The new hot basis for punishing "cheats" is the "non-analytical positive". In a nutshell, it means that if the authorities think you're a cheat and they have information that they feel is good enough (by their own standards as judge, jury and executioner), they will declare you to be in violation of the anti-doping regime and punish you accordingly, even in the absence of any scientific evidence of the use of banned substances. In essence, it's the authorities throwing up their hands and admitting they can't catch the people they want to catch. I haven't looked at the new JDA language, and I don't think there is a provision to pursue such a case against a player represented by MLBPA, but that where the anti-doping effort is headed. I'm not necessarily averse to the idea of prosecuting violations on the basis of evidence other than test results, but once you go down that route you really need to have a well-constructed set of rules and procedures in place to ensure fairness and accuracy. Given what I know about how these things are operated, I feel very confident in saying that these governing bodies are not set up to ensure either.