many people who run sports federations have this issue. The NBA worked to keep jordan's misdeeds quiet. If John Doe is a guy who gets 1000 people in the door every year, and you know by DQ'ing him you lose him, and then you lose the audience, the sponsors, and eventually you're out of work... well, there is going to be the self-preservation thing and the temptation will be there to ignore the findings.
it's not right, by any means. Breaks sports ethics, etc. But in the bigger scheme, to the promoter or man running the organization, his mortgage is more important than anything, and in certain cases where a top earner flunks, it is possible they'll ignore it. Now if Joe Scrub fails, they'll drop him. But a NAME that helped make the org? I dunno.
You should study what is happening to the cycling sport, and how the UCI and Tour de France are going after the big names (Landis, Kessler, DiLuca, Armstrong (they don't have anything on Armstrong)).
Result? Cycling is more popular than ever. More sponsor interest than ever. Bigger TV numbers than ever. And so forth.
Stuttgart threatened to not allow the World Champs to be held there this year if there was one more big scandal, or if the anti-doping work wasn't satisfactory. Erik Zabel earlier on this year admitted to EPO doping back in the mid-90's. He was never caught, but he's admitted using. He will never be allowed on the German National team again. The same thing with David Millar and the UK team.
All these names are big names in cycling. And you know how Armstrong has been scrutinized.
So your theory doesn't fly IMO.
Your theory doesn't make sense in another way either: Jordan's gambling and womanizing didn't give him any on-court advantage.
Doping in a drug-free organisation will give you very much an "on-court advantage".
-Hedge
