Quote:
Originally Posted by veist
DP already backed off that and said "I want to clarify something I said about Ryan Braun yesterday, what I should have said is he could be found not guilty." And to quote Craig Calcaterra on it "He could still, however, have his positive drug test upheld in the same way J.C. Romero‘s was, with a decision that it was inadvertent (i.e. a positive sample constituting a lack of innocence). Because MLB’s drug policy is strict liability, however, he would still be suspended because intention has nothing to do with it."
Which would suck for him since he'd probably still get the whole "doping" treatment from the media even if it was nothing more than a tainted supplement.
|
yeah, I knew about strict liability, which was why I was a little surprised about his apparent confidence. With DP's backtrack, its now faded back into murkiness, but for people who know the details to say there's even a reasonable chance he could win suggests something very odd.
Its not enough to say "oops, I didn't mean to", even if you could prove lack of intent, if the sample is positive, you are suspended. Normally, you'd either have to prove that the test itself was flawed and unreliable at least in your case, which is tough to do, or you'd need something really crazy like someone intentionally (and criminally?) spiked you in the hopes of causing you to fail the test, or someone in the testing facility contaminated your sample, or something strange like that.
(though with reports that his sample had chain of custody problems, and the result was "insanely high" as in twice as high as anyone else ever tested in known history, perhaps the argument is that the sample was spiked or contaminated in transit.)