readtherules wrote:How on earth can you view my comments onthe WADA policy on agravated offences and the criminalising of sports drugs (following the lead from UKAD) as justifying your thinking.
Insluts insults ,in an attempt to steer readers from my comments.
No your little missive slipped in about the amount found, which is irrelevant when we are talking about exogenous substances, especially those with a short half life.
It slipped in about food contamination, which is adequately dealt with already since if you can show that it was in all probability food contamination, ie testing on the food stuff, proof of mass failure due to an acknowledged problem in a particular geographic are, then you are basically let off. If you say you had contaminated food in an area where there is not an issue and cannot provide a sample then you don't.
It slipped in substances being legally in the food chain, though you haven't shown a single case of anyone being tested positive or banned as a result of any such substance.
What you have done is say that all convictions should be overturmned simply by claiming you didnt take anything and the authroties having no way to prove you did, hence it is yet another missive calling for drug cheating scum to be allowed to take whatever they plead and then just say it must have been, insert pathetic hypotheical untetstable excuse, so you have to let me off.
You continually ignore that there are areas of law where you do not have tyo prove that somebody did something intentionally. Drink driving is a classic example. the police don't need to show how the alcohol got into your blood. It's there so you are guilty. Same with drugs in your system, it's in your system, you cannot account for how, you go down. Simple.
You still have not shown any alternative, all you do is say that cheats should be allowed to just get away with it.