Sha'Carri Richardson Wants To Know Why She Was Banned From The Olympics When Russian Skater wasn't

[iemanja]

"The only difference I see is I'm a black young lady."

Mind you Richardson was banned for marijuana, which isn't a performance enhancing drug, unlike Valieva's.

Following Monday's ruling [about the Russian skater, Valieva), Richardson questioned why she lost her chance to compete at the Olympics, but Valieva won't, suggesting there was racial bias in the decisions.


"Can we get a solid answer on the difference of her situation and mines?" Richardson tweeted. "My mother died and I can’t run and was also favored to place top 3."

"The only difference I see is I’m a black young lady," she said.

Richardson also alluded to the fact that trimetazidine was a performance-boosting drug, while cannabis wasn't.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/juliareinstein/shacarri-richardson-kamila-valieva-doping-olympics?fbclid=IwAR30fa-BdklLmXpulDCflpEQun0WfYaGJyMg9UZ4W8EDApqlqQP1dGD284A

Good question.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[LizBeth]

1. She is a black young women. Doesn't have to be a lady.

[iemanja]

2. She referred to herself as a lady

in a tweet. That's her prerogative.

[LizBeth]

3. Awareness. Conditioned to feel the need. She has no need. I stand with her. As a woman.

[ProfessorGAC]

20. Maybe She's Literal

She may be making the distinction between woman & lady as in the implied difference between man & gentleman.
As I'm sure you know, not all men are gentlemen.

[malaise]

46. I refer to myself as a lady

I am both a woman and a lady and I like both labels

[sheshe2]

4. A banned drug, she should be banned.

She doped and she is out, or should be.

Russia paid a lot of money to keep her in. This is flat out wrong and the Olympics have become a joke.

I seldom watched them, will never again.

[iemanja]

6. I watch them

and plan to continue to do so. I agree the Russian should be banned.

[Kablooie]

5. The difference is that Russia pays huge amounts to the Olympic committee.

They don't want to lose that income stream so they always go easy on Russian violations.
Been that way for years.

[ShazzieB]

10. Oh, that explains a LOT! 😖

[malaise]

47. So do the rest of the big powers n/t

[Kablooie]

48. But Russia probably threatens to pull out.

The other countries probably don’t.

[Sneederbunk]

7. She is an adult, old enough to know better.

[iemanja]

8. Valieva is plenty old enough to

know what she is doing.

[CentralMass]

14. I think thst she should not have been allowed to complete but it is possible that she was unaware

that she was taking it.

[iemanja]

18. Did you see the piece

where Tara and Johnny talked about their awareness of what they put in their mouths when they were very young skaters? Since they are tested from very young ages, they scrutinized what they ingested.

[CentralMass]

19. Russia is not the U.S. however she should not have been allowed to compete.

[Angleae]

9. The difference is they were suspended(or not) by two different organizations.

Sha'Carri Richardson was suspended by the US anti-doping agency while Kamila Valieva's case was befor the World anti-doping agency/IOC. Apparently the US has higher standards.

[brer cat]

11. This is very wrong imo.

It certainly tarnishes the Olympics. The Russians have been cheating for decades and should have been banned. MJ is not a performance enhancing drug and Richardson should have been allowed to compete.

[OverBurn]

12. Stupid to ban for Pot anyway, not performance enhancing, Trimetazidine is. Seems pretty simple.

[WHITT]

13. There Are Some Technicalities Here

1) I don't agree with banning for pot use, particularly residual pot, but the rule was in effect, and Richardson tested positive DURING the Olympics .

2) Valieva tested positive SIX WEEKS PRIOR to the Olympics.

3) They consider the prescription drug legit, and pot an abusive drug, which I don't agree with.

[iemanja]

17. Athletes are NEVER supposed to use performance enhancing drugs

and they are never legitimate for athletes.

[ProfessorGAC]

22. The Advantage Gained Is Still Extant

She tested positive 6 weeks ago. That probably means the doping stopped 10 weeks ago.
The performance enhancement gained is not dependent on the presence of the drug or metabolites.
The compounds could be completely out of her system, but the performance enhancement will last as long as she continues to train.
So, how far back it goes, absent the words MONTHS or YEARS in the discussion, is not relevant as her performance is still enhanced by the breaking of rules.

