her decision (unless she mistakenly thought she argue the rule's value as a defense).

The only fallacious appeal to authority would be from those arguing the rule is justified by its very existence (a sort of WADA knows best argument), but that's a wholly separate claim than "she's dumb".

adfgadfsda wrote:

The Scot wrote:

+1

So, if WADA later revises their banned substance list, will you then admit that you were illogically appealing to authority? Imagine having such a hard-on for law literalism that you would rather allow the most exciting female track athlete miss out on the Olympics than admit that sometimes rules are not just and are not there for their purported purpose. I can't help but wonder if there are just some people who still think of weed or eclectic black females as boogeymen or something. I sure hope common sense prevails, despite the obvious undercurrents of boot-licking still prevalent in our society.

Like what someone said on another thread the NCAA rules make no sense but if someone broke them I will still expect them to be sanctioned no matter who broke the rules also If this case was lets say in January and she was given a month noone will care they can't change the rules just because it is richardson or just because of the timing. There would bevno outrage or petition if this was 6 months ago so stop saying all of tis appeal to authority nonsense Richardson has accepted her punishment because she knew it is wrong if she wants to wage a war against the establishment thats her decision no BroJo or anyone else

whaletail wrote:

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.

A clear case of THC poisoning...

"Like what someone said on another thread the NCAA rules make no sense but if someone broke them I will still expect them to be sanctioned no matter who broke the rules"

How can you not see how stupid this take is? You're either a troll or 14, or just really, really simple minded. If someone breaks a rule that even you admit is stupid, and we decide to punish them anyways, that is the literal definition of appealing to authority. If we can all recognize that this a dumb rule that serves no real purpose, then we can all recognize that the punishment doesn't fit the crime and act accordingly. I mean, you even have Matt Gaetz for tweeting out support for her... even a massive boot-licker like him understands what a farce this is.

This is the dumbest take, go ahead and log off.

hsiwnsidn wrote:

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.

Agreed. Just like alcohol. People should also just not drink alcohol. Let's purge the Olympic team of any people who have had a drink in the last month!

adfgadfsda wrote:

"Like what someone said on another thread the NCAA rules make no sense but if someone broke them I will still expect them to be sanctioned no matter who broke the rules"

How can you not see how stupid this take is? You're either a troll or 14, or just really, really simple minded. If someone breaks a rule that even you admit is stupid, and we decide to punish them anyways, that is the literal definition of appealing to authority. If we can all recognize that this a dumb rule that serves no real purpose, then we can all recognize that the punishment doesn't fit the crime and act accordingly. I mean, you even have Matt Gaetz for tweeting out support for her... even a massive boot-licker like him understands what a farce this is.

number 1 I am only 16 so cut me some slack but do you think she was right to do what she did

why? she broke the rules.

adfgadfsda wrote:

The Scot wrote:

+1

So, if WADA later revises their banned substance list, will you then admit that you were illogically appealing to authority? Imagine having such a hard-on for law literalism that you would rather allow the most exciting female track athlete miss out on the Olympics than admit that sometimes rules are not just and are not there for their purported purpose. I can't help but wonder if there are just some people who still think of weed or eclectic black females as boogeymen or something. I sure hope common sense prevails, despite the obvious undercurrents of boot-licking still prevalent in our society.

So we shouldn’t enforce laws as they are written? What’s the point in Having a law that is arbitrarily enforced? There isn’t.

You seem to think I agree with the law itself. That’s irrelevant. The point is the rule says don’t smoke weed. She openly decided to smoke weed. Should there really be no consequences?

You also want to turn this into a racial thing, which is the sign that you have no real logical leg to stand on. You also don’t know what appealing to authority is. Following the rules that every athlete agreed to and wanting those rules enforced is not appealing to authority. I can’t believe you and others don’t get that. You seem to think stating buzzwords like that make your case.

You are exactly right

Yeah, I don't think there is anything wrong with smoking weed, especially in a state where it's legal. I think this is an unfortunate case where the rules and policies are not keeping up with the current state of the world. Rules are rules, but they are just that - rules, and if public perception, is "yeah, this isn't a moral hazard we once thought it was (or rather manipulated to believe) and it provides no less obvious performance benefit that Ibuprofen or caffeine or melatonin, on and on and on", then I see no reason to respond to this like she committed some transgression that warrants her missing out on the OG. Agree to disagree, if you want to uphold the rules for the sake of it, be my guest.

This is the same place that came up with the following graphic. Why there isn't a splash page right now with something similar is beyond me.

https://www.letsrun.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/houlihan-popped.png