As far as I am aware there is no thread on the issue of strict liability in doping. The issue is relevant because of the recent Rogers and Breyne cases plus that of Contador. The CAS essentially applied the strict liability standard to Contador in spite of the fact that his analysis showed 50 picograms of clen or 50 one trillionths of a gram.
All the reliable evidence from accredited pharmacologists indicates this simply could not have given AC an enhancement in performance. I recognize there is the suggestion that by the time his sample was taken the clen found had metabolized from a larger amount and that there were plasticizers in his sample that suggested a transfusion, but because the test done was not specific for plasticizers a case could not be made against AC on that basis.
In the Rogers and Breyne cases we do not know the level of the clen. Regardless the strict liability standard makes mute the question of whether the amounts in fact gave Rogers and Breyne a performance enhancement.
Is this fair? The argument is that strict liablity is needed to deter illegal drug use irregardless of whether there is no performance enhancement.
In most legal systems there are four kinds of liability.
1. Absolute - where regardless of the facts if the offence is made out there is guilt. For example a speeding ticket. It doesn't matter why you sped if you were over the limit.
2. Stict liability - where if the facts prove the offence you may be guilty BUT you have the opportunity to show you took reasonable precautions to avoid committing the offence in which case if you prove this you are not guilty
3. Proof on a balance of probabilities - the 50% plus 1 standard
4. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt - the criminal standard.
I look forward to the usual range of views in this Forum
All the reliable evidence from accredited pharmacologists indicates this simply could not have given AC an enhancement in performance. I recognize there is the suggestion that by the time his sample was taken the clen found had metabolized from a larger amount and that there were plasticizers in his sample that suggested a transfusion, but because the test done was not specific for plasticizers a case could not be made against AC on that basis.
In the Rogers and Breyne cases we do not know the level of the clen. Regardless the strict liability standard makes mute the question of whether the amounts in fact gave Rogers and Breyne a performance enhancement.
Is this fair? The argument is that strict liablity is needed to deter illegal drug use irregardless of whether there is no performance enhancement.
In most legal systems there are four kinds of liability.
1. Absolute - where regardless of the facts if the offence is made out there is guilt. For example a speeding ticket. It doesn't matter why you sped if you were over the limit.
2. Stict liability - where if the facts prove the offence you may be guilty BUT you have the opportunity to show you took reasonable precautions to avoid committing the offence in which case if you prove this you are not guilty
3. Proof on a balance of probabilities - the 50% plus 1 standard
4. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt - the criminal standard.
I look forward to the usual range of views in this Forum