Criminal Law Implications

Question

Two well known athletes who are considered the best in the world are about to compete. Athlete A knows that Athlete B used a substance regularly for two years and stopped a month ago. Today the drug is illegal. Athlete A goes to the police and reports the previous illegal activity to get Athlete B jailed to miss the competition and secure a win for Athlete A without even competing. What are the criminal law implications here and will Athlete A be successful with the plan? Your answer should list any pertinent rules and then apply them to the situation

Answer 1

If the substance was not deemed to be illegal prior to Athlete B ceasing use, there is nothing the police can do. Legally, a crime cannot be committed before it is deemed a crime. The general rule of thumb would be that you apply the law as it was in existence when the act was committed, unless there is a strong argument otherwise that does not unduly prejudice the defendant. In the US, a law cannot make criminal something that was not criminal when the act was done, nor can they increase the penalty from what it was when the act was done, this is what the prohibition on Ex Post facto laws is about. If the new law reduces the seriousness of a crime or the penalty, then the new law may be followed, depending on how that law is worded.