Let's take a little trip to the countryside
- Dec 1, 2015
I mostly agree with this. I am referring to the burden that it places on the athlete, not suggesting that there isn't plenty of wiggle room.I would also argue that despite what USADA may say on their website, strict liability in the real world, when it comes to hearings is a myth.
weve seen repeatedly arbitration panels weighing lack of fault on the part of the athlete much more heavily. "strict liability" only really applies to one tiny element, the "substance detected".. it means its there, and you are responsible for it being there.
but how "responsible" is a very very long piece of string and arbitration panels regularly find the athlete responsibility to be at the shortest end of that piece of string.
Even in the UFC program theres been what, 8-10 no fault findings or warnings.. demonstrates that SL isnt nearly as strict as they would have you believe.
the fact that there even exists a "without fault or negligence" provision demonstrates that strict liability is not enforced in all cases.