THE Olympics rarely comes around without a doping story of some kind.

To this day, the Ben Johnson steroid scandal following his 100m victory in 1988 remains one of the most shocking Olympic moments in living memory.

London 2012, which was hailed as “the cleanest Olympics ever”, has been proven to be far from the sort, with nearly 150 athletes subsequently disqualified from those Games for doping.

And, of course, the Russian drug  scandal, which was branded “the most sophisticated doping programme in history”, was found to have corrupted the 2014 Winter Olympics in a way which had previously seemed unimaginable.

Tokyo 2020 has not yet even started, but already, doping has caused a stir.

The 100m world champion, Christian Coleman, will be absent following a doping suspension, while America’s top female middle-distance runner, Shelby Houlihan, has been suspended for a positive drugs test.

However, it is the most recent doping controversy that is particularly intriguing.

American sprinter Sha’carri Richardson, has been branded the most exciting and compelling sprinter since Usain Bolt. Yes, the 21-year-old is fast, but it’s not only that. It’s the fact she has the swagger and the confidence that often makes the top sprinters so fascinating.

However, Richardson, despite being one of the favourites for Olympic gold, will not be in Tokyo. She is the latest name on the list of those serving doping suspensions.

Richardson was not busted for using steroids, or blood doping, which are the most common, and unquestionably deliberate, methods of cheating in modern-day sport.

This month, the sprinter was banned for one month for testing positive at the US Olympic trials for cannabis. The suspension means she will miss the Olympics, which begin on Friday.

This case is significantly different from those which see athletes blatantly trying to flout the rules. Cannabis, it is widely accepted, is not performance-enhancing for the majority of sports, and particularly not for sprinters.

Richardson revealed she took the drug as a way to help her deal with the death of her mother and, unlike the reasons given by many who fall foul of doping rules, few disbelieve her, with commentators and those within the sport alike, accepting her claim that she was not trying to enhance her performance.

Despite that, she will not be in Tokyo. She has vowed to bounce back and has, she says, plenty more Olympics left in her.

That may well be true, but her case has opened up a far wider conversation about doping in sport than normal.

The debate is about the logic behind the inclusion of cannabis on the World Anti-Doping Agency’s (WADA) list at all.

For substances to be included on WADA’s list, they must meet at least two of three criteria: performance enhancement, danger to an athlete’s health and violation of the spirit of sport.

Few experts argue that marijuana, or cannabis, can do much to enhance the speed, strength, power or precision that is so desired by elite athletes, particularly sprinters, and the calls for the removal of cannabis from the in-competition list, and even to legalise it entirely, have been getting louder in recent years.

However, as yet, there has been no budging by WADA, which is why Richardson will now miss the biggest meet of her life, despite the fact the state in which she took the drug, Oregon, permits cannabis.

It may not be recommended that athletes do things that may damage their health but if they want to smoke, they can, if they want to drink alcohol, they can and if they want to eat their bodyweight in chocolate, they can. It may not be the best plan when seeking to become your best athletic self, but it is certainly not forbidden. 

It is hard to see how taking cannabis is not in the same category.

Clearly, nothing will change ahead of Tokyo 2020, but it seems likely that there is enough weight behind the argument to remove cannabis from WADA’s list that a shift may be coming.

Certainly, it should be.

I, like most people,  are all for throwing the book at drug cheats. The likes of Lance Armstrong, Marion Jones, Floyd Landis et al; they all deserve the harsh bans they got. They knew they were doping and actively did all they could to game the system. 

No one would include Richardson in the same category and her ban shows the outdated nature of anti-doping laws.

To have one of the potentially most marketable athletes in the world miss the showcase sporting event for stupidity is a clear example of sport shooting itself in the foot.

There are comparisons to be made with sports such as the NFL, in which first offences bring with them a ban of a few games. That is not right either but to go to the opposite end of the spectrum, whereby draconian punishments are dished out, does nobody any favours.

This is a reaction to the doping scandals that have, in the past, threatened the credibility of sport. 

Certainly, if the public believe drug cheats are being treated leniently, it risks the entire future of sport.

But there has to be space for grey-area cases, such as Richardson’s, to be treated in the manner they deserve – sympathetically.

And for that, sport will be all the better.