This thread made me look up what changes might be afoot in The Code. And there are lots of changes. The
draft of the 2021 Code is there. The
summary of major changes is here. Some stakeholder
commentary is here.
It looks like there's likely to be a new category of substances called
Substances of Abuse. This, so far, includes "cannabinoids." If people get popped for this and there's no evidence it was in-competition usage, then they get a flat 3-month c̶o̶n̶v̶i̶c̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ sanction with less due process for reduction. But a proposed automatic reduction to 1-month if an approved rehab program is entered. The summary is on point, "Substantial resources are being spent arguing in hearings over the appropriate length of sanction in Substances of Abuse cases. These resources could be better spent on anti-doping
investigations or anti- doping rule violations which really do affect the level playing field of sport."
So that's a full-up admission that we're not really talking about performance-enhancement, and that these cases are pulling resources from "righteous busts."
But the rule is still undergoing considerable debate:
Quote:
There was almost universal support behind the creation of a new Article providing
special treatment for Substances of Abuse. However, there was a great deal of stakeholder debate
over exactly what that Article should say. For example, some stakeholders thought that the flat
three-month Ineligibility period was too short, while others thought it was too long. The drafting
team was struck by the comment of one stakeholder to the effect that, “whatever you do, don’t let
disagreement over the details cause you to eliminate this very valuable Article.” In the end, the
drafting team left the original Substances of Abuse Article largely intact, but added one additional
provision, Article 10.2.4.2, which provides that where the Athlete can establish that In-Competition
Use of a Substance Abuse was unrelated to sport performance then the Use shall not be
considered “intentional” for purposes of the longer sanctions for Intentional Use provided in Article
Some of the published stakeholder commentary was interesting.
Here's the French Minister of Anti-Doping:
FrenchPartyDude wrote:
Nonetheless, if the ingestion is out of competition and is unrelated to sport performance, then we can wonder if such a use enhanced this sport performance. If this cannot be proved, then it is not related to sport and to doping, and then antidoping law shouldn’t deal with these cases. Antidoping law shouldn’t be like moral and doesn’t have to deal with cases that are not related to sport and sport performance. It is the role of national criminal law to prohibit or not the use of recreational drugs unrelated to sport. Moreover, this new category is not clear: is it a new category beside specified and non-specified substances? Are these substances prohibited in competition only or in and out of competition? If they are prohibited only in competition, then why sanctioning the residual presence of the substance that has been used out of competition and is unrelated to sport performance? On the contrary, if the substances of abuse are prohibited in and out of competition, then some substances like cannabinoids that are not prohibited out of competition at the present time will be with this new provision; then this provision can be seen as more severe than the current law. Furthermore, we wonder whether a single period of ineligibility is relevant according to the classification of drugs themselves (for example between hard drugs and soft drugs). Can the recreational use of hard drug like cocaine be punished with the same period of ineligibility than the use of soft drug like marijuana, when this specific use of marijuana is not forbidden by criminal law in some states?
Meanwhile the Bulgarian takes the opposite tack:
BulgarianBuzzkill wrote:
However, we see a contradiction between the athletes’ health as a priority of the Code and the obvious indulgence towards the use of prohibited substances In-Competition, such as narcotics, stimulants and cannabinoids. These substances cause proven and undeniable health damage and their use, possession and trafficking qualify as criminal offenses according to the Criminal Codes of most European countries. Their use may lead not only to addiction but also to physical and mental health damage. Therefore, Bulgaria
believes their use is not related to medical evidence and should not have threshold concentrations. According to 2017 data from the World Anti-Doping Agency the number of positive cocaine samples in the world is 69. According to 2018 data from the Bulgarian Anti-Doping Centre in 5 out of the 16 positive doping cases the athletes were tested positive for amphetamine and cocaine. We believe that the reported data is more than worrying and requires enhanced countermeasures. We support the prohibition of these classes of substances at any time, as well as believe that the sanctions on such abuses should not be reduced. It should be kept in mind that athletes are often idols and role models for young people and even the minimal tolerance of drug use, stimulants and cannabinoids poses a risk to the health of society as a whole. Bulgaria strongly believe that sport is a social phenomenon and that the problem of using drugs by athletes can not be seen as a "social problem" outside of the sport.
Canada seems angling towards lighter treatment, but didn't mention weed specifically. That dude was mostly asking, "What business do we have deciding who needs "rehab" and who doesn't?"
Crickets from the USA, as far as I can tell, in this round.
So people who really strongly believe the sanction is unethical should probably at least make their opinion known to their representatives. If Tygart is going "holy roller" on this (as I've read rumors he tends to do), then he should at least know he's doing so under some dissent from his "constituents."