Two legal & scientific boo-boos by the committee:  (1) Any alarming chemical test should be repeated by a DIFFERENT, independent lab.  (2) The legal concept of "intent" assumes that the accused person didn't intend the crime; the prosecution has to prove that they did.  (E.g., by showing that the accused person carried the drug and was seen administering it.)  It's impossible to prove that you DIDN'T intend something, but that's what the committee is saying a musher must do.