This is example of what the law calls "mens rea" which literally
means"guilty mind." In other words, the state of mind of a defendant is
as important as the criminal act itself. For example, if one intends
the victum to die, the defendant may be charged with a higher crime
(murder) than for causing an accidental death (manslaughter). The
mental state and the act must occur almost simultaneously. The law
calls this "concurrence." In summary, the three elements of most crimes
are (1) a certain mental state, (2) a certain act and (3) a concurrence
of the two.
There are, however, strict liability crimes where one's mental state is
automatically assumed by society. Usually these deal with minor crimes
that do not involve jail time penalties. For example, a parking ticket
is issued if the meter runs out, even if you are fumbling for change.
AERC rules generally fall into this strict liability catagory. One's
mental state at the time of the offense is irrelevant.
However, that portion of the AERC drug policy (Rule 13) that deals with
endogenous substances in exogenic amounts does seem to include a mental
state requirement. Under the current wording, AERC has the burden of
proving two things: (1) that the defendant INTENDED to improve
performance; and (2), the endogenous substance was detected in abnormal
amounts.
Of course AERC must also show that the drug test was performed in a
scientifically recognized manner on a protected sample timely taken from
a specific horse at a sanctioned event. "Protected" sample means that
the sample was not contaminated by sampling technique, container, time,
chain-of custody problems, etc.
Interesting stuff, huh?