Dear Editor,
I write in response to your editorial in the Observer on Saturday, April 12, 2014 entitled "Valuable lesson from a sad episode" in which you quoted Dr Rachel Irving as saying "If an athlete can prove that a supplement that he or she took contains banned substances that were not listed on the label, he or she would likely just be warned (instead of banned) come January 1, 2015."
Respectfully, a careful reading of the revised WADA Code which comes into effect next year suggests that the range for sanction reductions is wider than that suggested by Dr Irving. The 2015 Code does indicate that there could be a reduction in the sanction received by an athlete who commits an anti-doping rule violation if he/she can establish no significant fault or negligence and can prove that the substance they took was contaminated.
However, the actual wording of section 10.5.1.2 of the Code is instructive: "10.5.1.2 Contaminated Products — In cases where the athlete or other person can establish no significant fault or negligence and that the detected prohibited substance came from a contaminated product, then the period of ineligibility shall be, at a minimum, a reprimand and no period of ineligibility, and at a maximum, two years ineligibility, depending on the athlete's or other person's degree of fault."
The comments to section 10.4 of the Code further point out that an athlete cannot establish No Fault or Negligence with respect to "a positive test resulting from a mislabelled or contaminated vitamin or nutritional supplement. (Athletes are responsible for what they ingest [Article 2.1.1] and have been warned against the possibility of supplement contamination)."
In essence the athlete or other person in the case of contaminated product(s) has to accept some level of fault or negligence. The question is the degree or level of fault/negligence which the hearing panel will take into consideration in determining the sanction for the ADRV. It's not going to be the case that "one size fits all".
Renee Anne Shirley
renee.shirley@yahoo.com
The real lesson in the sad episode
-->
I write in response to your editorial in the Observer on Saturday, April 12, 2014 entitled "Valuable lesson from a sad episode" in which you quoted Dr Rachel Irving as saying "If an athlete can prove that a supplement that he or she took contains banned substances that were not listed on the label, he or she would likely just be warned (instead of banned) come January 1, 2015."
Respectfully, a careful reading of the revised WADA Code which comes into effect next year suggests that the range for sanction reductions is wider than that suggested by Dr Irving. The 2015 Code does indicate that there could be a reduction in the sanction received by an athlete who commits an anti-doping rule violation if he/she can establish no significant fault or negligence and can prove that the substance they took was contaminated.
However, the actual wording of section 10.5.1.2 of the Code is instructive: "10.5.1.2 Contaminated Products — In cases where the athlete or other person can establish no significant fault or negligence and that the detected prohibited substance came from a contaminated product, then the period of ineligibility shall be, at a minimum, a reprimand and no period of ineligibility, and at a maximum, two years ineligibility, depending on the athlete's or other person's degree of fault."
The comments to section 10.4 of the Code further point out that an athlete cannot establish No Fault or Negligence with respect to "a positive test resulting from a mislabelled or contaminated vitamin or nutritional supplement. (Athletes are responsible for what they ingest [Article 2.1.1] and have been warned against the possibility of supplement contamination)."
In essence the athlete or other person in the case of contaminated product(s) has to accept some level of fault or negligence. The question is the degree or level of fault/negligence which the hearing panel will take into consideration in determining the sanction for the ADRV. It's not going to be the case that "one size fits all".
Renee Anne Shirley
renee.shirley@yahoo.com
The real lesson in the sad episode
-->