"which is the ONLY reason anti-doping rules exist.".... I assume now you only mean MJ?
Also, I didn't mean YOU being cavalier... I meant the IOC assuming that stance. I don't agree that the "ONLY" reason the IOC takes a stance on drugs is for the PED reason.... to me their mission statement makes that very clear. But as for it being a PED... I dunno, neither does the CDC from what I read. I do know many athletes have made the claim that MJ helps them... are they right? I don't know. If it does help them is that 'bad'? Well, that's debatable as well... but it doesn't mean, to me, that the IOC is taking a wrongheaded stance.
For me this isn't about 'empathy'... not at all my point, as you know and have said. Nor is it about PEDS. There are other reasons the IOC can legitimately be anti-MJ other than it being a PED. My point is that the science isn't in on MJ use, which is why I posted the report by the CDC.
In a nutshell what I'm attempting to say, perhaps badly... is the IOC doesn't deserve being called outdated and arcane. Perhaps I'm naive but I believe their rules are very much meant for the health and welfare of the athletes, and this backed up by the best information the medical profession can tell them, at this time. - JamesJM