[WHITT]

28. Well

Christine Brennan was on PBS Newshour, and said the prescription only enabled the heart to boost blood flow, so apparently it would only be effective while in the system. (no text, only audio)

I didn't see any of her performances, but when I tuned-in for the late local news, the Olympics was running over and they were doing recaps. One of the female commentators said something like, Valieva was a 'once in a lifetime' talented skater. If she's that good, I don't know why anyone would give her anything anyway.

[ProfessorGAC]

33. I Disagree With Christine

Perhaps she's misinformed. Or she misunderstands the mechanism of cheating.
The added stamina & oxygenation during training allows for development of muscle tissue, especially fast twitch fibers, that would remain LONG after the drug was gone. Years, if rigorous training is continued.
It's no different than steroids. Guys gain 25# of solid muscle in 90 days. They go off the juice. They play a season without using so if they get tested, they pass. But, they don't lose that 25# of muscle.
The point of most PEDs is to build a lasting advantage.
One need not to be on the drug at the time of performance. The advantage has already been achieved.
This isn't like ball players taking greenies in the 60s or coke in the 80s. Those, of course, would only work while in the system.
The mechanism of this type of drug is very different.

[Disaffected]

35. All that may very well be true but,

also moot if the B sample comes back negative. It all hinges on that - best to wait before passing judgement.

[WHITT]

36. Eh

This is not some kind of performance-enhancing designer drug. It's a legit prescription drug. It's effective while in the system, not when it's not.

As Brennan mentioned, it simply could improve endurance, but you wouldn't be able to take it where it could effect performance without showing on a test. Clearly there was no effect six weeks later.

[Vinca]

16. If only Sha'Carri had said she thought it was oregano . . .

This is so totally unfair on every level. Not only has Richardson been permanently injured by her inability to compete, the skaters now in the running for medals are up against this young skater who still has an advantage because of the performance-enhancing drug. And the skaters who might have had a medal ceremony the last time are in limbo. I doubt getting the medal in the mail is quite the same.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

21. It was her grandpa's oregano. n/t

[maxsolomon]

23. The difference is that RADA slow-walked the testing

the sample was taken in December, tested a week ago in a Swedish lab that "had staffing issues". So they get to argue that it's too late, it's unfair, blah blah blah.

Weed isn't performance enhancing, but it's on the list of banned substances. It's absurd.

I'm not seeing Racism here. I'm seeing Russia working the refs, like they always do, to rationalize their systemic doping program.

This is the IOC making the (corrupt, predictable) cowardly choice, not WADA, I believe.

Kamila Valieva may not have known what she was being given - she is 15 & her coach is a POS. Lipinsky & Weir had parents that were right next to them when they were minors, does Valieva? I suspect not.

[NameAlreadyTaken]

24. The Russians always win, no matter what.

[dv421]

25. As a former athlete

who had to deal with all the complexities of the testing systems, I'm really torn on this. My time was back in the 1980s, but still had the same issues.

Richardson's case is very different. Both the A and B samples came back hot and she admitted taking the substance. I have great sympathy for her, losing a parent is not easy. However, there are not post ingestion ways of dealing with this, and the rules are clear. The USADA really had no choice. If her state had legalized medical pot, she may have been able to get a therapeutic exemption, however, that would have been an interesting case. I need to research if THC is a possible mask for a PE drug also, that is why it may be on the list.

Valieva's case is different since her B sample has not come back yet. I do think the COA was incorrect in not reinstating her provisional ban, but that is not what they did. She does have the right to this process,. I'm not sure if the COA can look at country history or not, but it appears that they didn't.

This one has me looking at both sides. From Valieva's side, if she didn't take the drug (false positive), it would be unfair to exclude her. If she did take it, she should admit it and take the punishment. That is not likely to happen.

From the other athletes side, They could be greatly harmed by this. All of her competitors have been targeting this event for many years. If they succeed and medal, taking away the ceremony that they have dreamed about is cruel. Ask Carl Lewis how he felt having the gold medal handed to him under the stands in Atlanta after Ben Johnson's test came back hot.

I did have one positive A sample come back during my career. It was a false positive and the lab admitted they had made an error 3 weeks later. The B sample was clean. But those were the most worrying 3 weeks of my life. I was spending hours going through training and dietary logs trying to figure out where I screwed up.

So I have been on both sides of this. I was pretty sure I was not hot in the test. However, I knew when I cane up against an eastern block athlete that I was at a huge disadvantage that had nothing to do with my training or effort.

