Thread by @RogerPielkeJr

Excellent analysis:

Science Doesn’t Support Idea That Marijuana Aids Athletes’ Performance nytimes.com/2021/07/09/spo…

In addition to the ample evidence of dodgy science in anti-doping, this quote from @wada_ama spokesman @JamesFitz501 is key: “the U.S. has been consistent in its strongly held position that WADA should keep cannabis on the List”

The US government took credit for getting marijuana on the (then) IOC prohibited list as a matter of national anti-drug policy despite greater concern of athletes and officials on actual performance-enhancing drugs

ojp.gov/pdffiles1/Digi…

The use of (what would become) WADA by the Clinton Administration as an element of domestic drug policy is further documented in this Oct, 1999 Senate Hearing
govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CH…

In Oct 2000, President Bill Clinton issued an Executive Order establishing a White House Task Force on Drug Use in Sports: presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/exec…

And here is the accompanying press conference: presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/pres…

And here are the minutes of the first meeting of the WH Task Force ojp.gov/pdffiles1/ondc…

All of this history clearly indicates that the U.S. saw WADA as an instrument to pursue domestic drug policies, using athletes as "role models" and thus the US required that drugs at the focus of policy (performance enhancing or not) be regulated in sport
ojp.gov/pdffiles1/Digi…

WADA however requires a substance/method on its prohibited list meet 2/3 criteria:

performance enhancing
unsafe
violates "spirit of sport"

There is no category of "in support of US drug policies"

So evidence had to be created to support marijuana inclusion on prohibited list

So in 2011 this paper was published
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…

It was co-authored by 2 WADA scientists and 1 scientist who the US government appointed to the committee that creates the WADA prohibited list!

This is "policy-based evidence"

and a major, major COI

Here (via @NYT) is an example of WADA/USG playing a bit loose with the evidence reported in that 2011 paper:

And another example

And despite there being more recent research (2020) conducted by independent researchers @wada_ama spokesperson @JamesFitz501:
"Mr. Fitzgerald said that the WADA authors “stand by” the 2011 scientific analysis, published in the journal Sports Medicine"
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…

This is course not the first instance of a sports organization using dodgy science produced by in-house researchers/advisors to produce evidence for a preferred policy: link.springer.com/article/10.100…

Nor is it the first instance of dodgy science being deployed in anti-doping regulation
tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.108…

But it does show the length to which @wada_ama has been (and apparently still is) willing to go to appease US gov't by apparently violating its own procedures supported by flawed science -- this just makes WADA look like a political tool

I'd guess that there is a lot of shake-my-damn-head going on within WADA now that the US gov't has apparently reversed course on the inclusion of marijuana on the prohibited list
ft.com/content/57a868…

If WADA reconsiders cannabis on the prohibted list no one will look good -- the USG, WADA, USADA or the advisors who are apparently doing the bidding of the decision makers that they are ostensibly advising

Bottom line:
What a mess!

/END

A few more details, adding to this thread

2008 GW Bush WH ONDCP bragging to Congress about successful opposition to calls for removal of marijuana from WADA prohibited list:
govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CR…

"There was no testing for marijuana at any Olympic Games before 1988."
doi.org/10.1016/j.peh.…