[music]

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC. We now know that Sha'Carri Richardson won't be going to the Tokyo Olympics at all this summer. The story began last week when the American sprinter was disqualified for one event for a positive marijuana test. This week, she was left off the team entirely. Following the news of her initial suspension, Sha'Carri revealed in an interview with the Today Show that she had used marijuana in Oregon, where it's legal, to cope with the recent death of her biological mother. Her suspension has raised questions about the history of anti-cannabis policies and the exceedingly high standards Olympic athletes are held to in this regard.

Joining me now to discuss is Hayes Brown, writer, and editor for MSNBC Daily, and Kavitha Davidson, sports and culture writer at The Athletic, host of the podcast Culture Calculus and co-author of the book Loving Sports When They Don't Love You Back: The Dilemmas of the Modern Fan. Welcome to both of you to WNYC. Thank you so much for coming on.

Kavitha Davidson: Thank you for having us.

Hayes Brown: Thank you, glad to be here.

Brian Lehrer: Listeners, we want to hear your thoughts on Sha'Carri Richardson's 30-day suspension and the International Olympic Committee's rules against marijuana usage. Do you think it's the result of archaic policies? Where does race come in? We'll talk about that. Should professional athletes be held to this particular standard in the first place? Give us a call with a question or a comment at 646-435-7280. 646-435-7280 or tweet @BrianLehrer.

Kavitha, just a few weeks ago, a lot of us didn't know who Sha'Carri Richardson was, but for track and field fans, she's been a star for a long time. Can you tell us about her career, maybe even going back to high school or at LSU?

Kavitha Davidson: Yes, Sha'Carri Richardson is part of a very long-standing lineage of fantastic runners from LSU. She's only 21 years old. She posted a 10:48 time in the 100-meter sprint in her Olympic trials, which has now been disqualified because of that positive test. Off record, she is the fastest woman in America. It's really a detriment to all of us and to the Olympics, to USATF, and honestly to any track and field fan that she's not going to be competing in these Olympics this year.

Brian Lehrer: Hayes, as you point out in your piece, on top of the 30-day suspension, USA Track and Field did announce on Tuesday that Sha'Carri would not participate in the 4x100 relay set to take place on August 5th and 6th, days after her initial 30-day suspension would technically expire. Whose decision was it for her not to participate for the United States at all? Was it the US Olympic Committee or the International Olympic Committee? Is it even clear how that came about?

Hayes Brown: It's not entirely clear when the decision was made, but it is clear who made the decision. It's a decision that would come from the national side. It would

come from US, USA Track and Field, or the US Olympic Committee, one of the two, that would have made the call that said that despite the fact that, as you said, her 30-day suspension would be over, that she would not be competing in the 4x100 relay.

There are several reasons why that could be. Maybe it's a matter of cohesion in terms of the team and that the team has already been set, but as Kavitha just said, she is technically the fastest woman in America right now. It's a real disappointment that there was not a slot given to her on this squad, given both the excitement around her, and the fact that she is a tremendous athlete, that she, despite the suspension, would in fact probably help the US get to the podium in this event.

Brian Lehrer: Kavitha, I think the question that a lot of people are asking bottom line, if marijuana is not a performance-enhancing drug, and even further, if it's legal in the place where she used it, why is there a crackdown against it? Why is there a prohibition against it in the first place for Olympic athletes?

Kavitha Davidson: I think these are two separate, but also the same questions. As you said, Brian, she used it in Oregon, which is a state where marijuana is legal for recreational use. She also used it to cope with the loss of her biological mother, which I think that a lot of people can probably have some compassion and empathy for. At the same time, WADA, the World Anti-Doping Agency, does have marijuana as a banned substance. They've listed it as a banned substance under the substance of abuse clause, which basically means that it is against the spirit of the sport to use a substance like marijuana, which I think speaks to a lot of moralizing about a "drug" that has been legalized in almost 20 states in the United States.

The other aspect of that is the performance-enhancing aspect, which is very interesting because WADA does like to cite a 2011 study about why marijuana is on the banned substance list, that tends to point to certain performance-enhancing aspects of marijuana, while also saying that it is detrimental to the athlete's health because it impairs motor function. Those two things seem to be directly in contradiction with each other. There are a lot of questions going forward. Unfortunately for Sha'Carri and for all of us, I think she's going to end up becoming the face of an overhaul of this rule going forward.

Brian Lehrer: On the argument that it can be performance-enhancing, I guess they cite things like, "People use marijuana for pain relief, people use marijuana for anxiety relief," but is Prozac a banned drug? Is Acetaminophen a banned drug? You know what I mean? That people use for those same conditions.

Kavitha Davidson: Caffeine or alcohol, you can also add, I think, to those categories. Those are really big questions going forward. I think that anybody who is aware of the science at least is going to question the performance-enhancing nature of marijuana, especially if you are running. A lot of people have brought up the fact that WADA has marijuana on the banned substance list as a one-size-fits-all banned substance, and that obviously should not be the case. It should not be the case also in a world in which more than 40 countries have some form of decriminalized recreational use laws for marijuana. When you compare it to other things that are legal to use, it does seem to be incongruous with other rules that WADA has.

