Should doping then staying silent carry an aggravated penalty?

[B_Ugli]

For a long time I have thought that doping should become an aggravated offence (carrying a longer ban) if the athlete fails to reveal the following to the authorities:

1. How they doped
2. Where they got the information on the method from
3. Who helped them to administer the dope
4. Who supplied them with the dope
5. Who introduced them to the supplier & administrator

There are loads of riders who have come back after not giving any of the above information which means that the authorities are back to square one and the sport is none the wiser.

If a 2 year ban meant 6 years (or even more) on failing to co-operate this would definately have an effect.

Do these teams really need 3-4 full time doctors on their payrolls? Should the doctors be appointed by the authorities and allocated to each race rather than employed by the teams? Maybe its time to remove the legal chemistry element from these teams once and for all?

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

Giving people a prison sentence would be the only thing that changes most people's outlook on doping imo.

Note how the threat of perjury soon got all the riders to testify against Armstrong.

 

[ebandit]

other way

.............but sanctions work well opposite to your idea

standard sanction..................become lower when the athlete assists

 

[Don't be late Pedro]

You can combine the two i.e. Stay out of prison if you assist.

However, it is really only police investigations that have had much impact in doping recently (excluding the case though Armstrong - though that has its beginnings at the FBI?).