liar soorer wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
You don't understand what strict liability means. To be over the allowable alcohol limit is strict liability because no other facts determine the offence. The only defence is if the test was not valid. The same applies to doping offences, with the exception that there can be a defence if there was no fault or negligence. Intention can also be deemed in doping offences if there is a failure to demonstrate lack of fault or negligence.
It is all really quite simple: you defend dopers so by that definition of strict liability you are a doping denier, and like imputing intent to dopers who fail to show otherwise a lack of intelligence on your part can be imputed from your failure to construct an intelligent argument. I hope that analogy helps you.
The offence is determined at strict liability and then the evidence necessary follows.
There are plenty of defences; do read about them.Firms of lawyers exist for that purpose.
Your second para is unintelligible.For instance; what definition of strict liability “
You are out of your depth.
You mean I needed to qualify in law like you have? Oh, wait ...
You continue to confirm that you have no idea of what you are talking about. It is a waste of time engaging with you.