hardingfv32 wrote:"Despite the officially sounding name, it turns out the “United States Anti-doping Agency is not a part of the federal government. Although it receives almost 70 percent of its funding from the federal grants, the USADA is a government program masquerading as a non-profit organization. This non-profit status allows it to investigate and prosecute athletes without affording them the constitutional and due process protections required of other federal agencies. This status also allows it to prosecute athletes with a lower burden of proof than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard that would have been required in the previous investigation by the USDOJ. Finally, it allows a situation where the same man, Mr. Travis T. Tygart (The CEO)is allowed to serve as Prosecutor, Jury and Judge in the investigation of Lance Armstrong."
Brian
I think, there is some confusion/misconception about what "doping" means in legal terms.
First and foremost it is breach of a private contract and "doping law" is the enforcement of these private agreements.
It does not consituate a "criminal offense" in every/most cases, as some of the "banned substances" are legal "over he counter drugs" in some countries (USA for example).
This means, that criminal law standards such as "proof beyond a reasonable doubt” don't apply in (some/most of) these cases.
The standard of proof in hearings involving alleged doping is higher than one would commonly find in breach of contract proceedings.
CAS requires more than a simple balance of probabilities, the typical civil law standard, to prove particular elements of a doping offense.
Instead, elements of the doping offense must be established to the comfortable satisfaction of the arbitration panel.
The arbitrators in De Bruin v. FINA stated that they had “no doubt that the standard of proof required of [the sport’s governing body] is high: less than the criminal standard, but more than the ordinary civil standard.”
Doping is similar to an technical infringement in racing in the way how it is seen legally.
By participation in the competition (Olympics, Tour de France whatever) the athlete agrees, that he will be bound by the governing regulations, and the jurisdiction is part of this regulations, just like in F1 or any other racing series.
It's a private agreement between the parties involved, that may involves a international body (as in F1) or may does not (as in NASCAR).
Nobody will go to jail for a flexy wing a too lage engine and/or a doping offense, as they could if criminal law would apply.
