The 2020 Tokyo Olympics “Substance Abuse” Movement
Amid Olympic athlete suspensions, fans are fabricating a false urgency to legalize substance abuse in competitive sports.
by S4B0T4G3FIRE | August 13, 2021, 1:00 PM EDT
Abstract
Case studies about suspensions of some of the world’s best-performing athletes are being examined. The purpose of this article is to reconsider the existing ruling on substance abuse in sports, understand which party is in the wrong, and decide whether or not an international rule change is imperative to the imminent future of competitive sports.
The “2020 Summer Games of the 32nd Olympiad” have been met with a great deal of disapproval and considerable criticism. For months, uncertainty as to whether it was safe and responsible for the Olympics to take place enveloped every nation across the globe. Ultimately, it was “agreed” that the quadrennial event would take place, as scheduled, but no fans would attend, and all personnel (including athletes) would abide by very strict pandemic-related health and safety restrictions. These accommodations were enough to remove some of the controversies around not postponing, but now there is another controversy looming on the horizon.
This summer, sports fans took to social media to vocalize their discontent with the current ruling on substance abuse and athlete suspensions; and there seems to be another debate brewing as users choose sides.
Twitter v. Olympic Substance Abuse (2021)
Failed Drug Test
In early July, news got out that a competitive runner named Sha’Carri Richardson failed her drug test after using marijuana and would be suspended from competition by the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) for an entire month. Of course, with the Olympics only weeks away, this meant she would be unavailable to represent the United States in Tokyo and would miss many of her events.
Social Media Warriors
Unhappy with the suspension, social media quickly came to Richardson’s defense. One commonality among many users’ tweets was the excuse that Richardson was only relying on drugs in an attempt to take some of the sting out of the recent loss of a family member. When that emotional outcry failed to change USADA’s decision, another one filled its place. “This is a bad rule — Marijuana is not even a performance-enhancing drug — Everyone uses it anyway — Change the rule” is generally how they phrased it. With legalization quickly spreading across the United States, you can understand their discontent and feeling of entitlement to a rule change. However, considering that the drug laws of one nation have no direct impact on the laws of the 200+ nations participating in the Olympics, this was quite a poor excuse in the grand scheme of things.
They were not the only ones making poor excuses, however. The unscientific rebuttal from the adversaries that “the rules are the rules” was also poor. Honestly, neither side of this debate contributed anything meaningful, but what else can you expect from argumentative, impulsive social media? If you are going to take the “science” route, at least share some actual studies or reference someone else who did. If you are going to abuse technicalities, at least try to sound less trite, like this…
Legal Technicalities
Independent Organizations
Before beginning to dissect whether or not any of the science is true, it is important to remember that both the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and USADA are independent organizations that can essentially “discriminate” (using this word lightly) any way they wish to. They are independent of the government, free to set their own goals and pursue them however they please. Thus, so long as they comply with certain regulations and truly believe that their decisions are for the greater good, it is well within their rights to ban anything or anyone. So, even if Twitter is correct about doping not enhancing performance, anti-doping agencies can still suspend those who get caught doing it. If athletes, coaches, and fans are unhappy with these decisions, they can, of course, petition for change or boycott the competition and start their own independent organizations and a “new Olympics” to go with them.
Countries’ Unique Laws
Before submitting your global petition, however, remember that drug rules are VERY different in other countries. You might get very few signatures because of this.
Although the United States may be on the verge of passing federal laws to legalize the recreational and medical use of certain once-illegal substances, other countries are still many years (if not generations) away from making these same changes. Thus, banning substances from international competition without hesitation will obviously be in the best interest of a large majority of Olympic participants for the foreseeable future. To anyone upset by this, remember that the United States cannot speak on behalf of all nations. If you truly believe that legalization is the way to go, then you have to be patient. The pendulum appears to be swinging heavily in your favor, but the world does not revolve around the United States or any other country with an opinion.
The images shown in this section are the property of the Legality of Cannabis.
The Science
What is Doping?
The term, “doping,” can actually be quite misleading because “dope” is practically synonymous with “marijuana.” However, doping is not directly related to drugs of any kind. In electronics, for instance, doping is the process of adding molecules of desired elements into a silicon semiconductor to change its conductivity to the desired level. Likewise, doping in performance enhancement is the process of introducing oxygen-carrying protein into the bloodstream to boost brain and body response. Athletes do this to increase their strength and stamina in certain sports, which is illegal. You might be wondering what this has to do with marijuana.
Information about blood doping can be found here: Blood Doping
Why is marijuana banned?
