Cobber said:
A couple of thoughts....
1. I think doping could technically be described as fraud. Especially in regard to winners receiving prize money etc. that they didn't earn honestly
2. Distribution of pharmaceuticals without prescriptions is against the law in many countries. Though, I expect, receiving them from team doctors is probably not against the law. However, if there was a paper trail of prescriptions it may be a lot easier to prosecute, and also prosecute doctors for prescribing drugs inappropriately.
Let me say beforehand, I am trying to play the devil's advocate.
Concerning 1.
Possibly. But when you pull it into the criminal sphere, higher standards of evidence apply. Some considerations:
-who is duped, and who is the offender? Are the organizers of races, or ones own team and colleagues or other teams defrauded? Are teams complicit, or other even teams doing the same, or other riders? What if a rider dopes, but doesn't win, did he dupe someone? (Can you prove) a rider did it for
personal gain, or the team?
-Can one contend that doping is more like any action witnessed in the market (since teams have become much more similar to 'companies'/'businesses') to get ahead of other major competitors, like 'misrepresenting advertisments'? If someone dopes, he enhanced certain features that were already there, like blowing up the size of a big McWendy'sBurger on TV...
-who then will bring legal proceedings against the offender. Other cyclists? The ASO or other organisers, UCI, his team? Other teams?
-The ensuing investigation will have to be left to the police. What role would the blood passport then play? How would the police prove someone frauded others...
-if they start legal proceedings, they have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he actually doped. The blood passport, at this time, seems to be insufficient for this type of scrutiny.
Concerning 2.
The distribution (or production) of (certain) products is, as you said, already sanctioned by law. In that case, you can already use existing law to prosecute. Sometimes riders, like Rasmussen, who sold drugs, and in many cases labs/doctors/medical personel/DS etc. Look at the war on drugs, some pharmaceutical companies had to alter the content/composition/ingredients of medications, to pass certain drug laws.
You don't need laws that prohibit
the intake of certain products, because you'll be entering a very murky, and quite possibly, irresolvable area. Can you ever indiscriminately prohibit the use of EPO?