IT was a pretty disappointing twelve months on the doping front in 2014.

Throughout the year, there was the continual dribble of doping stories but the real explosion came last month in a German documentary which alleged that there was systematic doping taking place in Russia, bribes were being paid to anti-doping officials to cover-up positive tests and Russian officials were supplying banned substances to their country's athletes. It was even claimed by one former Russian internationalist that as many as 99% of her compatriots were using banned substances.

The World Anti-Doping Association (WADA) vowed to investigate but even before these Russian allegations surfaced, WADA had made moves to ensure tougher penalties would be imposed on convicted drug cheats. As of yesterday, the third iteration of the WADA code came into effect and aims to further the never-ending fight against doping in sport.

There is a multitude of tweaks to the existing code but there are a few significant changes which, yesterday, became law. Until this year, the consequence of a positive doping test for first-time offenders was a two-year ban from competition; this has now been increased to a four-year ban for initial offences. Also significant is the length of time that WADA can store samples - up from eight years to ten, as well as an increased focus on 'smarter' testing of athletes.

The increase in the length of ban for a first-time offence has been implemented in the hope that a more severe punishment will act as a stronger deterrent to athletes who may be tempted to dope. On the face of it, this appears logical. Supporters of the increase argue that the previous ban of just two years was simply not long enough to make an athlete who was considering cheating to think again. There can be little doubt that some athletes weighed-up the potential benefits against the potential consequences of being caught and decided that cheating was worth the risk. A two-year gap in a career as a result of a doping ban is surmountable whereas a four-year hiatus makes it far harder to return to elite-level sport.

But it is arguable as to whether this increase in duration of ban will have a significant impact on deterring potential dopers. Before this revised code, athletes may have contemplated the length of the resultant ban which would have come their way should they were to test positive but it is more likely to assume that rather than a mere two-year ban being worth the risk, they thought that they would not be caught at all. Will doubling the ban to four years alter this thought process? Perhaps with a few individuals but, most likely, it will have little impact.

Detection rates of dopers has remained largely unchanged in recent years. Just two per cent of athletes tested are found guilty of doping but leading anti-doping figures, including WADA's director general, David Howman, agree that the true percentage of athletes who are doping is likely to be closer to 20%. Indeed, the claim during the aforementioned Russian doping scandal that as many as 99% of Russian international-level athletes are taking performance-enhancing drugs shows how high the true figures could be. These estimations indicate that the vast majority of dopers are going undetected.

The second significant change is that WADA can now store samples for ten years rather than the previous eight; perhaps not as lengthy an extension as some would have wished but an improvement nevertheless. While an increase of two years may not seem a huge difference, detection technology is developing rapidly and being able to retrospectively test a sample which is a decade old vastly increases the prospect of discovering a substance that was not detectable at the time the athlete was competing. It was retrospective testing that was responsible for unearthing British 100m sprinter, Dwain Chambers, as a doper in 2003.

The focus on smarter testing is the only viable path for WADA to go down. Howman, WADA's director general, estimates that to have an independent testing agency in every country, for every sport, would cost over $100 million per year. WADA's budget is just $26.5 million annually. Not an insignificant sum but nowhere near enough to fund what is necessary to detect the majority of dopers. So, WADA have vowed to use their money in smarter ways, focusing more on out-of-competition testing and 'high-risk' athletes, sports and nations. It is a necessary move when funds are finite. It remains highly doubtful though, that the testers are only a step or two behind the dopers.

These new WADA regulations will not eradicate doping. Indeed, it is likely that the number of dopers will not decrease significantly as a result of the changes. Nevertheless, it is an important step forward; increased punishment for guilty athletes is important to the perception of sport by clean athletes, as well as spectators. And retrospective and smarter testing may make a difference to the numbers who are caught. But will these changes eliminate doping in elite sport? Sadly, but irrefutably, not.