Brian Lehrer: Some of this, Hayes, is just like a morals clause. It has nothing to do with performance enhancement, but if you use cocaine, you're bad, if you use marijuana, you're bad. Is it like that?

Hayes Brown: Yes, it absolutely is. I will point out that this substance that could be abused clause, it's in the WADA anti-doping list, it's a new addition. Previously it was these drugs like cocaine, heroin, marijuana, were all just carpet-banned substances as well. The way that they rewrote the rule, much like US law, where marijuana federally at least is considered a Schedule I drug, that is in the same category as heroin and cocaine, the same thing applies in the WADA rules, that marijuana is treated the exact same as these drugs that actually kill thousands of people every year due to overdose. I think that it does have a very significant moralizing tinge to it, this decision, that isn't really backed up by the science, isn't really backed up by the reasoning that they give for banning all these other substances.

Brian Lehrer: Aisha in Bed-Stuy, you're on WNYC. Hey, Aisha, thanks for calling in.

Aisha: Hi, thank you so much for taking my call. I was just telling the screener that this is such a great timely topic because I've been talking with friends and family about it and I feel so conflicted. On the one hand, I'm like, "You're an Olympic athlete, you know that there's all these rules and guidelines that you have to abide by in order to compete," and on the other hand, I'm like, "This is a 20-year-old female who was coping with a personal tragedy and was trying just trying to figure it out." I love the fact that she just put, "I'm human," in order to have to explain, because, of course, she has to, why she did what she did. I just wanted to add that to the conversation.

Brian Lehrer: Thank you, Aisha, I appreciate it. Lenore and Park Slope, you're on WNYC. Hi, Lenore.

Lenore: Hi. Thank you, Brian, for taking my call. I wanted to say, as a Black woman, I was absolutely heartbroken. I was so excited to see this young woman as well as all the Black gymnasts who will be competing in Olympic Summer. I'm an Olympic fan, I watch all the Olympics, but for me, with this young woman, it is just a testament to, there are rules. Everybody knows what the rules are, and she said, "I understand the consequences of my actions. I knew if I smoked, then there were going to be consequences." She took responsibility for that, so here are the consequences.

This is a lesson for all kids and even my own children. You break the rules, this is what's going to happen. I'm heartbroken not to see her on the stage, but I so appreciate the fairness. It seemed like there was a long deliberation about this, what, those who were in charge. Well, I'm saying that I think so because they didn't come out immediately. It wasn't just an immediate no.

Brian Lehrer: Right.

Lenore: I also feel like she is wanting to be better because of this. I feel like she's going to come back fighting and swinging even harder. When she comes back, I'll be there with a whole lot of other people rooting her on and saying, "Yes." You know

what? She'll make sure she doesn't smoke the next time, and so will all the other kids who think about competing as well. This is a thing I think that these kids [unintelligible 00:10:39] vaping and marijuana because it's legal that it's okay. It's not okay. These are the rules. Let's follow the rules. If you don't, here are the consequences. Thanks for taking my call.

Brian Lehrer: Well, thank you very much. I hear you acknowledging Hayes. What are you thinking?

Hayes Brown: I'm thinking that, what she was just saying, I appreciate that fully. The idea that, yes, there are rules that were broken and Sha'Carri's willingness to take responsibility for the fact that she did break those rules makes total sense. In the piece that I wrote, a lot of people read it as assuming that, I believe that her punishment should have been overturned, that she should have been able to run in the 100-meter dash. I never really argued that. It's fair and fine that she accepts the ruling, but, pretty big but here, I think that we also need to have a conversation about why those rules exist in the first place, which is something I was hoping to spark, pun unintended, because the way that I see it is that there is a pretty solid through-line from the United States is, marijuana prohibition, which has very clearly racist roots, to the decision from WADA, from the IOC to keep marijuana on this list of banned substances.

Now, I understand that different countries have different reasonings for why they banned marijuana, but the overarching influence that the United States on global policy can't be overlooked. Since the early 20th Century, at least, there has been true stigma inside the federal government against marijuana because of who was perceived as the most active users.

Now, that's part of why we call it marijuana in the first place. First was targeting Hispanics, then it was targeting the Black community. That's part of why you see so many Black people in jail still for selling marijuana. That's why it's still a federally prohibited drug by these state legislatures deciding to legalize it.

Brian Lehrer: It's such a great point. It's what drew us to your article on MSNBC Daily. I guess you're not saying that anyone in the Olympics establishment was trying to disqualify Sha'Carri Richardson because she's black, but the legacy of these drug laws that were racist, in the first place, has such long tentacles that it even knocked her out.

