Sha'Carri Richardson and Cannabis: Rules, Grief and the Spirit of Sport

Timeline

1. Jun 19, 2021Richardson wins the 100m at the U.S. Olympic Trials in Eugene, Oregon, in 10.86 seconds; her in-competition sample later tests positive for a cannabis metabolite.
2. Jun 28, 2021She is provisionally suspended.
3. Jul 2, 2021USADA announces her one-month suspension; her trials results are disqualified.
4. Jul 3, 2021President Biden says 'the rules are the rules.'
5. Jul 6, 2021USA Track & Field leaves her off the Olympic roster, including the relay pool.
6. Sep 2021WADA's Executive Committee agrees to review cannabis's status after requests from stakeholders.
7. Sep 23, 2022WADA decides cannabis will remain prohibited in competition.
8. Aug 21, 2023Richardson wins the world 100m title in Budapest in a championship-record 10.65 seconds.
9. Aug 3 and 9, 2024Richardson wins 100m silver and anchors the U.S. 4x100m relay to gold at the Paris Olympics.
10. Dec 5, 2025WADA approves the 2027 Code, setting a flat two-month ban for a first out-of-competition substance-of-abuse violation.

The ethical issues

• What belongs on the Prohibited List: cannabis is not shown to enhance physical performance but is banned on health and 'spirit of sport' grounds.
• Rules vs. compassion: strict application to an athlete who used cannabis while grieving.
• Legal context: cannabis was legal in Oregon, where she competed, but prohibited by sport's rules.
• Discretion: whether USATF should have used a relay spot to include her after her ban ended.
• Consistency across sports: U.S. pro leagues had relaxed cannabis enforcement while Olympic sport had not.

Stakeholders

Stakeholder	Interests & obligations
Sha'Carri Richardson	Her Olympic opportunity, reputation and wellbeing.
Other sprinters at the trials	Fair selection based on rules known in advance.
USADA	Consistent application of the rules it administers.
USA Track & Field	Fair selection and athlete welfare.
WADA	A credible, harmonized Prohibited List.
Fans and the public	Rules that make sense and are applied humanely.

The case

On June 19, 2021, Sha’Carri Richardson ran 10.86 seconds to win the women’s 100 meters at the U.S. Olympic Trials in Eugene, Oregon, finishing well clear of the field. She was 21, among the fastest women in history and a favorite to challenge for Olympic gold. Two weeks later, her result was erased. Her sample contained a metabolite of THC, the psychoactive component of cannabis.^[1][2]

Background

Richardson had become the sixth-fastest woman in history in April 2021. The trials came a week after the death of her biological mother. Richardson said she learned of the death from a reporter during an interview: “It was definitely triggering, it was nerve shocking.” She said she used cannabis to cope. “I was trying to hide my pain.”^[2][3]

Cannabis was legal in Oregon. But Olympic athletes compete under the World Anti-Doping Code, regardless of local law.^[1][4]

The rules and governance

Under the Code, cannabinoids are prohibited in competition only, and only above a urinary threshold. WADA raised the threshold from 15 to 150 nanograms per milliliter in 2013; USADA reported that Richardson’s sample exceeded the applicable decision limit of 180 ng/mL. WADA describes the threshold as aimed at significant recent use or chronic use rather than trace exposure.^[1][5]

The 2021 Code reclassified THC as a “substance of abuse,” because it is frequently used in society outside the context of sport. If an athlete shows that use occurred out of competition and was unrelated to performance, the ban is three months, reducible to one month if the athlete completes an approved treatment program. Previously, bans could run two years or more. A positive in competition also disqualifies the results from that event.^[1][5]

The sanction

USADA announced on July 2, 2021 that Richardson had accepted a one-month suspension, beginning June 28, the date of her provisional suspension. It was the minimum possible: she established that her use was out of competition and unrelated to performance and completed a counseling program. USADA noted this was the same result as the two other substance-of-abuse cases it had handled under the new Code. Her trials results were disqualified, removing her automatic Olympic place in the 100m.^[1]

“The rules are clear, but this is heartbreaking on many levels,” said USADA chief executive Travis Tygart. “Hopefully, her acceptance of responsibility and apology will be an important example to us all.”^[1]

Richardson took responsibility publicly. “I know what I did, I know what I’m supposed to do, I’m allowed not to do and I still made that decision,” she said on NBC’s Today show. “I’m not making an excuse or looking for any empathy.” She added, “Don’t judge me, because I am human, I just happen to run a little faster.”^[2][3]

The national debate and the relay decision

The case became a political issue. On July 3, President Biden said he was “really proud of the way” Richardson had responded, but “the rules are the rules. Whether they should remain the rules is a different issue.” Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Jamie Raskin wrote to the leaders of USADA and WADA urging them to reverse the decision: “Please strike a blow for civil liberties and civil rights by reversing this course you are on.”^[3][4]

Her ban would end before the Olympic relays began on August 5, so she could still have run in the 4x100. USA Track & Field had two discretionary relay picks beyond the top four trials finishers. On July 6, it released a 130-person roster without her. USATF said it was “incredibly sympathetic toward Sha’Carri Richardson’s extenuating circumstances” and “fully agrees” that international rules on marijuana should be reevaluated, “but we must also maintain fairness for all of the athletes who attempted to realize their dreams.” The relay places went to the sixth- and seventh-place trials finishers, who had each moved up after her disqualification.^[4]

