Understanding the Michael Phelps controversy

I had to laugh at the solemn tone of the Timesonline’s report regarding the Michael Phelps dust-up. (For those who have been on Alpha Centauri for the last few days, the Olympic swimming mega-medalist was caught sucking on a bong by a photographer and has had to admit to dope smoking.)  The Times huffs and puffs: 

Phelps could claim that the drug has no performance-enhancing effects, which might allow the authorities to let him off with a reprimand. But such a high-profile case is bound to stir up controversy and the swimmer could find himself being made an example of to the rest of the sporting fraternity.

Marketing experts are predicting massive fallout and a quick exit by sponsors who could put an end to Phelps’s dream of cashing in on his Olympic exploits to the tune of $100 million (£68.5 million).

Wow, talk about a symphony of hypocrisy.  The percentage of journalists (at the Times and elsewhere) and ad execs who have sampled cannabis in their day probably approaches the ground temperature of the planet Mercury.  [Isn’t that in excess of a 100?-ed.  That’s the point.]

And yes it’s pretty obvious that marijuana in any of its guises is not a performance-enhancing drug in any way, shape or form, unless you’re talking about a Nachos Eating Contest…. Wait a minute… Now I get it!