Part-solution to doping?

Anonymous

It's my understanding that most dopers don't often have negative tests - just non-positive ones. ie it's clear there's a high chance they're doping, but not enough proof to get them.

Is this right?

If so, why don't WADA/UCI publish the negative test results? This would enable sponsors to follow the clearly clean teams and would also out the cheats pre-positive test (if Bertie only had about 10 negative tests a year....)

Or am I living in cloud cuckoo land?

Pokerface

I think you're confused.

mapei

"I didn't rob any banks this year - the police should publish a list of everyone that didn't. Then employers would know I'm not a crook."

Get it?

sherer

Choppered wrote:

It's my understanding that most dopers don't often have negative tests - just non-positive ones. ie it's clear there's a high chance they're doping, but not enough proof to get them.

Is this right?

If so, why don't WADA/UCI publish the negative test results? This would enable sponsors to follow the clearly clean teams and would also out the cheats pre-positive test (if Bertie only had about 10 negative tests a year....)

Or am I living in cloud cuckoo land?

sponsors and team managers don't really care anyway, it's results that count

Pross

Much rather the suggestion someone else put up recently that you have a longer ban for a first time offence but provide significant reductions for admitting the offence prior to B sample and an even bigger reduction for grassing up others who are involved.