Fair?

This will certainly be my most controversial post to date and I publish it with some apprehension. Please take what I am about to say as some general thoughts not conclusions and please chime in with any thoughts of your own.

As many of you know, Tom Boonen (ProTour rider for Quickstep- 3 time Paris Roubaix winner, TDF Green Jersey winner '07 and World Champion '05 to name a few) has tested positive for cocaine on 3 separate occasions-- all three out-of-competition. Even though cocaine is not on UCI or WADA's list of out-of-competition banned drugs (although it is banned in-competition), the first landed Tom an exclusion from the '08 TDF based on UCI Art. 12.1.005 stating a ban can be levied for a cyclist "harm[ing] the image, reputation or interests of cycling or the UCI." The most recent positive came just days after his third Paris Roubaix win. The fate of this year's TDF for Tom is, at the very least, uncertain (depending on where you get your cycling news).

What I am pondering is, while a ban for Tom's positive for cocaine is undoubtedly within the bounds of UCI Art. 12.1.005, is it fair that Boonen be banned from competition for testing positive for cocaine based on article 12.1.005? (BTW, I know, I know, life is not fair!)

Two particular considerations make me question the former and potential current ban's fairness.

1) If a cyclist is to be banned for non-banned drug use based on Art. 12.1.005 fairness would require that the same penalty be applied for every other equal or greater crime. The question is would a non-drug but equally serious offense bring about the same level of penalty or is there such a stigma attached to the word "drug" within cycling that it wages a penalty more extreme than even more serious non-drug related crime?

2) Fairness would require that every rider must be penalized the same regardless of fame or success. If this were a less famous (or maybe infamous at this point) rider would it bring about the same reaction or is Boonen only "harming the image of cycling" because he is so successful and thus, in the media limelight? Certainly a relatively unknown cyclist would not harm the sport for an equal offense. I guess with this it comes down to whether or not cycling should hold its greatest stars to higher standards.

Part of me feels that Tom should have the book thrown at him. Another part says no, just because you can does not mean you should. I know if I'm honest with myself (which I am from time-to-time) and apply "letter of the law" to my life I fall vastly short, maybe not with drug use, but plenty of other places. Does that mean I should get off the hook for my shortcomings? No, and I don't think Tom should have this all go away either. But I do think he needs to be treated fairly and cycling needs to pursue what is in cyclist's best interest alongside or even before that of the best interests of the sport (cycling's best interests vs. the cyclist's best interests should likely be a post all of its own). BTW, for those of you that do not already know I am a certified relapse prevention/drug treatment counselor.

So, what are your thoughts?