RobbieCanuck said:
neineinei said:
Should there be strict liability or should WADA (and) all the national anti-doping agencies) and the UCI be required to prove that the amount in fact had a performance enhancing effect in each case.
It seems to me it is an issue of fundamental fairness as to the ultimate issue i.e. performance enhancement and a fundamental issue of due process. Unless there was in fact an enhancement of performance, is it fair to impose strict liability or has cycling sunk to such a low depth that the only answer to the drug scourge is strict liability?
Note: not sure what's up with the quoting system, so hard to tell who wrote what and is being quoted.
An ergogenic effect of a substance or method is not a necessary condition for it to be prohibited under the WADA code. Doping need not be ergogenic for it to be prohibited.
Nor is an ergogenic effect a sufficient reason for a substance or method to be prohibited. Many things, such as eating carbohydrates, ingesting caffeine, sleeping and training all have positive impacts to performance, but are not prohibited.
Suggest reading the code.
If you think the principle of strict liability is to be changed, then suggest an alternative that does not encourage more doping while ensuring innocents are not falsely convicted.
The problem with a heavy reliance on substance testing (as opposed to investigative means) is that one cannot tell from a drug test how a low concentration of clen came to be in one's system. While we know it can only come via exogenous means, it might be from recent inadvertent or less recent illegitimate means.
One might presume there is a level of clen in the body that could not come from food contamination alone. I have no idea what that might be.
Increasing the clen test threshold from zero (test sensitivity in effect has set the threshold greater than zero, i.e. at the detection limit of labs, but has more recently dropped because of more sensitive tests) just means the doping window available is extended but might mean the probability of inadvertent ingestion cases can be all but eliminated.
Is this the right thing to do? Perhaps, perhaps not. There are other prohibited substances that have a defined non-zero threshold level (as opposed to a nominal zero level but in reality is set by current testing sensitivity), so it's not a new concept.
But really, to make a sensible call, we need more information than one study of German tourists to ascertain the potential for such things, and even if it is shown to be plausible, how does one universally apply such a code when the issue is more geographically localised, and how do we expect to apply the same standard of food control for athletes at various levels of the sport?
As for arguments on the (im)plausibility of doping based on an athlete's powers of logical reasoning (e.g. "why on earth would he use clen at that time, it make no sense?"), well one should never cease to be amazed at the dumb things bike riders and other athletes have and will continue to do in order to gain an edge, be it real or perceived.
It is more logical to assume that careful logical thought is not always applied by athletes. That does not mean they don't think carefully or soundly, but it's been shown time and again some are prepared to take the risk. Unfortunately it's also been shown that inadvertent contamination can happen and has happened.
Imagine a
hypothetical Bassons being found with traces of clen after a tour in China or Mexico? How would clinic react then?
While strict liability makes plenty of sense, I also think that anti-doping process needs a bit of rocket fuel up its backside as well because it's quite clear that a heavy reliance on testing has been (and probably will continue to be) a failure, and it will be an even worse failure if it convicts an innocent.