As it turns out, there is science to justify the banning of marijuana. Since 2011, WADA has based its decision on three main findings: health risk to athletes, potential to be performance-enhancing, and the compromise of competitive spirit.
The first main goal is to protect athletes. Obviously, many Olympic sports have the potential to be dangerous. In the Summer Olympics alone, there are gymnastics, cycling, track and field, many combative sports, and numerous water sports that can cause (serious) injury. WADA states that there is science to support that marijuana is positively correlated to “increased risk-taking, slower reaction times, and poor executive function.” Sober athletes, who have spent decades perfecting their sport already injure themselves enough as it is, so why would anyone in charge be foolish enough to allow athletes to perform in these same sports while under the influence? That would go against these independent organizations’ efforts to contribute to the greater good, not to mention that it would be disastrous.
Secondly, in addition to worsening performance, doping can actually “enhance performance in some athletes belonging to certain sports disciplines.” WADA’s proof refers back to the concept of “doping.” Its decision is backed by the science that marijuana improves oxygenation and decreases anxiety, much to the dismay of Twitter. If a drug can prepare an athlete in a way that is beyond the normal function of the human body, then why would some athletes be allowed to use it while other athletes compete totally sober? Before you rebut, no, this is not a matter of “letting the athletes use it if they want to.” It is solely a matter of equality and allowing training, hard work, and composure to be the difference-makers during a competition. That is what sport is about after all. If you disturb that balance, then why even have sports in the first place?
The third point is that “athletes are not good role models if they:
- are risking harming themselves by performing dangerous sports while under the influence, or
- are “‘cheating’ to increase their chances of winning competitions.”
This one applies somewhat less than it did in 2011 in the sense that a new debate has arisen, questioning whether or not celebrities should be held to the expectations of “role models.” There is no doubt that they do set examples for future generations, which you would hope is at least somewhat important to them, but they should not be held accountable for anyone else’s actions.
The reasonings referenced in this section can be found here: Scientific Reasoning
The Decision is Obvious
With all due respect to both sides of the debate, there is one obvious answer here, and it should not be seen as controversial at all. To those of you who are not convinced, there is a lot more to the story than just “the drug does or does not make you go faster.” Before shouting personal experiences like “marijuana never helped me win races in high school” or “I can successfully drive home while under the influence” or “so many athletes get away with it, which is not fair to the ones who get caught,” try to think deeper.
Competition is a test of athletes’ performance, the same way that a final exam is a test of students’ performance. If 1% of students are using their phones to cheat on an exam, are you going to simply start allowing students to cheat with their phones on exams? No. You are going to monitor them and then punish whomever you catch cheating. If 1% of drivers on the road are speeding, are you going to simply start allowing speeding? No. You learned from your research that life-threatening car accidents are more likely to occur at higher speeds, so you are going to park cop cars on the sides of highways, install more speed traps, and ticket any drivers who are speeding. Are you trying to discriminate against the drivers who like speeding, just because you feel like ruining someone’s day? No. You are simply trying to protect as many people as you can. Why should sports be any different?
Analyses and Conclusions
Even if the chances of enhancing performance (cheating) or diminishing performance (injury) by the drug in question are tiny, legalizing it in sports is simply not worth the risk. These are protective measures. If you care at all for these athletes or the spirit of competition, this should come across as gospel to you. If you have a petty vendetta against any rule that prevents the use of a drug you or loved ones rely on for mental or physical consolidation, then that is your own personal (yes, still very valid) opinion that cannot be imposed on the thousands of athletes from 200+ countries with differing federal drug laws. If the drug does more good than harm, then that is a realization that those countries will have to make on their own time when they and their people are ready.
It remains to be seen whether Sha’Carri Richardson’s experience will make her notorious for breaking the rules, or if her story will trailblaze a way for a rule change. For better or for worse, she has the support of a growing liberal (using this word literally, not politically) population; but unless the majority of countries suddenly shift their laws to match those of the United States, things will just have to stay the way they are. If it were not for the science, WADA would be the first one to suggest a rule change. For now, there can only be tolerance and sacrifice.
Besides, athletes make an oath to follow the rules of sports. By breaking the rules, they are breaking an agreement. Although “the rules are the rules” is cliché and contributes nothing to the bigger picture or the future, it is true, and USADA made that clear years in advance of any possible suspensions from the 2020 Tokyo Olympics:
“Athletes subject to anti-doping rules are strictly liable for any substance found in their blood or urine.” — https://www.usada.org/spirit-of-sport/education/six-things-know-about-cannabidiol/
Like this article? If so, I encourage you to check out some of my other articles here! There are quite a few studies on there that you may like!
