Alpe d'Huez said:In an ideal world, yes. Just like in the judicial world punishment fits crimes. But with the UCI in charge of cycling, no. I mean, they just tried to cover up the Contador case in all likelihood. But it's not only the UCI who are a problem, look at many other country's own anti-doping program. There just isn't the thoroughness or blind justice needed. Until there's a total overhaul and the UCI, or whatever replaces it, plus individual national anti-doping organizations have the resources and wherewithal to take on each case in an objective and needed manner, we're simply not going to get "firm, fair, consistent, immediate and proportionate" sanctions, and shouldn't even consider it until that time.
it goes without saying that there is a need to put a completely independent 3rd party in charge of testing all by itself as well as impartiality at the national and local levels. waiting for that to happen or for the UCI to fail might take a LONG while and is not as likely as CN forumites would like to believe. in the meantime i have no problem fixing the risk/reward equation a little. in fact, as i briefly mentioned proportional suspensions discourage cover-ups too. it also goes without saying that sanctioning guidelines would have to be communicated clearly to all. it wouldn't surprise me one bit if fans of the sport are clammering for this type of reform in the next few months. call it a hunch.