My article on ostarine published earlier this week led to questions about how fair strict liability is (and what it really means!).
Anti doping in sport is governed by the World Anti-Doping Code, written by the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA). The Code is the central document summarizing anti-doping policies, rules and regulations within the sports and organisations that sign up.
The Code introduces the 11 different ways ways an athlete can commit an anti-doping rule violation. Number one of the eleven (and probably most common) is via a positive drugs test. This means that a prohibited substance, or its metabolites/markers have been found in a blood or urine sample by an approved laboratory.
The burden here is on the lab to prove scientifically that the drug or compound is present. This is done through the analysis of the A sample (and B if necessary).
Once it has been shown on the balance of probability that the violation has occurred, the lab has done its bit. It is not necessary for the authorities to determine intent, fault, negligence or knowing use on the Athlete’s part. The athlete has that responsibility. You could summarize it as:
Athletes are responsible for everything found in their body, no matter how it got there.
So the rules treat it as the athlete’s responsibility even if they didn’t intend to cheat, didn’t know it was banned, or took it accidentally (for example, through contaminated supplements or sharing a sweaty neoprene knee support).
Why does this rule exist?
Strict liability exists to protect the integrity of sport and to ensure that the anti‑doping system works. Without it, athletes could avoid consequences simply by claiming they “didn’t know,” which would make enforcement nearly impossible. It creates a kind of zero tolerance approach, in which the assumption is guilt of an athlete rather than innocence.
But is it harsh?
Although it sounds strict, the system does allow athletes to avoid or reduce a sanction if they can show that they were not at fault or significant fault. Generally penalties start at 4 years and you can take years from these if you have evidence to support your claims.
The strict liability rule with a possibility that sanctions may be modified based on specified criteria, provides a reasonable balance between effective anti-doping enforcement for the benefit of all “clean” Athletes and fairness in the exceptional circumstance where a Prohibited Substance entered an Athlete’s system through no fault or negligence on the Athlete’s part. WADA
The presence of a banned substance triggers the process, but the degree of fault influences the sanction. The violation has still occurred but not necessarily a ban.
The labs can detect lower and lower amounts in samples as their instruments get more sensitive. This can give us a positive from a wider range of sources, contaminants and so on. It also means drug use can be detected for a longer period of time, which is a plus. But when the amount found in a sample is very low, what does it mean? We don’t really know.
Is it unfair?
Anti‑doping needs strict rules, but is this making athletes live with impossible expectations?
Avoiding a contamination or similar requires an athlete to be extra vigilant at all times. This can be very difficult in practise. Do you prepare all meals and drinks from scratch yourself, with verified clean ingredients? Do you know if someone you hug or touch has something banned in their sweat? Do you keep a batch label from every supplement or drug you take? No doubt some athletes will be banned as they were not able to satisfactorily explain a positive test with evidence, as they didn’t know they should have been collecting it.
Strict liability is there to protect clean sport but places at times unrealistic expectations on athletes. The future challenge is finding the balance: an anti‑doping system that catches cheats without punishing the innocent.