I could be wrong, but I believe Article 13 of CAS has elements covering this. But think of the case with the Alberto Contador, who claimed that beef he had eaten was laced with clenbuterol. In a Telegraph article that reported his ban (it's complicated because Spain let him off and WADA had to appeal the case to CAS), we find this remark: "Similar clenbuterol cases of athletes testing positive for clenbuterol and being cleared on the grounds that it was accidentally ingested include Alessandro Colo (Italian cyclist), Dimitrij Ovtcharov (German table-tennis player), Li Fuyu (Chinese cyclist), Lainer Bueno (Major league baseball player) and most recently Phillip Nielsen (Danish cyclist)." Allowance surely has to be made for something like this, which means of course that the standard is not (at the risk of being redundant) strict "strict liability."I mention this because of the circumstance with Ritz. Indeed, to call him a doper, as some on this thread have done, on the basis on what has been reported in the NY Times and prior to that, is a little bit crazy. But apart from that, let me underscore that what I find most interesting is that after all of the investigations, there is nothing about EPO testosterone, etc. But lest I be misrepresented, do I think AS is somewhat unscrupulous--absolutely. Do I think he, along with almost everyone else, took PEDs when he as in his prime--yes. Do I think Ritz (and Hasay, for example) have used PEDs--no.Finally, if L-c had some great performance value, and if they are undetectable, you'd expect there use to be widespread--and everyone would suspect this. But who uses it? Anyone?
Mr. Obvious wrote:
Montesquieu wrote:And about the issue of strict liability that I brought up earlier in the thread--if a trucking firm is transporting "ultra-hazardous" materials and through no fault whatsover of the firm or the firm's employees there is an accident and these materials are released causing injuries or property damage, the firm should still be found liable for those damages: that's strict liability. However, if a runner consumes a PED and tests positive, while that runner is prima facie at fault--that is, there is an assumption of guilt--nevertheless, if the runner can demonstrate that, for example, another runner or country tampered with the runner's food or liquids without that runner's knowledge, then the runner would not be guilty of violating any PEDs policy.
Do you have language from the code or decisions from WADA or CAS that would support this contention?
If what you are saying is true, it seems maybe the appropriate legal language would be that a positive sample carries a rebuttal presupposition that the athlete is guilty.