Athletes should know that, under the Code, they are strictly liable whenever a prohibited substance is found in their bodily specimen. This means that a violation occurs whether or not the athlete intentionally, knowingly or unknowingly, used a prohibited substance or was negligent or otherwise at fault.
Sounds like she has a really good case. As long as we ignore personal responsibility.
The strict liability clause doesn't come into legal play for this case since she is not trying to have the suspension revoked and be reinstated. But if she's thinking that somehow suing the manufacturer for damages is an opportunity to restore her reputation she is sorely mistaken. Cheaters never "knowingly" take anything do they?
Athletes should know that, under the Code, they are strictly liable whenever a prohibited substance is found in their bodily specimen. This means that a violation occurs whether or not the athlete intentionally, knowingly or unknowingly, used a prohibited substance or was negligent or otherwise at fault.
Sounds like she has a really good case. As long as we ignore personal responsibility.
The strict liability clause doesn't come into legal play for this case since she is not trying to have the suspension revoked and be reinstated. But if she's thinking that somehow suing the manufacturer for damages is an opportunity to restore her reputation she is sorely mistaken. Cheaters never "knowingly" take anything do they?
