Abstract
Current anti-doping policy seeks to protect honest athletes from biochemically overeducated colleagues. However, there is a question of whether the present policy has gone too far. This article illustrates the ambiguity of the anti-doping policy in the context of a particular plant-based substance (i.e., higenamine) by providing certain case studies. In such cases, the process of proof requires the continuous checking of suppositions since an athlete must establish how the prohibited substance could have entered his or her body. This obligation implies that an athlete and the defending team must have legal, medical, dietary, and biochemical knowledge. However, even with all precautions, it is still possible to fail an anti-doping test and be severely punished because it is almost impossible to trace all the sources that caused the prohibited substance to enter the athlete’s body.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