The AP noted that some U.S. professional leagues, including the NFL, NHL and NBA, had greatly reduced enforcement of marijuana rules, while Olympic sport continued to test for and punish its use in competition.^[4]

WADA’s review

In September 2021, after requests from stakeholders, WADA’s Executive Committee agreed to review cannabis’s status. Its List Expert Advisory Group concluded that THC met the Code’s health-risk and spirit-of-sport criteria for listing; performance enhancement was not objectively established. WADA’s Ethics Expert Advisory Group continued to consider cannabis use “to be against the spirit of sport across a range of areas as listed in the Code.” On September 23, 2022, the Executive Committee decided THC’s status “should remain unchanged.”^[5]

“The question of how THC should be dealt with in a sporting context is not straightforward,” said WADA director general Olivier Niggli. “WADA is aware of the diversity of opinions and perceptions related to this substance around the world, and even within certain countries.” He noted that the laws of many countries supported keeping cannabis on the list and that WADA would continue research on its potential performance effects and its health impact.^[5]

What the Code said, and what it says now

The rule that decided Richardson’s case was Article 10.2.4 of the 2021 World Anti-Doping Code. It applied “notwithstanding any other provision in Article 10.2” to violations involving a substance of abuse. If the athlete could “establish that any ingestion or Use occurred Out-of-Competition and was unrelated to sport performance,” the ban “shall be three months,” and it “may be reduced to one month” if the athlete “satisfactorily completes a Substance of Abuse treatment program approved by the Anti-Doping Organization.” The Code left it to the anti-doping organization’s “sole discretion” to decide whether a program was legitimate, as opposed to a “sham.”^[7] A violation sanctioned under that article also did not count as a first violation for the purpose of escalating penalties for any later offence.^[7] The reduced ban could not, however, restore a result from the competition at which the positive sample was taken. That is why the shortened suspension still cost her the Olympic 100m place.^[1][7]

WADA revised this approach in the 2027 Code, approved at its World Conference on Doping in Sport in Busan on December 5, 2025, and in force from January 1, 2027.^[8] Under the new Article 10.2.3.1, a first violation involving only a substance of abuse, where the athlete establishes out-of-competition use unrelated to sport performance, carries a flat two-month ban. Treatment is no longer the route to the minimum. A later violation carries four months, reducible to two if the athlete enters an approved treatment program. An official comment says anti-doping organizations “should consider” encouraging a medical evaluation after a first violation, but the two months is not conditional on it.^[8] The 2027 Code also deals with in-competition use. Where the athlete shows the context was unrelated to sport performance, the ban is “between six (6) months and two (2) years depending on the circumstances of the case.” The comment lists factors such as the quantity detected, how close the use was to competing and any perceived benefit.^[8] Under the 2027 Code, Richardson’s out-of-competition use would therefore have brought a two-month ban without the counseling route. The disqualification of her trials result would not have changed.^[1][8]

Paris

Richardson made her Olympic debut three years later. In the 100m final in Paris on August 3, 2024, she took silver in 10.87 seconds behind St Lucia’s Julien Alfred. She had entered the Games as the year’s fastest woman after running 10.71 in June.^[9] On August 9, she anchored the United States to gold in the 4x100m relay in 41.78 seconds. She took the baton in fourth place and ran the final leg in 10.09 seconds.^[10] “I just remember trusting my third leg, trusting Gabby, and knowing that she’s gonna put that stick in my hand no matter what,” she said.^[10]

Aftermath

Richardson missed the Tokyo Olympics and failed to qualify for the 2022 World Championships. In August 2023, running from lane nine in Budapest, she won the world 100m title in a championship-record 10.65 seconds. “I’m not back, I’m better,” she said.^[6]

The core dilemma

Richardson broke a clear rule and accepted the consequences. But the rule bans a substance that is legal in many places, is not shown to enhance sprinting, and that she used while grieving. The rules worked as written, and many people, including those who enforced them, found the result heartbreaking. Should sport’s rules on cannabis change, and should those applying them have more room for compassion?

Competing values

• Rule certainty vs. compassion: clear rules protect fairness; rigid application can feel cruel.
• Health and image vs. autonomy: banning cannabis protects athletes and sport’s image, but restricts adults’ lawful choices.
• Fairness to rivals vs. fairness to the individual: other sprinters earned their places under the same rules.
• Global harmonization vs. local law: one list for all countries, even as cannabis laws diverge.

Strongest arguments

For keeping the rule and the outcome: the rules were known in advance, the sanction was the minimum and the threshold catches only significant use near competition. WADA’s experts concluded that cannabis poses health risks and conflicts with the spirit of sport. Selecting her for the relay would have been unfair to athletes who qualified cleanly.

For change: cannabis is not a performance-enhancing drug in sprinting, and the “spirit of sport” criterion lets moral disapproval stand in for evidence. Punishing an athlete for grieving with a substance legal where she competed undermines the list’s credibility. The relay decision was discretionary and could have shown compassion.

