Why doping rules aren't tough enough

Anyone who knows anything about sport will know about the shocking evidence of Lance Armstrong's doping evidence, and as we come to terms with the fact that one of the world's most loved cyclists ran a doping ring throughout his career, I can only ponder over why the World Anti-Doping Agency is becoming more leniant with cheats.

The most recent example of cuhy punishments are in fact involved with the Armstrong case; 11 cyclists were the key to revealing the sophisticated drug ring run by Armstrong, and despite admitting to using performance enhancing substances, they have only recieved a 6 month ban each. While we should commend these cyclists for bringing the truth to light, 6 months does not serve as a strong deterrent to other potential cheats, considering they can be back competing in the same year they were caught breaking the fundamental rules of sport.
.
There are also many ways to avoid serving long sentences; the Belarusian shot putter Nadzeya Ostapchuk, who was stripped of her 2012 Olympic gold after testing positive for the banned substance, metonolone, has only recieved a 1 year suspension thanks to her coach admitting he was guilty. I'm not convinced that he did spike her food, in my opinion it seemed like a plot to halve her potential ban.

In all of this however we should not forget the complications of whether someone knowingly cheated or not, for example in 2002 British Alpine Skiier Alain Baxter was stripped of his Olympic bronze after testing positive for a banned substance. It was later revealed that the substance could be traced to a Vicks inhaler that he bought in the US, not aware of the differences in formula to the British version. I see this as a perfectly valid reason as to why it was in his system, as did the FIS, which accepted his appeal and gave him the minimum ban, 3 months, which seems harsh for a drug that damages the body rather than improves it. He was never reinstated of his medal which does seem fair considering someone in the public eye shouldn't really have Meth in their system.

What disappoints me most about the WADA is that instead of helping to fight the war against drugs in sport, they have taken the side of drugs on many occasions, most notably earlier this year when the organisation fought the British Olympic Association over a rule that prevented any athlete that had been found of using drugs in the past of competing at the Olympics. Sadly the WADA won the case at the Court of Arbitration for Sport with one of the flimsiest cases in the court's history. So the BOA were forced to remove the rule that was older than the organistion that was set up to prevent doping.

And so, we are left with an organisation that takes money from NOCs all around the world, and in return: changes their rules, issues short bans and fights for the people they were set up against. On top of this it is up to National Anti doping agencies, such as the USADA to uncover drugs scandals due to the WADA's reluctance to use DNA fingerprinting until the 2012 Olympics.