Four Year Ban instead of Deux - Yay or Nay?

[JMBeaushrimp]

Yay! Let's hear it for cost-benefit analyses! One more time!

 

[python]

I don't know the exact manner in which it applies to doping in the pro-peleton, as most of it is not known about it, but I applied general deterrence theory. Off course taken into account that doping is done by a much more rational process than most ordinary crime. This means that unlike most crime the idea of a rational thought process to decide whether to dope is likely. What means that a cost benefit analysis is probably much more frequent. If you then look at the factors that need to be applied in a cost benefit analysis, it is clear that especially the chance of getting caught is very low, thus leading to a big incentive for doping. In all cases te chance of getting caught factors much more prominently in such a cost benefit analysis than the actual sanction put on an offense

all you said is applicable, but there is also a less rational component - a belief in not being 'that guy' because of lack of negative experience (due to young age usually). like in war - the young people marching to war often believe in their invincibility and that 'that bullet wont be for me'.

it takes many a fallen comrades to switch...

which eventually comes to a cost/benefit analysis for rational people. but not everyone is rational. however, everyone has fear. that's where the test effectiveness and the fear of police raids come forward.

but the simple point is - there is 100% irrefutable historic evidence that harshness of penalties is NOT an effective measure. there is zero/zich evidence to the contrary.

i could talk much longer about the inappropriateness of harsher penalties due to doping tests being out of pace (in terms of reliability) but i have to catch some sleep.

 

[WildspokeJoe]

I said 4 years but would prefer a 5-year ban.

I think it's wrong to tier positives. A positive is a positive. Sounds harsh but the sport is so screwed up - you have to be draconian ito curb the abuses.

A ban is not only a punishment but hopefully also a deterrent to other riders.

Isn't obvious, 2 years isn't working.

 

[hrotha]

bravo for being a thinking man, barrus ! you came to a conclusion i vainly pointed to in my post #17

http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=375141&postcount=17

I said pretty much the same thing in reply #4, but that doesn't mean that harsher punishments, by themselves, are bad.

 

[BotanyBay]

Nay. Not unless the frequency with which all riders are targeted is increased, and those in charge of testing can't pick and choose who gets exposed to what spotlight intensity.

Amen to that. We've got a lot of fish to fry that have nothing to do with penalties. Our process for determining guilt is completely flawed, and controlled by people who'd do most anything to keep pretending that no problem exists.