Mr. Obvious wrote:
Montesquieu wrote:I could be wrong, but I believe Article 13 of CAS has elements covering this.
What is Article 13 of CAS?
Do you mean the WADA code?
I can't find any article 13 of CAS and article 13 of the WADA code doesn't seem to be on point.
There are parts of the WADA code that refer to an athlete establishing lack of fault. I have included those below. Note that the remedy is not to declare the athlete not guilty, but merely to reduce the penalties, which will still include at the least a reprimand, but not necessarily a period of ineligibility. Note that these sections specifically refer to "Specified substances" and to
"contaminated products." The definition of "no significant fault or negligence" appears to be without a lot of definition to me, but I'll keep digging.
Also, I would note that the violation we are speculating about (more than 50ml of infusion) is a prohibited method and doesn't seem to me to fall clearly under the terms "specified substances" or "contaminated products"
10.5 Reduction of the Period of Ineligibility based on
No Significant Fault or Negligence
10.5.1 Reduction of Sanctions for Specified Substances
or Contaminated Products for Violations of
Article 2.1, 2.2 or 2.6.
10.5.1.1 Specified Substances
Where the anti-doping rule violation
involves a Specified Substance, and the
Athlete or other Person can establish
No Significant Fault or Negligence, then
the period of Ineligibility shall be, at a
minimum, a reprimand and no period
of Ineligibility, and at a maximum, two
years of Ineligibility, depending on the
Athlete’s or other Person’s degree of
Fault.
10.5.1.2 Contaminated Products
In cases where the Athlete or other
Person can establish No Significant
Fault or Negligence and that the
detected Prohibited Substance came
from a Contaminated Product, then
the period of Ineligibility shall be, at a
minimum, a reprimand and no period
of Ineligibility, and at a maximum, two
years Ineligibility, depending on the
Athlete’s or other Person’s degree of
Fault.