msjett said:
I think that there should be investigations and suspensions not amnesties...
The thing is, investigations are costly, complicated, and difficult to prove. USADA struck gold with this one. It combined many rare elements, without any of which the case never would have gone forward as it did. I see these elements as:
1) a high-profile professional cyclist who was on the inside track of a sophisticated doping program;
2) a cyclist who has been blacklisted from the sport because of his high-profile bust and has nothing to lose;
3) a cyclist who decides that he cares about the truth and wants to tell it.
Without any of these elements, not even Floyd speaks. And then,
4) a grand jury investigation due to the high-profile central figure. Without that you definitely don't get George and Levi, who I think are key in terms of credibility.
5) maybe most importantly, a culture where doping was open enough that you could get corroborating witness testimony from 11 former teammates. I don't know much about the inner workings of pro cycling, but I'm willing to bet that there is no one in the past 7 years who would be overt enough to have 11 former teammates have conclusive proof of him doping.
Imagine the cost of a single case, even if you could find evidence on increasingly-careful dopers. The threat of punishment still terrifies teammates, so silence reigns. Everyone wants their career to continue more than anything else.
With amnesty, it costs very little to hear stories, there is more incentive to tell them, and if you can get a few leading figures in cycling to be onside and tell what they know, it's possible that it will become the thing to do. Maybe not, as teams are still terrified of losing sponsors and don't want to make any waves. But I think it's the best shot, not only in terms of efficiency, but in terms of encouraging honesty.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram