<![CDATA[The strict liability principle is fundamental to anti-doping regulation because athletes may be held responsible for prohibited substances detected in their samples regardless of intent. While this principle promotes sporting integrity, its application may generate significant concerns regarding fairness, particularly where contamination, inadvertent ingestion, medical treatment, or inadequate information contributes to an anti-doping violation. This article examines the compatibility of strict liability with procedural justice and athlete rights within Indonesia's anti-doping framework. Using normative legal research, the study analyzes anti-doping rules, principles of natural justice, proportionality, evidentiary standards, and athletes' procedural rights. The study argues that strict liability need not be abandoned to ensure fairness, but its consequences should be accompanied by robust procedural safeguards and proportionate sanctions. Athletes should have meaningful opportunities to challenge findings, access relevant laboratory and evidentiary information, present mitigating circumstances, and obtain independent review. The article proposes a rights-sensitive model combining strict liability for the prohibited substance itself with differentiated sanctions based on fault, degree of negligence, harm, and applicable mitigating circumstances. Such an approach can preserve the integrity of competitive sport while avoiding disproportionate consequences for athletes who lack meaningful culpability. Recalibrating anti-doping enforcement around procedural justice would strengthen both legitimacy and athlete confidence in Indonesian sports governance.]]>
