When a rider who has won a race is later found to have doped, two issues arise: (1) should the rider forfeit the win; and (2) should the rider be suspended/banned. For example, the revelations related to Operation Puerto and the recent allegations regarding Tyler Hamilton's doping diary from 2003 pur into question not only whether Ivan Basso and Tyler Hamilton should be suspended, but whether Basso's 2006 Giro win and Hamilton's 2003 victories, such as Liege-Bastonge-Liege, should be forfeited.

I think that there should be a very short window for stripping a rider of a victory. For example, I would advocate that the grand tours do their A sample testing immediately after the samples are taken (like that night -- I'm sure the samples could be flown to a lab and tested overnight -- after all, medical tests on ill patients are done with a quick turnaround) and that there be a "rest day" prior to the final day in which any necessary B samples could be tested. Anyone who fails an A and B would not be allowed to ride on the final day. That way, the winner on the final day would not be subject to having his title stripped because of a drug test done a week or two later and if someone with a positive A and B later came up with a convincing excuse that allowed him to keep his license, he could not claim the victory because he did not ride the next day. Now the one day classics could not do something similar. But, they could test their A samples the next day and the B samples within days. I think that it really hurts the sport for major titles to be forfeited after the fact or in limbo, such will be the case with this year's Tour de France, for months.

The period for stripping a rider of his license could and should be much longer. But, even that should have a statute of limitations. I don't know what a reasonable period should be. But, I have a real problem with someone's being subject to respective testing or allegations that are several years old.

Comments?