Originally Posted by gooner
What you could do is have the 4 year bans and if the athlete can give up names, suppliers, detail doping methods only then can you reduce it to 2 years.
The reason why I think 2 years is`nt sufficient is that the younger generation see people like Basso and Vino returning after their bans and winning the Giro and LBL. That is not the best example to set. I think 4 year bans is the way to go from here from now on.
I would feel uncomfortable about the idea of giving a 27-year-old who looked to have gotten his positive accidentally 4 years though - he wouldn't be able to name his suppliers since he wouldn't have any. 2 years out of your entire lifestyle and unemployed is a big enough punishment, I think, the problem is making sure people are caught.
After all, murder rates do not seem to change appreciably whether the punishment is death, life in prison or very long (but not life) in prison. Losing 10 years of your life is enough punishment - if people (those thinking rationally, not crimes of passion/spur-of-the-moment type things) thought they would be caught, they would not commit the crime. Generally they are either mental enough not to care or just think they're clever enough to get away with it.
I think doping is the same - the ratio of dopers to positives is so small that cyclists just assume they won't get caught.