Based on my (very) limited understanding, AC is serving a 1 year ban on the basis that the Spanish Authorities allowed his argument. That is: the 1 year penalty is a strict liability penalty arising from the positive Clenbuturol...with no attribution of SIGNIFICANT fault???
If he had been found to have deliberately doped then I understand the penalty would have been 2 years???
Or is it the case that the "strict liability penalty" is of the order of 3-6 months.
I refer to Bond Law Review
Volume 19 | Issue 1 Article 1
7-1-2007
Inadvertent Doping and the WADA Code
Anne Amos
aamo8029@mail.usyd.edu.au WADA Code...
"WADA Code Provisions dealing with inadvertent doping
There are a number of ways in which the inadvertent doping cases have been
addressed in the WADA Code, the most notable of which are the exceptional
circumstances provisions.14
2 Exceptional Circumstances
Despite doping being defined according to the strict liability principle in the WADA
Code, under Article 10.5 there is opportunity for the hearing panel to take into
account the level of fault of the athlete. Under this provision the ineligibility period
(i.e. the period of suspension after the relevant competition) can be either eliminated
or reduced due to exceptional circumstances. If the athlete is able to show that there
was no fault or negligence on their part and can establish how the prohibited
substance came to be in their system then the ineligibility period can be eliminated
under Article 10.5.1. The commentary to the Code gives an example of where this
section may apply; in the case where ‘despite all due care he or she was sabotaged by
a competitor.’15 The commentary also gives examples of where the ineligibility period
will not be reduced: sabotage by someone within the athlete’s entourage,
administration by the athlete’s physician without the athlete’s knowledge and
mislabelled or contaminated supplements.
If the athlete is unable to meet the high standard of ‘no fault or negligence’ then
Article 10.5.2 (‘no significant fault or negligence’) may be relevant. According to the
commentary, the situations listed above, although not eliminating the ineligibility
period under Article 10.5.1, might lead to a reduction in the ineligibility period under
Article 10.5.2. If the athlete can show that there was no significant fault..."