0 votes
in Legal Studies by (72.3k points)

Did Seema violate the Mahabali Akhadas Anti-Doping Code on Possession of Prohibited Substances? Choose the option with the correct answer as well as the most appropriate explanation for it.
A

No; prior to being notified of an anti-doping rule violation, Seema took action to demonstrate that she never intended to have possession of the Prohibited Substance and renounced its possession.


B

Yes; Seemas samples tested positive for the Prohibited Substance.


C

No; because the Code states that purchase of a Prohibited Substance constitutes possession by the person and Seema did not make the purchase herself.


D

Yes; she gained constructive possession of Dexamethasone and consumed it.

Approved answer
Correct option is A)

The correct answer is (a) - no; prior to being notified of an anti-doping rule violation, Seema took action to demonstrate that she never intended to have possession of the Prohibited Substance and renounced its possession. The Anti-Doping Code clearly states that there shall be no anti-doping rule violation based solely on possession if, prior to receiving notification of any kind that the person has committed an anti-doping rule violation, the person has taken concrete action demonstrating that the person never intended to have possession and has renounced possession by explicitly declaring it to the Anti-Doping Wing of Mahabali Akhada. As soon as she learnt that Cofdex contains Dexamethasone, Seema took steps to demonstrate that she never intended to have possession by notifying the Anti-Doping Wing of Mahabali Akhada and renouncing possession. Therefore, she did not violate the Anti-Doping Code on Possession of Prohibited Substances.

1 Answer

0 votes
by (72.3k points)
 
Best answer

Did Seema violate the Mahabali Akhadas Anti-Doping Code on Possession of Prohibited Substances? Choose the option with the correct answer as well as the most appropriate explanation for it.
A

No; prior to being notified of an anti-doping rule violation, Seema took action to demonstrate that she never intended to have possession of the Prohibited Substance and renounced its possession.


B

Yes; Seemas samples tested positive for the Prohibited Substance.


C

No; because the Code states that purchase of a Prohibited Substance constitutes possession by the person and Seema did not make the purchase herself.


D

Yes; she gained constructive possession of Dexamethasone and consumed it.

Approved answer
Correct option is A)

The correct answer is (a) - no; prior to being notified of an anti-doping rule violation, Seema took action to demonstrate that she never intended to have possession of the Prohibited Substance and renounced its possession. The Anti-Doping Code clearly states that there shall be no anti-doping rule violation based solely on possession if, prior to receiving notification of any kind that the person has committed an anti-doping rule violation, the person has taken concrete action demonstrating that the person never intended to have possession and has renounced possession by explicitly declaring it to the Anti-Doping Wing of Mahabali Akhada. As soon as she learnt that Cofdex contains Dexamethasone, Seema took steps to demonstrate that she never intended to have possession by notifying the Anti-Doping Wing of Mahabali Akhada and renouncing possession. Therefore, she did not violate the Anti-Doping Code on Possession of Prohibited Substances.

Related questions

...