I can only think of one way to do this equitably. Valieva is allowed to skate per the COA. The IOC and ISU should have her go first in both skates, and then impound her scores until the case is settled. Have the medal ceremony based on the known scores, and then it can be corrected is Valieva is found to be OK. It's probably not fair to Valieva, but it's very fair to the rest of the competitors. Worst case is the bronze medalist gets to stand on the podium and then loses the medal later.

I also think if she comes back positive, the ROC needs to lose their charter for 10 years.

Sorry for the dissertation.

[iemanja]

27. I appreciate your very thoughtful post

and the knowledge you provide. I agree with holding the results until her B sample comes back, but I don't think they plan on doing that. Instead, they've said they won't hold a medal ceremony, which is essentially an admission that the ruling was bad.

[StevieM]

31. I appreciate you sharing your story, along with your thoughts on this matter.

Last edited Wed Feb 16, 2022, 04:50 AM - Edit history (1)

I think that you are right about letting her skate and then disqualifying her later, since she is entitled to due process. But I am very skeptical that the B sample will come back clean, partly based on what we know about Russian doping, and partly based on the statements that have already been made in her defense.

It is a shame because it appears that she is an exceptional athlete, with or without the drugs.

The medal ceremony is really heartbreaking, considering how many athletes have dreamt of this moment their entire lives. Getting a medal in the mail seems really unfulfilling. Maybe the IOC can send a representative to the winning countries and recognize them in a series of individual ceremonies. Actually, maybe they could have the ceremonies at the same time and broadcast them live to the world.

Russia doesn't seem like they want to stop doping. That just isn't the nature of Vladimir Putin's country. It feels like they want to cheat at everything, from sports to elections. As long as Putin is running things it is hard to trust their program. Of course, this might not be seen as proof of a widespread effort like the one we saw in the past. Maybe they can tack on to the last punishment and have a total ban for the next two Olympics in 2024 and 2026.

ON EDIT: More information has come in and I no longer feel like she should be allowed to compete. It seems like the Russians slow walked reporting the test, thereby pushing back the date when the B sample could be tested. The Olympics look ridiculous right now for having an athlete test positive and then take the ice anyway. Her initial suspension should not have been overturned on appeal IMO.

[StevieM]

40. I updated my reply to you based on new information that has since come out. (eom)

[dv421]

41. Thanks for the follow up

I'm not sure I worded it correctly, but I thought the COA was wrong to allow her to compete. The excuse about how the substance got into her system is weak at best and almost laughable. If this was the case and she knew she had accidentally taken the drug, best thing for her would have been to sit out until it cleared her system. I know the ROC is whining about the test result being slow. That is their own fault, there are no recognized labs in Russia precisely because of the cheating that went on in 2014. That is even before her looking at her coach who seems to be doing things on the edge of legality and has been for some time.

I had to withdraw from one competition when my false positive came back. I thought that was best given the circumstances, and things came out OK in the end.

[BlackSkimmer]

26. No Sha'Carrie, the difference is age, not race.

I think it’s wrong they’re letting the Russian compete, nonetheless.

[Torchlight]

29. The reason is as obvious as black and white.

'Tis so strange. That, though the truth of it stands off as gross As black and white my eye will scarcely see it.'

(Henry V - Act 2 Scene 2)

[Disaffected]

30. Following up on dv421's post:

Dick Pound (former chair of the Olympic Anti-Doping Agency or some-such) was on the radio today explaining it. The Russian skater tested positive for a banned substance before the Olympics but was not removed from the competition because it takes two positive samples (called "A" & "B" ) for the ban to take effect. The B sample had (& has) not yet been analyzed so it was deemed unfair to disallow her in case the B sample comes back negative (if it comes back positive, her gold medal will be revoked). Seems clear and fair enough. And the best decision given the difficult circumstances.

[iemanja]

32. I didn't hear the part about the medal potentially being revoked

That's better than just allowing her to compete without consequence.

[Disaffected]

34. Infinitely better.

It would be outrageous to let her keep her medal if the B sample confirms doping.

[maxsolomon]

37. And the B sample is? Backed up in a Swedish Lab?

You'd think they'd want to expedite that sample...

[Disaffected]

39. Yeah,

I don't quite understand that either and Pound didn't address it.

[iemanja]

45. Because Valiyeva is going to get the highest score

That is all but guaranteed.

[ananda]

42. I can tell you who. Moola.

The officials are clearly bought off.

[Emile]

44. If hotdog eating was an Olympic sport, I would say Sha'Carri Richardson

took a performance enhancing drug!