Hayes Brown: Exactly. There's nothing inherently racist about the fact that she was running. She wasn't targeted because she was Black. There have been several other white athletes who have been suspended under the same policy this year alone, but it's important to think about why these rules exist in the first place. Yes, people should follow the rules. We are a law-abiding society. That'll make sense, but we can't talk about following the rules if we don't understand why those rules exist in the first place. There's a certain amount of just following, doing what you're told, that I do feel like people are expecting of Sha'Carri and other athletes. That's fair and good, but we need to be having this discussion about the policy overall, and so we can potentially change it ahead of the next Olympic cycle.

Hayes Brown: Kavitha, let me ask you about another thing or two that's going on at the same time, because Sha'Carri is not the only Black athlete whose chance to compete at this summer's Olympics may be in jeopardy. Track and field star, Gwen Berry made headlines when she turned her back during the National Anthem at the US Olympic trials. Now, some people like Congressman Dan Crenshaw of Texas are calling for her to be removed from the team for that. Can you tell us about that situation and whether it's an actual risk to Gwen Berry's participation, or if it's just some conservative congressmen who want to mouth off?

Kavitha Davidson: Sure. I can say flat out, that it is not a risk to her participation in the Olympics. The USOPC had said months ago that they would not punish athletes for demonstrating or protesting during the anthem. That is partly because of demonstrations that Gwen Berry has participated in the past. In the 2019 Pan American Games, she raised her fist during the National Anthem during the podium ceremony and was sanctioned, was put on probation for 12 months because of that.

Now, at this past Olympic trials, she was taken off guard. The Olympic trials, the US Olympic trials, the National Anthem isn't played at every podium ceremony. It's played at the same time, scheduled beforehand every day, and it happened to be playing during her podium ceremony when she took third in the hammer throw. It was not scheduled to be playing at that time, so she was caught off guard. In the moment, she made the decision to turn her back to the flag while the anthem was playing. Gwen Berry has never shied away from the fact that she will protest during the anthem or make some demonstration. The USOPC, like I said before, has said that they will allow athletes to do that.

In Tokyo, the IOC still has a rule saying that athletes, regardless of the country they come from, are not allowed to protest or make any demonstrations during a podium ceremony. That being said, the idea that there are lawmakers like Dan Crenshaw or Tom Cotton, coming out and calling for her to be banned from the Olympics is not only laughable, it's just not going to happen. I think that it's frankly just a lazy call to ideas that have existed for generations.

We can go back to not only just Colin Kaepernick. We can go back to John Carlos and Tommie Smith raising their fists at the 1968 Olympics. The exact same language about these athletes, either not being patriotic or disrespecting the military and completely misunderstanding what these athletes are standing or kneeling or raising their fists for have been around for decades. Gwen Berry is going to throw that hammer in Tokyo and, hopefully, she will have a great showing, and will have a huge platform to make her points.

Brian Lehrer: Another one, Hayes, tell me if you're familiar with this. I know you don't cover sports all the time or every sport under the sun, but FINA, the water sports world governing body, denied a petition for larger swim caps to be allowed for caps to be worn at the upcoming Olympics in Tokyo for individuals, despite the fact that they accommodate natural Afro hair. FINA called the fact that they do not follow "the natural form of the head" and that no athletes need "caps of such size". Can you give any background on that situation and why they would make that decision?

Hayes Brown: Yes, for sure. The product that was under consideration is called the Soul Cap, great name by the way. It was for women who have larger Afro-textured hair to be able to fit their hair into a swim cap because that's generally a difficulty when you have hair of that size. I think that it's really ironic that in a sport where, every four years, we hear so much about how swimwear technology has improved to cut down on the drag in the water to help people like Michael Phelps go faster in the water, that this which is designed to make it so that more people can actually take part in this sport and race at a professional level, was denied. I think that's a big part of the controversy, is this idea that it doesn't follow the natural form of head.

Whose head are we talking about here? How do they make this decision that, the way that Black women wear their hair is somehow against the natural form of the head, especially when you consider the fact that yes, this swim cap is larger size, it may actually even be a detriment to swimmers who are trying to cut every 10th of a second, time off of them as they're in the water. I think that in doing-- Luckily I saw recently that FINA has said that they are going to possibly reconsider the decision. They want to see if these caps can at least be used in their development training pools that Olympic athletes use, but it still was a bad decision, to begin with.

Brian Lehrer: I guess only white heads are natural, as far as some of those people are concerned. We're going to give the last word to listener, Jomato on Twitter, who writes, "I think the officials and judges--" this is about Sha'Carri Richardson. I think the officials and judges should be disqualified if they drink alcohol. It clouds their judgment.

With that, we thank Hayes Brown, writer, and editor for MSNBC Daily, and Kavitha Davidson sports and culture writer at The Athletic host of the podcast, Culture Calculus, and co-author of the book, Loving Sports When They Don't Love You Back: The Dilemmas of the Modern Fan. Thank you both so much for coming on.

Hayes Brown: Thank you.

Kavitha Davidson: Thank you.

Copyright © 2021 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.