Rappstar wrote:
So the question is, how big does the deterrent need to be in order to remove that net benefit. WADA has already decided that a 2-year ban was insufficient, and they are moving to a 4-year ban on Jan 1, 2015. The question is, really, is a 4-year ban even sufficient to remove any net benefit. And the answer is not clearly yes. It may be that only permanent banning will work, at least for some offenses. Michael Milken's crimes, but also his knowledge, residual wealth, and influence all led the SEC to decide that he required a lifetime ban from securities trading. That's the same argument that I think is applicable in certain doping cases. I think it was clear Milken could never be "just another trader" ever again. It's not clear that someone can be "just another athlete" ever again, but there are signs pointing that way (in certain cases). THAT is the argument against second chances. IMO, anyway...
And the worst part of 2 years ban is : like you said doping is mostly used for training, now an athlete who takes two years but from day 1 knows he will come back (sometimes they made enough money with doping to not had to work during the 2 years ban !) can train out of the radar ! And often they come back "clean" and miraculously "stronger" all at the same time ahahah !
I remember reading somewhere Michie Weiss was still controlled during his ban, not sure if this is correct ? If that's the case, he was probably one of the very very few. Most of the guys have no licence during the ban period, so no reason to be controlled nor localized, they can have an easy life of strong doping and hard training without any risk. Then they can come back with like you said maybe the same as 6 years or 8 years of training, nice :-) .
Looking forward to the start of the 4 years bans and hopefully more and more lifetime bans !