Following a pub discussion, of the current Tour de France and World Cup final today between Spain and Holland, which has the greater proportion (since it's 190 cyclists vs 22ish footballers) of people doping in some way?

Discuss.

Probably the TdF now Maradonna is back in Argentina.

TdF.

Comparing the whole of the TDF to the 2 teams in the final isn't really an equal

Looking at the whole event, all teams in both comps would give a more even picture

and I reckon that Footie would win that one now ….. but they don't seem as interested in being transparent about the number of tests and the results unlike the Tour.

I was quite specific about it being the top foot teams because I don't reckon doping is maybe globally prevalent but is well established in the big (read lots of money) leagues.

but they don't seem as interested in being transparent about the number of tests and the results unlike the Tour.

Football simply doesn't need to be as publicly clean as pro cycling because it's never been (anywhere near) as publicly dirty.

It's different types of doping.

Cyclists are (or certainly *were*, it's a lot cleaner now) more likely to use performance enhancing drugs or blood doping whereas footballers tend to go more for the recreational stuff.

Bit of a generalisation and I know there are examples of it being the other way round (eg Tom Boonen being done for cocaine). The timing of doping varies as well which is why out-of-competition testing is far more effective at catching cheats than in-comp-testing.

Bottom line is that there are very few sports where the competitors aren't pushing the absolute limits (and sometimes beyond) what's allowed.

Apparently the majority of names discovered in operation puerto were footballists and tennisers. However their names were all "misfiled" and forgotten about, unlike the cyclists. That's quite suggestive that whilst everyone thinks that all cyclists are dopers the ball kickers and hitters are probably pretty well versed in helping their performances.

aP Rafael Nadal being one of them.

I would think TDF – purely on the number of positive tests over the years and the much higher physical demands of the TDF.

HOw many world cup players have tested positive over the years compared to teh number of cyclists?

I would think TDF – purely on the number of positive tests over the years and the much higher physical demands of the TDF.

HOw many world cup players have tested positive over the years compared to teh number of cyclists?

But if you don't test you don't get a positive.

Plenty of testing of footballers. A fair few recreational positives and some in trouble for missing testing.

cycling may be more rigourous but that not why all teh positives.

The rewards for doping are far higher in cycling than in football

The rewards for doping are far higher in cycling than in football

No the rewards in football are far far higher. How much does the average div 1 player in england earn per season, how much does the average domestique on a protour cycling team earn.

Football doesn't test anywhere near as extensively as cycling and doesn't police the tests to the same extent. It could be worse it could be golf.
times article,

Not trying to say that football has or has not got a problem, just that they are deny there being any problem and things like puerto and the seria A investigations suggest there may be.

alledgedly the French WC winning team were suspected of systemised EPO doping

Wenger is quoted somewhere about dodgy blood values in transfer medicals

his name is Rio and he doesn't answer his phone?

tennis has a big problem, as does rugby as does athletics etc etc

doping is even in sports with little money to be won.

cycling has the longest history of testing for doping and plenty of deaths to point at.

the shame is that they are still at it and it is getting into even "chipper" events

I'm thinking there's not much doping in football, as they all seem ridiculously unfit. Unless they're just taking the wrong drugs.

I think cycling is very clean right now. Its had a bad history, yes, but things have changed a lot.

I guess a big difference is that doping in cycling can have a dramatic effect on your performance as its all about strength and stamina. In football it might help you run longer or tackle harder but it will never give you the skills which are the most important thing and what will earn you the big bucks.

I love the naivety of crazy legs and Realman and all the other "cycling is clean" brigade.

I Love watching and following pro cycling, but it has never been clean, not in 1900, not in 1950, not in 1990, and certainly not now. cyclists will dope forever.

I expect there are still plenty doping in the pro cycling world, but at least when someone picks up the world cup tonight, no one will come along in ten days and take it from them because of a dope test like Landis had. Cycling should accept that if someone crosses the line first they've won, as anything else distorts the tactics too much. If world cup goals were considered provisional until after a test you'd be in the same position. It's unworkable.

