Is 5x annual salary a fair penalty? Transparency and equity in discouraging doping "cheats"

Oh the tangled web we weave - not that anyone is necessarily being deceitful, but how much "discouragement" do bike riders - or any athletes - need?

Following the positive doping test of its Austrian rider Christian Pfannberger in early May prior to the start of the Giro d'Italia, the Russian team Katusha said it would implement stronger anti-doping regulations in its contractual relationship with its employees, the racers. The policies take the form of an additional chapter to the cyclists' work contracts including a clause which states that riders will have to pay a fine of five times their annual salary in the event of a sanction given for doping offenses.

Firstly, does a clearly defined financial penalty work? The current 1 year UCI-sanctioned penalty doesn't seem to work, although we can't be sure exactly how many riders were "dissuaded" by the thought of losing a year's pay. It may have discouraged none. It didn't discourage the likes of Kohl. Indeed, once you are caught and the legal battle ensues, it can be years before the fine is paid. Perhaps never, if you just quit the sport.

So will multiplying the fine by 5 make a difference? A rider already loses his contract - which is his livelihood - and even when he or she returns their contract value is severely impacted. History shows us that riders generally come back to lesser teams on lower wages, if they come back at all. It is doubtful that Landis or even Basso are on the sort of deal that they would have been on had things just continued as they were. Indeed, the financial loss from personal sponsorships alone must be massive. So why add further financial discouragement? Won't that just lead to court battles and possible personal bankrupties, or worse?

If the existing financial penalties don't work, and the public humiliation doesn't dissuade, what are we seeking to achieve? How is this more "transparent" than what we have? And what if a rider is actually innocent but is nevertheless found guilty? It's easy to say that that the tests and procedures are flawless, but are they? Whilst guilty "cheats" do bring dowm teams and cause widespread distress, perhaps it is possible to also go too far in protecting the team, its image, and its funding. Teams are after all made up of people, and last time I checked bikes don't ride themselves.