All this time I thought American drug policy was singularly fucked up. Having just read about the plight of sprinter John Capel, however, I am sad to say that we're not alone. This poor guy went from winning the 200m at the 2003 World Championships to taking a $30,000 job at a paving stone company in 2006; he'd twice tested positive for marijuana and subsequently received a two-year suspension from competition. For pot!!! The article doesn't mention whether it was the national or the international governing body that meted out the suspension, so maybe it's still just our benighted American attitude towards drugs. I'd love to know the history here--e.g., is this indicative of an international mentality that equates pot-smoking with the general 'doping' problem? Or is this an international policy that reflects American influence (or pressure)?
Also amusing is the uncritical acceptance of such policies on the part of the Times reporter, Lynn Zinser; she blithely reports the harsh consequences of Capel's marijuana 'habit', and emphasizes the hopeful arc of a repentant sinner on the comeback trail. But what possible good does it really do to punish a sprinter's penchant for weed? What possible competitive advantage could pot confer?
It would be worth digging into the rationale behind such policies (me, I've got other projects in the works). But I doubt that it's a sensible one.
No comments:
Post a Comment