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?
My point is that, in terms of damages, she is the one responsible for her suspension. I do not see her as a victim.
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?
My point is that, in terms of damages, she is the one responsible for her suspension. I do not see her as a victim.
