This to shed some light weed has some performance benefits
What do you mean “for the sake of it?” Again, you have no real defense here.
If you want to change the rules, be my guest. Until then, just acknowledge she broke them and needs to be punished. She accepted it.
Yawn^7 wrote:
adfgadfsda wrote:
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.
Yeah, I don't think stupid rules or laws should be enforced when they are this blatantly stupid. How do you feel about prosecutorial discretion? You do realize that prosecutors choose to not prosecute crimes ALL THE TIME even though they fit the technical definition of a crime, for a multitude of reason, and for good reasons. The racial thing isn't the crux of my argument, it's just an idea I had in my head, because it's that hard for me to imagine people being this much of a stickler for rules without some other types of motivators.
ggilder wrote:
YersiniaPestis wrote:
So you would say what she did was smart?
Yes, if authorities are legalizing cannabis everywhere in the US, and investors are treating it as the prime new American opportunity, you can expect people to smoke weed. It's not a crime and it's not a PED, so why is Richardson being banned from the Olymps.
It's not legal. It is still a Federal crime, it is still a schedule I substance. Neither Congress nor the WH are moving towards legalization. The states that are pretending it's legal, but it is certainly NOT.
Try to use the banking system when buying "legal" weed. Due to the lack of leadership on this issue we will see lots situations like this, or worse because people think it is legal so it's OK but it is not.
I agree that the ban from WADA is dumb and I think weed should be every bit as legal as alcohol, but the issue has become incredibly muddled due to poor leadership.
The same morons that were bragging about violating gathering/social distancing/mask mandates last year are now all "rules are rules." Wonder what the difference is.
Our country is founded on breaking and fighting unjust rules!
It's going to be very hard for her to get her ban overturned but this should spark WADA to remove weed from the list. 6 Countries have it legal recreationally, tens have it legal medically, and many more have it decriminalized (like a traffic violation). WADA doesn't ban people for speeding tickets do they?
You also need to look up the definition of arbitrary. Who are you to decide if a rule is stupid? Clearly at least in some point in time the people of WADA decided to make it a rule. She then decided to compete under the rules of WADA. They both agreed to the rules, no matter how silly you might think they are. I’m sorry that fact escapes you.
And if we are judging racial motivations of whether someone is lacking logic in their points, you must be a huge racist.
2600 bro wrote:
The same morons that were bragging about violating gathering/social distancing/mask mandates last year are now all "rules are rules." Wonder what the difference is.
Our country is founded on breaking and fighting unjust rules!
It's going to be very hard for her to get her ban overturned but this should spark WADA to remove weed from the list. 6 Countries have it legal recreationally, tens have it legal medically, and many more have it decriminalized (like a traffic violation). WADA doesn't ban people for speeding tickets do they?
Does WADA have jurisdiction over my local roads?
Our country was founded in revolution yes. But in this case, two parties came together and agreed on a set of rules. She then broke the rules. She needs to be punished.
Yawn^7 wrote:
adfgadfsda wrote:
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.
Richardson did agree to be bound by USATF and WADA rules and accepted her 1 month suspension without trying to appeal. The issue is not whether there should or should not be consequences for breaking a rule.
The issue is whether there should be consequences for having a rule that is anachronistic, idiotic and ultimately detrimental to the sport. And if there is agreement that the rule needs to be changed, then the other issue is why should Richardson's OGs be ruined by the idiotic rule and why not make the change ASAP to save Richardson's OGs?
Yawn^7 wrote:
You also need to look up the definition of arbitrary. Who are you to decide if a rule is stupid? Clearly at least in some point in time the people of WADA decided to make it a rule. She then decided to compete under the rules of WADA. They both agreed to the rules, no matter how silly you might think they are. I’m sorry that fact escapes you.
And if we are judging racial motivations of whether someone is lacking logic in their points, you must be a huge racist.
Laws follow from the social norms of society. Frequently those norms change but the statues are not automatically updated. In the criminal justice system, convictions are overturned regularly by the judicial branch or prosecutors choose not prosecute old laws that "stupid."
Your prostration at the foot of the statues is unsurprising... but not at all how society handles justice.
Precious Roy wrote:
Yawn^7 wrote:
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.
Richardson did agree to be bound by USATF and WADA rules and accepted her 1 month suspension without trying to appeal. The issue is not whether there should or should not be consequences for breaking a rule.
The issue is whether there should be consequences for having a rule that is anachronistic, idiotic and ultimately detrimental to the sport. And if there is agreement that the rule needs to be changed, then the other issue is why should Richardson's OGs be ruined by the idiotic rule and why not make the change ASAP to save Richardson's OGs?
You are dealing with one of the most logically inconsistent trolls on this site. He routinely excuses law breaking by cops due to the nature of their jobs. But here it is all rules-are-rules.
It's best just to laugh and move on.
Real protesters break laws in order to suffer the consequences and bring attention to the law. She admitted to her violation. Allowing her to not suffer the consequences dies nothing to get the rule changed and she hasn't argued to have it changed.
Precious Roy wrote:
Yawn^7 wrote:
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.
Richardson did agree to be bound by USATF and WADA rules and accepted her 1 month suspension without trying to appeal. The issue is not whether there should or should not be consequences for breaking a rule.
The issue is whether there should be consequences for having a rule that is anachronistic, idiotic and ultimately detrimental to the sport. And if there is agreement that the rule needs to be changed, then the other issue is why should Richardson's OGs be ruined by the idiotic rule and why not make the change ASAP to save Richardson's OGs?
