The best way to assess the justness of a rule or law is to imagine what people in the future will think of it.
Someday soon — maybe in a year, maybe at the next Olympic trials — Americans will look back at last week's events and ask how any organization could have been so daft, so anachronistic, so wrongheaded.
"Wait," they will say in the future. "You're telling me that the United States kept one of its best athletes out of the Olympics because of marijuana? A drug that isn't performance-enhancing? A drug that was legal in her home state and in the state in which she competed in college? A drug that is now sold at Target and Kowalski's, right there next to the chips and lava lamps?
"Didn't anyone have the guts and foresight to do the right thing?"
Last week, Sha'Carri Richardson, who won the 100 meters at the U.S. Olympic trials, lost her place in the Olympic 100 meters because she tested positive for THC, the main active chemical in marijuana. Richardson admitted she ingested marijuana to help her cope with the death of her mother.
The rule is illogical and its enforcement, in this case, is obviously cruel.
The rule will be changed in the near future, as marijuana becomes not only legal but as common and available as beer and wine. The director of the World Anti-Doping Agency has admitted that marijuana does not enhance athletic performance.
So why not change the rule right now, when changing it will do immediate good?