A middle view: keep in-competition testing for impairment and safety, but treat out-of-competition use purely as a health matter, with support rather than disqualification.

Applying the frameworks

Care ethics

Care ethics focuses on Richardson as a young woman dealing with sudden loss. It asks whether the system responded to her as a person or only as a case. The treatment-based reduction and USATF’s offer of mental health resources reflect care; the loss of her Olympic opportunity shows its limits within a rule-bound system.

Kantian (duty)

A Kantian would stress that rules must apply equally to everyone; making an exception for a star or a sympathetic story would treat others unfairly. But Kantian ethics also asks whether the rule itself is justified. If a prohibition rests on an unclear “spirit of sport” rather than reasons all athletes could accept, its legitimacy is weaker.

Rights-based

A rights lens weighs adults’ autonomy over lawful private choices against the obligations athletes accept to compete. It also asks whether a rule that can sanction lawful use away from the field of play intrudes on private life beyond what fairness requires.

Walk it through: the Simple Decision Model

1. Spot the issue. You are a USATF selection official on July 6, 2021, deciding whether to use a discretionary relay spot for Richardson after her ban ends. Stakeholders include Richardson, the sixth- and seventh-place finishers, the relay team, fans and sponsors. The codes in play are USATF’s selection procedures and the anti-doping rules.
2. Gather facts. What do the selection procedures say about discretionary picks? Is her eligibility restored before the relay? What would other athletes reasonably expect? Watch for the bias of letting public pressure or star power drive the decision.
3. Test options. Options: (a) select her; (b) follow the trials order; (c) select her only if the procedures clearly allow it. Weigh fairness to others, compassion and precedent.
4. Check codes and law. Review the published procedures and any rules on athletes whose results were disqualified.
5. Decide and document. Record the principle you apply so it can guide future cases.
6. Communicate and follow up. Explain the decision with respect for Richardson, offer support and advocate through proper channels for any rule change.

What’s settled and what’s contested

• Settled: the positive test, the one-month suspension, the disqualification of her trials results, USATF’s roster decision, WADA’s 2022 decision to keep cannabis on the list and her 2023 world title.
• Contested: whether cannabis should be prohibited in sport; whether the “spirit of sport” criterion is a sound basis for listing; and whether USATF should have used its discretion differently.

Why this case matters

Richardson’s case put a human face on a technical rule. It showed how anti-doping lists carry moral judgments as well as scientific ones, how strict rules can collide with compassion, and how a governing body responded by reviewing, and ultimately keeping, a contested prohibition.

Key terms

Rules vs. spirit of the game

Rules are the written minimum; the spirit is the fairness and respect the rules exist to protect. Rules set the floor; spirit sets the ceiling.

Paternalism (hard and soft)

Restricting someone’s choices for their own good. Hard paternalism overrides competent, informed adults; soft paternalism steps in when information or autonomy is compromised.

Consent and autonomy

Whether people have agreed freely and with full information, and whether their right to make their own choices is respected.

Codes and guardrails

Written rules of conduct, backed by real consequences, that turn values into expected behavior. Without enforcement they are decoration.

Legal but unethical

Law sets out what can be punished; ethics asks what is right. Compliance is a minimum, so an action can be lawful and still wrong.

Fair play

Integrity put into practice: respecting both the written rules and the spirit of competition.

Definitions from the Ethics Cases glossary.

Discussion questions

1. Should cannabis remain on the Prohibited List if it does not enhance physical performance? What does the 'spirit of sport' criterion add?
2. USADA said, 'The rules are clear, but this is heartbreaking.' When rules produce heartbreaking results, who should change them, and how?
3. Should USATF have used a discretionary relay spot to include Richardson after her suspension ended?
4. Does it matter that cannabis was legal in Oregon, where she competed?
5. Professional leagues relaxed cannabis enforcement while Olympic sport did not. Should there be one standard?

Sources

1. U.S. Track & Field Athlete Sha'Carri Richardson Accepts Sanction for Anti-Doping Rule Violation — U.S. Anti-Doping Agency
2. Tokyo 2020: US sprinter Sha'Carri Richardson set to miss Olympic Games after positive cannabis test — BBC Sport
3. Biden on Sha'Carri Richardson's suspension for positive drug test: 'The rules are the rules' — CNN
4. Sha'Carri Richardson will not be selected to U.S. Tokyo relay team — CBC Sports (The Associated Press)
5. WADA Executive Committee approves 2023 Prohibited List — World Anti-Doping Agency
6. Sha'Carri Richardson wins 100m gold at World Championships to announce herself on global stage — BBC Sport
7. World Anti-Doping Code 2021 (Art. 10.2.4) — World Anti-Doping Agency
8. 2027 World Anti-Doping Code (Art. 10.2.3) and 2027 Code approval page — World Anti-Doping Agency
9. Paris 2024 Olympics: Alfred storms to Olympic 100m gold in Paris (Aug. 3, 2024) — BBC Sport
10. Richardson's anchor powers USA to 4x100m gold at Paris Olympics (Aug. 9, 2024) — World Athletics