There is a legal concept - strict liability. Having banned substances is a strict liability violation. In other words nobody cares how it got in there. It got there - that's all one needs to prove. Of course, the commission can then decide if there are circumstances that aggravate the liability or eliviate. That, however, for a fighter to demonstrate the existence of such circumstances. This isn't a criminal law and commission does not need to have a proof of anything other than a boxer having the banned substance in his system. The severity of the punishment may be affected by commission's findings of whether it was taken inadvertently, without any knowledge and etc. But he is not going to get a pass on this no matter how much he whines about that being administered to him without his knowledge.
So...yeah, let's wait for all the facts to come out. Like sample B. If sample B confirms sample A - he is toast.
So...yeah, let's wait for all the facts to come out. Like sample B. If sample B confirms sample A - he is toast.
Thanks in advance!
Comment