Your first part is wrong. People are saying there shouldn’t not be consequences here.
The second part can be solved by changing the rule. Feel free to start a movement or campaign or petition or do whatever else you want to try and get that change. Until you do, I will continue to expect punishments for people who cannot lay off a recreational drug.
Yawn^7 wrote:
You also need to look up the definition of arbitrary. Who are you to decide if a rule is stupid? Clearly at least in some point in time the people of WADA decided to make it a rule. She then decided to compete under the rules of WADA. They both agreed to the rules, no matter how silly you might think they are. I’m sorry that fact escapes you.
And if we are judging racial motivations of whether someone is lacking logic in their points, you must be a huge racist.
I'm not deciding, the court of public opinion is. It's like 100 to 1 ratio for supporters vs. "people who agree this is stupid, but rules are rules". WADA decided when reefer madness was gripping the world. It's unfortunate that these types of changes usually require one or a few unlucky individuals to be caught up in an unjust rule before it's changed and affects no one else. I don't understand why you can't admit that is what is happening. And I'd agree with your last sentence about unfounded racist accusation if we lived in a society void of context and were operating in a vacuum, but look at the history (recent and not so recent) history of the world. You can't fault me for at least throwing out the possibility when there are multiple people referring to Richardson as ghetto and "Free Chauvin" in this very thread... However, I'm not saying everyone who is a "rules are rules" person is motivated by racial animus.
Yawn^7 wrote:
2600 bro wrote:
The same morons that were bragging about violating gathering/social distancing/mask mandates last year are now all "rules are rules." Wonder what the difference is.
Our country is founded on breaking and fighting unjust rules!
It's going to be very hard for her to get her ban overturned but this should spark WADA to remove weed from the list. 6 Countries have it legal recreationally, tens have it legal medically, and many more have it decriminalized (like a traffic violation). WADA doesn't ban people for speeding tickets do they?
Does WADA have jurisdiction over my local roads?
Our country was founded in revolution yes. But in this case, two parties came together and agreed on a set of rules. She then broke the rules. She needs to be punished.
You... as usual... missed the point.
I was commenting on how the "but weed is illegal" argument for the WADA ban fails to convince me or anyone reasonable as it's akin to a traffic violation in many many places.
Yawn^7 wrote:
You also need to look up the definition of arbitrary. Who are you to decide if a rule is stupid? Clearly at least in some point in time the people of WADA decided to make it a rule. She then decided to compete under the rules of WADA. They both agreed to the rules, no matter how silly you might think they are. I’m sorry that fact escapes you.
And if we are judging racial motivations of whether someone is lacking logic in their points, you must be a huge racist.
WADA, USADA, USATF, etc. are not sovereign nations. They are private organizations that serve the sport of Track and Field. The only reason they exist is because sponsors put up millions of dollars to fund these organizations. Sponsors are only willing to put up the money because these sports are popular and have lots of fans who watch the OGs and buy gear. If WADA, USATF etc are going to operate in a vacuum and ignore how far marijuana legalization has come, then they risk alienating fans, losing sponsors and ultimately harming T&F. So, it sure as hell matters what people think about these rules.
I have no problem saying the rule is old and that it’s possible people want it altered. The reality is that the rule is not updated. That does not mean it should not be enforced until it is. Otherwise all rules would be pointless. If she needs to be the straw that breaks this camels back and leads to a new rule on weed, so be it. Life is tough.
Yawn^7 wrote:
What do you mean “for the sake of it?” Again, you have no real defense here.
If you want to change the rules, be my guest. Until then, just acknowledge she broke them and needs to be punished. She accepted it.
This. Unless something changes she broke the rules and punishment is in order. If USADA wants to change the rules given she's a gold medal favorite, then they should make a public statement owning up to this 180 and whatever use it as an opportunity to kill the rule then.
I will say this... people who are claiming the rule is dumb because it can only hurt you etc. don't know what they are talking about. For a hyperactive and generally tense athlete, this drug could do wonders:
- Helps you calm down, leading better rest and sleep = more physical recovery
- Helps take the edge off in stressful situations
It's easy to see how weed can net help an athlete like her, at least in the short term. I'll assume she is not a first time user and is very familiar with the effects/benefits for herself.
Yawn^7 wrote:
I have no problem saying the rule is old and that it’s possible people want it altered. The reality is that the rule is not updated. That does not mean it should not be enforced until it is. Otherwise all rules would be pointless. If she needs to be the straw that breaks this camels back and leads to a new rule on weed, so be it. Life is tough.
Yes and the governing bodies should then own that too... everyone knows it will have finally changed because the one superstar had to participate in the olympics, but if that's the catalyst then so be it.
Sha'Carrie interview:
https://twitter.com/nickgillespie/status/1411015557147672580
2600 bro wrote:
Yawn^7 wrote:
Does WADA have jurisdiction over my local roads?
Our country was founded in revolution yes. But in this case, two parties came together and agreed on a set of rules. She then broke the rules. She needs to be punished.
You... as usual... missed the point.
I was commenting on how the "but weed is illegal" argument for the WADA ban fails to convince me or anyone reasonable as it's akin to a traffic violation in many many places.
As usual your point is unclear.
Maybe try making sense and we can get somewhere. Is harambe around? Let me speak to him instead.