Just cos the athlete knows about strict liability does not make it right.
At the end of soccer games in the Euros you will see players picking up drinks from multiple sources; do you think it reasonable that they should check sources and check with manufacturers?
The IST do not require checking with previous history.
And such would be given to the defence.
There would still be loads of convictions for drug use.
Possibly less at the margins.
I am aware that civil burden is on balance of probabilities but in civil cases do you think there would be a intense application of strict liability were someone would be required to prove what they ate a month prior.
And would there be an assumption that the lab did its work correctly.
And would the suspect be allowed to carry out there own tests on the sample.
And would carbon isotope evidence be allowed.
And would a fellow lab head from a closed group be allowed to give evidence.
I could go on and on.