I'm all for tough sanctions on drug cheats- even life bans where the circumstances demand it- but the recent decision by FINA, swimming's governing body, to ban Ryan Napoleon for three months has left me feeling decidedly uneasy. Napoleon, 20, tested positive to Formoterol, a substance banned by WADA, back in November 2009.

It has been established, and is not disputed, that the banned substance got into his system after a pharmacist wrongly labelled his asthma medication ‘Pulmicort'. Napoleon has been legitimately using Pulmicort to treat his asthma for much of his life.

On this occasion, however, despite the label on the puffer, the inhaler actually contained Symbicort, which includes the banned Formoterol.The WADA Code has recently been revised to be "fairer and firmer," changes commencing January 1 last year. Under this code, a positive test results in a two-year ban for first offenders, unless there are mitigating circumstances.

Under Articles 10.4 and 10.5, the mitigating circumstances provisions, the twioyear ban can be reduced to as much as a reprimand if the athlete can establish how the substance got into their body and that the substance was not intended to enhance performance or that the substance was not present due to any fault or negligence on the part of the athlete. Napoleon produced evidence, including a statutory declaration from the pharmacist at fault, to establish these criteria.

The FINA panel agreed that Napoleon had no intention of enhancing his performance, but emphasised the requirement that athletes check their own medication. The result was that Napoleon could not be considered to have "no fault" and therefore was handed a reduced ban of three months.Napoleon has received the news with remarkable maturity, accepting the high burden that is placed on athletes to ensure they do not consume banned substances, and will no doubt be back in the pool training for when his period of ineligibility ceases later this year.

The sanction, in the circumstances, is most definitely "firm"- the fact Napoleon is serving three months rather than receiving a reprimand is a huge wake up call for every athlete subject to the WADA code.

We already know that we must check every substance we take. If we come down with a cough or the flu, it is common ground that we won't just walk into a chemist and grab something off the shelf. Chances are that even over-the-counter medications could find us with a banned substance in our system.

We also know supplements can't be risked, nor can lists of ingredients be relied on.

Regularly checking changes to the prohibited substance list is also something we appreciate is part of our responsibility. There is an infamous case of a water polo player taking anti-balding medication which he had checked with his doctor was not banned. Unbeknown to the player, Finasteride, a component of the medication, was subsequently added to the banned list. Thus despite checking at the time of filling his prescription, the player fell foul of the rules and was suspended.

So we know the degree of vigilance required is very high. But it also must be within reason- "fair" if you prefer. Napoleon's error lay in believing that the medication he took was what the Pharmacist said it was. Short of sending each medication off for individual laboratory testing, I'm not quite sure what Napoleon could reasonably have done differently.

The most obvious argument in reply is the fairness to competitors. In the 1995 case of Quigley, the Court of Arbitration for Sport panel reasoned that, in upholding a ban, "the prohibition of banned substances will not be lifted in recognition of its accidental absorption. The vicissitudes of competition, like those of life generally, may create many types of unfairness, whether by accident or the negligence of unaccountable persons, which the law cannot repair. Furthermore, it appears to be a laudable policy objective not to repair an accidental unfairness to an individual by creating an intentional unfairness to the whole body of other competitors."

The message rings out loud and clear that ignorance is no defence - the desire for a level playing field demands it. Yet the revised Code deliberately adds flexibility in sanction to ensure not only that the real cheats get their dues, but also that the less-blameworthy get proportionate punishments. The reason for this is that the Code also seeks to educate and deter.

In Napoleon's case though, if no amount of vigilance could have changed the outcome, then there is no deterrence being achieved, nor education.

The end result is that Napoleon's Delhi dreams lie in rubble. A lack of vigilance should be punished, but a lack of luck? I'm not so sure...