There are more dopes playing footy.

Apparently…

Allegedly…

Or shall we stick to 'facts'?

doping is … well established in the big (read lots of money) leagues.

Got any facts to support that?

Any evidence that doping is endemic in, say, the English, Spanish, Italian or German top flight? I'm not talking about stupid young men with more money than sense being tempted by a bit of the Bolivian marching powder. I mean, where's the evidence for systematic performance enhancement?

I'd like to think cycling's cleaner than it was but I can help thinking they're just hiding it better. And no, I've got no evidence of that.

There is some fairly solid evidence that the majority of operation puerto names were tennis and wendyball. All those named were suppressed by the authorities. Look it up it's very well known. Only cycling has dealt with it.
After all – if you're earning £200,000 a month, a bit of injection or shove it up your nose is much easier when you get 2 or 3 weeks notice of a drugs test (or should that be "nice fella that popped round for a chat and an autograph")

http://www.wsc.co.uk/content/view/3231/38/

slightly old but from a football source

Test footballers with the same rigour that cyclists and athletes are tested during big events and I expect you'll see very similar levels of doping. But it'll never happen. There is an absoute shitload more money being made from the world cup than say from the tour, no-one is going to be very happy to say goodbye to that so pressure will be applied in the right places.

And even if the results weren't the same, any suggestion that a footballer is even remotely close in fitness to a tour rider is just ridiculous. A tour rider on only day three has already spent more time doing his job than a footballer who has played right from the start to the final of the world cup. The tolerances are vastly different.

I love the naivety of crazy legs and Realman and all the other "cycling is clean" brigade.

I didn't say it's clean. I said it's a lot cleaner now than it used to be (although to be fair in the mid-80's/early 90's it would have been difficult to get much dirtier!)

Nothing to do with naivety at all – my job is actually very closely connected with UK Anti-Doping, I think out of everyone on here I'm probably better placed than most to at least have an idea of what's going on…

You remember a few years ago when Rio Ferdinand was caught climbing out of a bathroom window to escape from a dope control test? I know the guy who caught him there and the pressure that had to be applied from very high places in order to actually do him for it was unbelievable – most in the FA didn't even want to know. At least cycling is trying to clean up it's act, even if it has been dragged through some very public very muddy puddles in the process.

And +1 for what samuri says about the different demands.

You remember a few years ago when Rio Ferdinand was caught climbing out of a bathroom window to escape from a dope control test?

No I don't remember that. Could you provide a link please?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/3333091.stm

Google Rio Ferdinand and there's half a dozen stories that pop up in the first 10 links.

ferdinand hadn't taken any drugs – performance enhancing or recreational – before that missed test, he's just stupid.

In fairness, no-one ever says "I skipped the drug's test because I didn't want the course of steroids I've been taking to show up and Iknew I could get away with missing one without any serious sanctions".

I can quite believe that Rio Ferdinand is a stupid person, but someone who skips drugs tests must be presumed to be doping. They are not an administrative inconvenience, they are an integral part of demonstrating that you are not a cheat, and enforcing that line agains athletes is a vital part of a sport demonstrating that it is clean.

oh i agree that he was right to have been punished for missing the test – you have to proceed on the assumption of guilt in the circumstances. but according to someone who has a better knowledge of the situation than most, he missed it deliberately for other reasons.

I don't have an answer to the OP. I don't know any facts but it does seem as if it's quite 'fashionable' to bash cyclists and athletes but I've never heard about other sports. Is it because they are squeaky clean or that they are not tested/the tests are not seized upon by the media?

Anyone who can ride the TdF is unbelievably fit and capable of an almost superhuman feat, that achievement should not be diminished by background drugs chatter.

