Maybe it's just me, but that sounds like two too many. IMO, the first test should bring mandatory counseling and a probationary period of one calendar year which includes mandatory weekly tests (in addition to the regular, random testing). A second positive would get you booted.
We have tons of people in jail and prison - which makes it look like we are tough on criminals. And the principles of our justice system leak into other areas such as schools and sports - because our justice system reflects society's values regarding right/wrong, punishment vs. rehabilitation, 2nd/3rd/4th chances, what "appropriate" punishment is, and other things.
Our juvenile justice system is built on assistance and rehabilitation. Wayward kids get mental evaluations, counselling, mentoring, and the like first, often with some probation to allow the court to monitor how they are doing. As long as their offences are not violent, chronic offenders may see the judge a half or dozen times before they see the inside of a detention facility - which is the ultimate thing that court can do short of sending them to big boy court.
We do an accelerated version of the same thing in big boy court. First time non-violent offenders are usually given probation and modest fines - so you get what almost amounts to a freebie. As the crimes mount, judges start handing out increasingly harsh sentences, leading to habitual offenders getting decades of sentences and returning for more.
It can be argued that are prisons are full because we are failing to be tough on criminals - which is creating more habitual offenders.
We see this reflected in how the NCAA and schools treat drug use. They want to help the user and not ruin their future, so there is a step-up process used in addressing the violation. Each repeat violation results in modest step-ups in sanctions, and lessens the number of chances one has left. It leaves the question, if an athlete knows that 2 positive drug tests means they go home, would that be effective in causing them to fall into line with the rules at the earliest opportunity? And is giving 4 chances creating more people who are willing to hold on to their drug use?
We have eliminated deterance as a value in our justice system because it conflicts with our values of rehabilitation and 2nd chances. Also, the more brutal the punishment, the better the deterance factor - but we don't like brutality. For example, in countries where they cut hands off for stealing, there aren't as many thieves, but that's not who we want to be. But having seen this problem from little boys up to grown men, I think we need to re-evaluate what we are doing in juvenile court. We need to inflict sufficient "pain" (consequences) to give these kids a chance to change their approach to life early on and avoid becoming habitual offenders.
So, we need to find a way to put a real deterant factor into the athlete drug problem - or we will continue to have Rod Smiths.