Yes, there's plenty of precedence, but I was (mistakenly) under the impression that the standard was to halve the suspension. According to the WADA code, however, the relevant organization can use their subjective judgment to determine how much the athlete cooperated and how important the bigger fish they helped catch is. USADA decided that this was a pretty big deal and that the cooperation was very significant, so they applied the maximum 3/4 reduction:veganrob said:I believe there is precedence for shortening bans in return for cooperating. Is that correct?
UCI could argue that their systematic doping (for up to 7-9 years in the most extreme cases) is such a serious offense the maximum reduction shouldn't be applied, and try to get them a one year suspension. More than that would be pushing it, IMO.The extent to which the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility may be suspended shall be based on the seriousness of the anti-doping rule violation committed by the Athlete or other Person and the significance of the Substantial Assistance provided by the Athlete or other Person to the effort to eliminate doping in sport. No more than three-quarters of the otherwise applicable period of Ineligibility may be suspended.