Blogs & Opinion


Richard Moore:

A necessary evil

The anti-doping principle is greater than any athlete, says Richard

Richard Moore Posted 7th February 2012 view comments

The verdict in the Alberto Contador doping case will offend one core principle of the criminal justice system in any civilised country.

It was Benjamin Franklin who said "it is better that 100 guilty persons should escape than that one innocent person should suffer," and many others have said something similar.

Their point is that the burden of proof should lie with the accuser when it comes to determining whether someone is guilty of a crime.

Contador: handed a two-year ban and stripped of his 2010 Tour de France victory

Contador: handed a two-year ban and stripped of his 2010 Tour de France victory

These systems have at their very centre the presumption of innocence. It is not enough to believe that someone has 'probably' committed an offence.

The prosecution must prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused is guilty of the crime. And if that means, as Franklin suggested, that some guilty people walk free, so be it.

Explanation

But sport is different. In fact, it works the other way round. In cases of doping, there is a presumption of guilt. That is to say, if a banned substance is found in an athlete's body then it is not up to the sporting authorities to prove how it got there - it is up to the athlete to provide a (legal) explanation; to prove they did not cheat. It is called the strict liability clause: what is in the athlete's body is solely their responsibility, no-one else's.

Strict liability might be unfair on a few very unfortunate athletes, but the anti-doping movement is bigger than any individual.

Richard Moore
Quotes of the week

This system throws up some injustices. The case of the skier Alain Baxter, who was stripped of his Olympic bronze medal after using an American-made inhaler containing a banned substance, is an obvious example.

All the relevant authorities agreed that Baxter had not set out to cheat, and that he had unknowingly ingested the banned substance, but the strict liability rule meant that he was responsible for the fact that it was in his system.

Baxter was hugely unlucky, but the rule is nevertheless important. And in the Contador case, which saw the three-time (now two-time) Tour de France winner serve a two-year ban and stripped of his 2010 title, it was reiterated by the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

In their report, they acknowledge that the strict liability rule - the effective presumption of guilt - is contrary to most systems of justice, and in breach of the accused's ordinary rights. But: "this significant incursion into the rights of the accused is... justified by the need to protect sport and the difficulty faced by the regulatory authority to actively prove the method of ingestion and the athlete's degree of fault."

Proof

This is the point. If the rule were not in place, very few doping cases would be prosecuted. As it is, the presence of a banned substance is enough to sustain a guilty verdict. But imagine if the burden of proof lay with the sporting authorities; if, as well as finding EPO in a cyclist's blood, they also had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they had knowingly injected the substance.

How on earth would they do that? Fit cameras in hotel rooms, or to cyclist's bodies? It would be impossible. The anti-doping effort would collapse in a morass of appeals, amid claims by the athlete that, "I didn't deliberately take EPO - I was stabbed by a syringe-wielding maniac." (This might be called the Francesco "I fell into the lifeboat" Schettino defence.) Nobody would ever be sanctioned.

So, yes, strict liability might be unfair on a few very unfortunate athletes. It may have resulted in some wrongful convictions. Perhaps even Contador; as the CAS said, there is a remote (very remote) possibility that his clenbuterol positive was caused by contaminated beef. If so, he is spectacularly unlucky. That would be unfortunate; but the anti-doping movement is bigger than any individual.

The strict liability rule is not something that you would want to see applied in any criminal justice system. So it is just as well that we are not talking about people losing their liberty. It is worth stressing: it is 'only' sport, in which many of the rules are arbitrary and, by some people's definitions, 'unfair'.

But the unfortunate conclusion: in sport, strict liability is a necessary evil.

Twitter.com/richardmoore73

back to top

Other Cycling Blogs:

Latest Posts in Cycling:

Ed Chamberlin

Van the man?

Ed Chamberlin explains why Tejay van Garderen is capable of plucking the Tour de France's Yellow Jersey....

comments

Richard Moore

Favourite Froome

Richard Moore reveals his predictions for the 100th Tour de France, which starts on Saturday....

comments

Latest News RSS feeds

Movistar snap up Anacona

Movistar have signed Colombia’s Winner Anacona and Australia’s Rory Sutherland on two-year deals.

Belkin to be named TEAMLottoNL

Belkin will be provisionally known as TEAMLottoNL next season after finalising two sponsorship deals.

Varnish wins fourth gold

Jess Varnish completed a four-title haul at the British Cycling National Track Championships.

Armitstead seventh at worlds

France’s Pauline Ferrand-Prevot won the women's world championship road race as Lizzie Armitstead took seventh.

Team Sky sign five riders

Team Sky have signed five new riders in a major recruitment drive ahead of the 2015 season.

Features

World championships: Men's road race preview

World championships: Men's road race preview

A selection of the best riders in the world will battle for the right to wear the prestigious rainbow jersey in the men's world championship road race in Ponferrada, northern Spain, on Sunday.

Sir Bradley Wiggins's Tour de France days may be over but his grander plan is right on course

Sir Bradley Wiggins's Tour de France days may be over but his grander plan is right on course

When Sir Bradley Wiggins was omitted from Team Sky’s Tour de France squad earlier this year, there was much chatter on social media that surely this must be the proverbial last straw.

Sir Bradley Wiggins produces one of the best performances of his entire career in TT victory

Sir Bradley Wiggins produces one of the best performances of his entire career in TT victory

Sir Dave Brailsford claimed that Sir Bradley Wiggins's world time trial-winning performance was one of the best displays against the clock he has ever seen, and on close inspection, this was no idle boast.