Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

positive weed test for Richardson (split)

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Conor Dary View Post

    Steve Williams in 1976 ....Greene and Johnson in 2000...the list is endless...and we still have the fairest system.

    Besides a system where the best athlete in each event can sit out the Trials hardly sounds like a marketing winner.

    And what if both McLaughlin and Muhammad didn't run the Trials....how would you choose between them for the third spot on their form coming into the Trials..
    If I am not mistaken, Lewis was sick at the beginning of 1992 Trial, and finished 6th in 100m. (He was the reigning World champion and the WR holder.)

    Given the way he ran the anchor leg of 4x1 (which he ran only after Witherspoon got injured), he could have won the 100m.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by jazzcyclist View Post

      Can you imagine what some anti-capitalist, anarchist types might do with this information?
      Like Putin?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by NotDutra5 View Post

        I really think the Richardson situation is a horrible choice to fit in to what you're trying to accomplish. She wasn't ill. She didn't have a bad day. She didn't trip. She violated a doping rule. Whether we agree with that rule or not, the situation was caused by the athlete and not some unforeseen event.

        edit: didn't see Conor Dary's previous post saying essentially the same.
        Aaargh!!... I guess I'm not being clear enough in my posts, and that I gave people the wrong impression that Ms.RIchardson's personal situation is why I mentioned a possible Olympic qualifying rules change.. I'm NOT suggesting that the rules should be changed because Sha'Carri Richardson broke the rules, got caught, and got punished as the rules require. And I'm not trying to accomplish anything... I offered my own response to the unwarranted (in my opinion) recent outpouring of contempt in the media for WADA and USATF because of Sha'Carri Richardson's situation. My response differs from the responses of most posters in the thread that are supporting the unrestricted allowance of marijuana use in competition as a result of the Richardson situation. I'm not in favor of that for several reasons, at least not yet.

        Even though the RIchardson issue isn't the best example of an issue that I'd like a changed system to remedy, the subject of Olympic qualifying has been brought up in the media because of her situation (just as the use of marijuana has), which is why I commented on it in the first place. Not because of her personally or her personal situation. I get frustrated with certain stories and opinions in the media portraying her as a tragic victim, and hammering WADA and USATF for keeping her from the Olympics, and suggesting that USATF is unethical, cruel, or racist for not breaking the rules and allowing her to compete despite her sanctions... And I'm tired of many related stories and opinions misrepresenting the truth in certain areas or ignoring important facts. My initial post on the subject was a reply to the Victor Conte article that supported the removal of marijuana from the banned list in part because of the Richardson situation, and my comments on the Olympic qualifying system aren't because I think Ms. RIchardson should be allowed to compete in Tokyo, because I don't. When I said in a reply to Conor D that I only mentioned the Olympic qualifying system now because of the Richardson situation, it was because the RIchardson situation drew attention to Olympic qualifying and caused an uproar about it, especially from people who didn't seem to understand the rules. For all those people in the general public who felt USATF should ignore the rules for Richardson, I say change them in the future if you think that Sha'Carri was treated unfairly and that the current system stinks... I personally don't think she was treated unfairly... Anyway, I'm sorry for the confusion.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Blues View Post

          I get frustrated with certain stories and opinions in the media portraying her as a tragic victim, and hammering WADA and USATF for keeping her from the Olympics, and suggesting that USATF is unethical, cruel, or racist for not breaking the rules and allowing her to compete despite her sanctions...
          I don't see her as a tragic victim. The way she responded after 2 enormous jolts to the psyche in a such a short time was admirable. And, in any situation like this, there can be extenuating circumstances. She didn't just go smoke a joint to relax. Her mother had died, and she was told by a total stranger. It doesn't alter the existence of the rule, it simply makes it easier to see her as a human being making a costly choice thanks to poor judgment that coincided with really heavy news. Everyone has made mistakes, and the context in which they happen is something that justice systems take into consideration when deciding on penalties. She's still a winner, and rightly so, to a lot of people because she didn't use her mother's death as an excuse for what she did. She talked about it so people could get the whole picture, and apologized. And showed grace under pressure by refusing to moan and cry over the loss of one Olympic Games.

          How many laws throughout history got changed because in the aftermath of some event, people reconsidered whether the punishment really fit the crime? How many people used to be as up in arms about women or blacks voting - with the same vitriol you can see in some of the posts here, about a joint. ?????

          Comment


          • Originally posted by 1.609 View Post
            How many laws throughout history got changed because in the aftermath of some event, people reconsidered whether the punishment really fit the crime? How many people used to be as up in arms about women or blacks voting - with the same vitriol you can see in some of the posts here, about a joint. ?????
            Are you comparing being Black or female with smoking weed?๐Ÿคจ

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Blues View Post
              Even though the RIchardson issue isn't the best example of an issue that I'd like a changed system to remedy, the subject of Olympic qualifying has been brought up in the media because of her situation (just as the use of marijuana has), which is why I commented on it in the first place. Not because of her personally or her personal situation. I get frustrated with certain stories and opinions in the media portraying her as a tragic victim, and hammering WADA and USATF for keeping her from the Olympics, and suggesting that USATF is unethical, cruel, or racist for not breaking the rules and allowing her to compete despite her sanctions... And I'm tired of many related stories and opinions misrepresenting the truth in certain areas or ignoring important facts.
              1. There are always people who look for a reason to be outraged over things they know little about.

