Hi, I'm having a discussion on another site about the amount of testing in Cycling compared to other sports (in light of the Nigeria athletes, and Contador), and I'm saying that cyclists are generally tested more, hence there's more Positives.
Can anyone point me towards stats to back up my point?
It's a good question really. I did a 12,000 word essay for my university degree on doping in cycling, and this is something i looked into, as part of my case study.
In terms of cycling vs athletics, then they are pretty similar for testing, i.e. in competition/training.
Bt in terms of cycling vs football/rugby etc, then it seems that cyclists and athletes are tested more often, either during the season or during the off season. But there have been doping cases in these sports, Jaap Stam is one example I can think of who tested positive for nandralone, so there must be measures put in place in football. Rio Ferdinand is another example of the testing in football after he was banned for missing 3 tests in a row.
To be honest I do think you can look at it in two ways:
1. Yes cyclists are tested more. I think it might be a case of cyclists and athletes putting their bodies under most stress and strain with their sport, and may require more testing due to this. Are cyclists more willing to put drugs in their bodies so that they can perform beyond their bodies limits than other sportstars?
or,
2. No. Do cycling doping cases more press coverage when it happens than in the other sports? It is over coverage and blowing things over the top that is the reason for seeing doping cases in the news?
hope this helps with your argument. in terms on figures, they might be difficult to find. maybe try googling well known anti-doping/testing websites. WADA website would be a good place to start, as they deal with all sports
Edited by the_hoyle on 15-10-2010 19:13
You could probably find some Armstrong quotes here or there, saying he's tested X times a year, which is probably as much as what a couple of football teams put together gets controlled in the same amount of time.
The fact that there's more positives is also due to the will to find stuff, which is almost non-existent in football. Everyone knows most football teams were on EPO during the 1998 WC (and others as well, not to mention what happened in Parma), yet there was no positive. At the very same time, see what a mess the TDF was.
Fifa's logic is more or less, no controls (or the least we can), control for stuff we won't find (say useless dopes in football), declare there's no positive tests, claim it proves the absence of doping, decide to cut the antidoping budget and to refuse to fully cooperate with WADA. And the same goes for other sports. Football is just the most blatant and popular example.
Edited by Aquarius on 15-10-2010 19:36
Though when looking at those numbers you have to take into consideration how many are at a toplevel where ADD tests in each sport to get a real picture.
BenBarnes wrote:
Thor wears a live rattlesnake as a condom.
While I agree with all of this, skill based sports (football, cricket, golf etc.) have much less incentive to cheat than non skill based sports (athletic, cycling, weight lifting, any endurance event) because you are pushing your body to the limit in one, while in the other it's much more about attributes which doping can't help.
Again this is not to say that skill based sportsman don't dope, just that it's less effective.
[url=www.pcmdaily.com/forum/viewthread.php?thread_id=33182]Team Santander Media Thread[/url]
CrueTrue wrote:
It's quite easy to find the statistics of testing in Denmark. Below, you'll find a list of the most tested sports:
1. Football (189)
2. Cycling (170)
3. Handball (170)
4. Ice hockey (121)
5. Weight lifting (98)
6. Swimming (81)
7. Athletics (79)
8. Rowing (66)
9. American football (64)
That's absolute values, right?
Doesn't tell us much if it's not a ratio of tests per player
Edited by issoisso on 15-10-2010 20:34
The preceding post is ISSO 9001 certified
"I love him, I think he's great. He's transformed the sport in so many ways. Every person in cycling has benefitted from Lance Armstrong, perhaps not financially but in some sense" - Bradley Wiggins on Lance Armstrong
mb2612 wrote:
While I agree with all of this, skill based sports (football, cricket, golf etc.) have much less incentive to cheat than non skill based sports (athletic, cycling, weight lifting, any endurance event) because you are pushing your body to the limit in one, while in the other it's much more about attributes which doping can't help.
Again this is not to say that skill based sportsman don't dope, just that it's less effective.
I must react to this, really. I can remind the picture Davor Suker (Croatia's striker) checking his heartbeat before shooting a penalty kick against Romania during WC 1998. Sadly I can't find a picture on internet, but anyway... My point is your technical skills are much more efficient when you're physically fresh. Try doing tricks with a foot ball after sprinting 50 meters or running 5 km, you'll see how much more difficult it is.
Also, Platini said that in his time, the average time to use a ball you'd receive before being tackled or pushed by an opponent was six seconds, more or less. That came down to one second now. So you need to be faster, to think, to act, or to react (if you're defending), you also need to be stronger to handle an aggression, or to hassle other players.
Then there's the high number of games per year and the increasing amounts of money at play. With no dope ? Much more difficult, no matter your technical or tactical skills. Doping reduces uncertainties...
The difference between both sports is that suffering and pain is the very core of cycling, athletics, swimming, whereas team sports are more based on skills and show. In the first case the impact of doping is more direct, but that's about it.
Wherever there's money, or wherever the human nature might express its bad sides, you'll find cheating (and doping).
I agree that doping helps a lot in any physical activity. But in football you need to run for 90 minutes twice a week. You have to cycling for 5 hours for 3 weeks straight at the top level. A drug that increases your endurance and recovery is much more useful in cycling than football.
Also, there was the period in cycling where if you weren't on EPO you couldn't win, you could barely compete. That situation has never come up in football.
[url=www.pcmdaily.com/forum/viewthread.php?thread_id=33182]Team Santander Media Thread[/url]
mb2612 wrote:
I agree that doping helps a lot in any physical activity. But in football you need to run for 90 minutes twice a week. You have to cycling for 5 hours for 3 weeks straight at the top level. A drug that increases your endurance and recovery is much more useful in cycling than football.
Also, there was the period in cycling where if you weren't on EPO you couldn't win, you could barely compete. That situation has never come up in football.
That doping helps in all physical activity is no doubt. Eventhough football is match twice a week as "competitions" you have to be at your best form the whole season through, if you are going to help your team winning.
And as Aquarius says, which is the key; with doping in football you will feel a lot fresher, and you will be able to easier find fhe pass that opens your opponent defense, nail a long shot, defend with the needed concentration, or whatever. Doping will make you fresher, and it will make it easier for you to do the right tactical/technical decisions when a match goes near the end.
