rule readerr wrote:
Strict liability makes no sense and it is great the UDASA recognises this.
Each case on its merits and proportionality.
But can drug testing in sports afford this normality?
I think not as the financial costs of such will cripple it.
So what form of controls will follow or will they have to allow some enhancers?
Columbian weight lifting hit with 3 positives when the drug found is freely used in meat production.
If you applied reasonable doubt they would be cleared by any jury.
The key word is reasonable here. It seems that runners that are “falsely” accused, test positive for running related drugs. Weightlifters for their banned drugs, etc. All get popped for masking drugs.
I thought drugs were expensive..... How are the drug companies staying afloat while giving away their product to these select unlucky pro athletes?
Lol.......