              2. If we change the selections system, and some 3rd place athletes lose their Olympic team spots to lower place finishers (or those who missed the trial), there will be people who are outraged over that. Some of them will be the same people who are outraged at the current system.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by jazzcyclist View Post

                Are you comparing being Black or female with smoking weed?๐Ÿคจ
                No ๐Ÿ˜† I guess you could do that by talking about smoking black marijuana, since it's the buds that are smoked. ๐Ÿ™„

                It was mentioned in an historical context about laws being changed after people realized they were too harsh. Some of the outrage I've seen on this board over the thought of SCR being allowed to compete seems out of proportion to anything that has happened.




                "How many laws throughout history got changed because in the aftermath of some event, people reconsidered whether the punishment really fit the crime? How many people used to be as up in arms about women or blacks voting - with the same vitriol you can see in some of the posts here, about a joint. ?????"
                Last edited by 1.609; 07-17-2021, 08:05 PM.

                Comment


                • Interesting comparison of misdeeds and punishments
                  1. SCR
                  2. Rollins-McNeal
                  3. UK's Butchart

                  For me, the worst offending was Butchart. Similar to Rollins-McNeal in that he created a fraudulent document.

                  However, Butchart's offending had the potential to create a tidal wave of covid cases and resultant deaths if he had been Delta positive.

                  Rolllins-McNeal's fraud did not pose a health risk to anyone.

                  SCR's offending also posed no risk to anyone, and she was open and honest about what she did


                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by 1.609 View Post

                    No ๐Ÿ˜† I guess you could do that by talking about smoking black marijuana, since it's the buds that are smoked. ๐Ÿ™„

                    It was mentioned in an historical context about laws being changed after people realized they were too harsh. Some of the outrage I've seen on this board over the thought of SCR being allowed to compete seems out of proportion to anything that has happened.




                    "How many laws throughout history got changed because in the aftermath of some event, people reconsidered whether the punishment really fit the crime? How many people used to be as up in arms about women or blacks voting - with the same vitriol you can see in some of the posts here, about a joint. ?????"
                    The Civil Rights Movement and the Suffrage Movement had nothing to do with striking down laws that were too harsh and draconian, it was about striking down laws that were blatantly unconstitutional. The 14th Amendment says that you can't discriminate on the basis of race. The 15th Amendment says that you can't deny the right to vote on the basis of race. The 19th Amendment says that you can't deny the right to vote on the basis of sex. Blacks and women were fighting for equality. There is no such provision banning harsh punishment. After all, the death penalty is still legal. The folks whining about Richardson being denied a spot in the Olympics aren't asking that she get treated equal to everyone else because she was treated the same as anyone else that tested positive for weed. What they're arguing for is that Richardson be given special treatment, something that Blacks and women never asked for.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by jazzcyclist View Post

                      The Civil Rights Movement and the Suffrage Movement had nothing to do with striking down laws that were too harsh and draconian, it was about striking down laws that were blatantly unconstitutional. The 14th Amendment says that you can't discriminate on the basis of race. The 15th Amendment says that you can't deny the right to vote on the basis of race. The 19th Amendment says that you can't deny the right to vote on the basis of sex. Blacks and women were fighting for equality. There is no such provision banning harsh punishment. After all, the death penalty is still legal. The folks whining about Richardson being denied a spot in the Olympics aren't asking that she get treated equal to everyone else because she was treated the same as anyone else that tested positive for weed. What they're arguing for is that Richardson be given special treatment, something that Blacks and women never asked for.

                      Unconstitutional and harsh are not mutually exclusive.

                      Are you really saying that a law that permits discrimination on the basis of race is not excessively harsh and severe? Is a law that permits discrimination and all the evils that flow from it not a punishment based on the assumed superiority of one group of people over another? The very laws that allowed slavery permitted cruel and inhumane punishments that were the soil in which the seeds of hatred were planted, and lynching persisted as a legal activity until last year. There were laws against blacks and women voting, so what would have been the punishment if one were caught in drag at the polls? I can only shudder at the possibilities.

                      Comment


                      • we've lost track of the thread here folks

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by gh View Post
                          we've lost track of the thread here folks
                          omg-wow-excited-young-european-female-shopaholic-searching-clothes-store-shocked-with-sale-prices-holding-two-hangers-with-pink-blue-dresses-standing-rack-full-colorful-pieces_273609-709.jpg

                          Comment


                          • I like the blue and white dress best

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Tuariki View Post

                              I like the blue and white dress best
                              Hands down. Couldn't find a pic of anyone on their hands and knees looking for a spool of rayon.

                              Comment


                              • I find it incredible that during this long debate no one has said the obvious. The ban applies to all sports and in that regard it is appropriate. Without going into the details of how it impacts each discipline, imagine the harm caused by someone high off marijuana whoโ€™s participating in shooting or fencing, biathlon, skiing?

                                The restrictions are not archaic relic of the past but there for the benefit of all participants. Until the rules are changed they should be applied and no exemptions for any athletes. People making excuses for rule breakers is laughable.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X