Anti-doping & boxing - Comparing the cases of Amir Khan and Connor Benn
Amir Khan being found guilty of two Anti-Doping Rule Violations (ADRVs), and given a two-year ban from sport, follows Conor Benn being charged for an anti-doping violation by UK Anti-Doping. Both athletes asserted the prohibited substance in their system was there due to contamination. Unusually, Khan was able to rebut the presumption of “intentionality” despite not being able to prove the source of the prohibited substance in his system.1
Contamination from food or supplements is often relied on by athletes seeking to establish that the presence of a prohibited substance in their system is not intentional, or as the basis for a plea of “No (or No Significant) Fault or Negligence”2 (which can eliminate or reduce the athlete’s period of ineligibility). However, contamination is notoriously difficult to prove, and it is rare for athletes to escape sanction entirely, even where contamination can reliably be established, if they have not exercised a very high degree of caution – particularly in supplement cases.
To continue reading or watching login or register here
Already a member? Sign in
Get access to all of the expert analysis and commentary at LawInSport including articles, webinars, conference videos and podcast transcripts. Find out more here.
- Assessing contamination and thresholds under the World Anti-Doping Code: an advocate’s view on Lawson v IAAF (CAS 2019/A/6313)
- Lawson v. IAAF: a view from the perspective of athletes' counsel
- Does the Shayna Jack CAS Appeal decision give hope to innocent athletes in contamination cases?
- Contamination & Doping: Is The UFC's Approach To 'Reporting Limits' Fairer Than WADA's?