sanootage wrote:
Why would a guilty verdict with Stromba be deemed not intent and one with nandrolone be intent and both with the same the same rejected defence.
So no intent with Stromba and would that not be cheating in the same way as many say in the case in hand.
What a mess.
And I repeat I thought the verdict correct of breaking the rules as set out.
In these cases, it all boils down to what the athlete can show or prove in anti-doping tribunals, and whether that is considered to tip the balance of probabilty.
Going back to the example of the German athlete in Seppelt’s documentary.
He luckily had one pill left for testing, and could clear his name, still at great personal cost in terms of time, money, and lost ability to compete as he fought his case.
Without that pill, he would suffer the same fate as Houlihan.
In both scenarios, the truth of his guilt and intent does not change, but whether he is considered a lying intentional cheat doesn’t depend on the truth, but on the luck of having one pill left to be tested.
In Houlihan’s case, had she had the foresight to freeze the uneaten portion of the burrito, the case could have been decided with more certainty (one way or the other), and we wouldn’t need to invite experts to talk about the ratio of boar present in the national pork market, or the probability of whether the diets were soy or corn.
The real question arising from the shift of burden to the athlete, is what percentage of truly unintentional doping cases can be proven to a panel on the balance of probability, one month or more after the fact, when the primary evidence no longer exists? How many dolphins are netted with the tunas?
If we step back and look at other pictures, we can start to ask more questions. The WADA funded study on Kenyan doping shows Kenyans busted by far from nandrolone (35% of all Kenyan busts). What is the presence of boar meat in Kenya? Are Kenyans able to defend themselves before Disciplinary Tribunals or the CAS? The WADA study shows several examples, where Kenyans don’t keep records of doctors visits. Could they trace pork back to the farmer? Could they establish the diet of the boars? Do they have inspectors like the USDA?
If we look at this question from the point of view of fairness to the athlete in cases of unintentional ingestion, I share the same doubts as Tygart has often expressed.