Surely ASADA couldn't sanction players on the basis of probability only that a banned substance was given to players?
In terms of the AFL's anti-doping code, 'probability only' isn't enough - the prosecution have to prove players took a banned substance by more than just 'balance of probability' (but they don't need to prove it beyond reasonable doubt).
So in crude terms, if the tribunal considered it 51% likely that players took banned drugs, that wouldn't be enough to find the players guilty, but, say, a 75% probability might be enough.
15.1 Burden and Standard of Proof
AFL shall have the burden of establishing that an Anti Doping Rule Violation has occurred. The standard of proof shall be whether AFL has established an Anti Doping Rule Violation to the comfortable satisfaction of CAS or the Tribunal bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation which is made. This standard of proof in all cases is greater than a mere balance of probability, but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Where this Code places the burden of proof upon the Player or other Person alleged to have committed an Anti Doping Rule Violation to rebut a presumption or establish specified facts or circumstances, the standard of proof shall 34 be by a balance of probability, except as provided in Clauses 14.3 and 14.5 where the Player must satisfy a higher burden of proof.
Would that actually hold up in a real court?
No real idea, but my guess is it
would hold up (as long as the decision was made following the AFL's published rules and players were allowed to present a defence, were given an opportunity to appeal, etc.).