Sha’Carri Richardson: An Illustration of All That Is Wrong With the Olympics’ Drug Policy

Sha’Carri Richardson, a highly-rated American sprinter who was slated to appear at the Tokyo Olympics this month, has been forced to withdraw after testing positive for marijuana use.

Richardson accepted a one-month ban on June 28th, according to the US Anti-Doping Agency, the body responsible for the test. Fortunately, if chosen for the U.S.A squad as she is expected to be, she may still be able to compete in the 4×100 meter relay event.

Unlike how some in the media have characterized it, Richardson’s behaviour was not an act of mere delinquency; she attributes her positive test to smoking marijuana in the aftermath of the death of her mother, who passed away unexpectedly while she was in Oregon competing in the Olympic trials.

Her experience has sparked a worldwide controversy as to how marijuana ought to be regulated in the athletic sphere. Marijuana is a non-performance enhancing drug, and yet athletes can be barred from competing on account of using it. Furthermore, in the US, it is legal in 18 states, including Oregon, where she smoked the marijuana.

Given the fact that marijuana is legal in several states, it only seems fair that Richardson is allowed to compete at the Tokyo Olympic Games. This is especially true considering that her case sets a dangerous precedent for future athletes, who could also be needlessly penalized for perfectly legal courses of action.

Moreover, it also speaks to the wider debate about marijuana legalization. Because she was using it to help her recover from her mother’s death, one could argue that, in a sense, her usage of marijuana was indeed therapeutic in nature.

With all of the above established, the situation surrounding Sha’Carri Richardson’s suspension means that in my opinion, she should be allowed to compete. At the end of the day, drug testing in sports is complex, but the underlying idea is straightforward: bans should be intended to bar substances that help athletes gain an unfair advantage. No more, no less. Banning Richardson is a gross overstep on the part of the Olympics.

For the future of the event, it is essential that Richardson is allowed to participate.