If you chose a person at random (with some limiting factors ie not fat, the right age, could ride a bike etc), gave him a big bucket of drugs, and said now ride the TdF, he couldn't do it.

I get a bit cross about this diminution of supreme talent, skill and effort.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/3170586.stm

This is interesting (linked from cazy-leg's link above). Has the situation described in this article changed since 2003?

Anyone who can ride the TdF is unbelievably fit and capable of an almost superhuman feat, that achievement should not be diminished by background drugs chatter.

If you chose a person at random (with some limiting factors ie not fat, the right age, could ride a bike etc), gave him a big bucket of drugs, and said now ride the TdF, he couldn't do it.

I get a bit cross about this diminution of supreme talent, skill and effort.

that crossness should, more than anyone else, be aimed at the competitors who choose to take drugs, then, and so destroy the reputation and public perception of the sport.

I get a bit cross about this diminution of supreme talent, skill and effort.

Yes. It is very cross-making that people who are relying on supreme talent, skill and effort alone to win races are consistently beaten by people who rely instead on supreme skill, talent, effort and drugs.

Neither
http://www.baseballssteroidera.com/

Taken from BigDummy's link above:

English footballers can be tested both after matches (in competition) and at training sessions (out of competition).

But while athletics, swimming, weightlifting, powerlifting and Scottish rugby also allow for the out-of-competition testing of individuals – i.e. testers can turn up unannounced at a sportsman's house – football does not.

Individual footballers are not tested when away from their clubs. In theory this leaves a loophole in the system where someone taking drugs on a Saturday night would not be tested until training on Monday morning, at the absolute earliest.

This is true. Footballers are only tested in competition or at club training sessions and the reason that now happens is because of pressure from the FA and the clubs. They're not tested out of competition or out of season, they don't have to notify UKAD of their whereabouts (as a cyclist must) and when is the time a footballer is most likely to take drugs? During recovery.
The costs are SO high in football, if a player is injured, the manager is crying out for them to be back on the pitch ASAP but there is no testing while injured so it leaves the player free to take all sorts of what might loosely be termed "recovery aids". No tests, turn a blind eye to it, get the player back so you're not wasting £100000 a week while he's sat at home with a "groin strain".

The different standards of anti-doping across sports sucks big time but when the FA and club managers heard about the procedures that cyclists have to undergo (talking specifically about the GB track squad here) they just said "the players will never agree to it, we can't implement that".

How can they be expected to spend half their leisure time rogering their team-mates wives if they have to disclose their locations?

p.s. I think it's likely that football stretches medical science to get players back fit as soon as possible but I tend to work on the 'innocent until proven guilty' theory. That's why people stating (as fact) things like "doping is … well established in the big leagues" annoys me.

You remember a few years ago when Rio Ferdinand was caught climbing out of a bathroom window to escape from a dope control test?

No I don't remember that. Could you provide a link please?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/3333091.stm

Google Rio Ferdinand and there's half a dozen stories that pop up in the first 10 links.

None of them mention being caught climbing out of a bathroom window.

Do you have a link for that?

"caught climbing out of a bathroom window" or "seen shopping on King Street" – much the same, why let the facts spoil a good story?

I tend to work on the 'innocent until proven guilty' theory

I'm not convinced the theory applies terribly well to the situation. It makes a lot of sense when you're dealign with an individual accused of murder by the state. But that isn't a good analogy here. Try instead thinking of these guys as public companies listed on the FTSE. You don't even get to list your shares unless you have excellent corporate governance and impeccable accounting and auditing. Because you have that, investors will buy your shares in the market with confidence.

If your accounts aren't audited, no-one has any confidence that your business is what you say it is, and they won't buy into it.

Same with sportsmen. They aren't doing harm by cheating particularly. But the whole edifice of the sport requires the fans to invest confidence in it. Given what we know about the prevalence of doping in many sports, we have to assume that there is a risk of it in any sport. If fans are to invest confidence in their favouritre players/teams etc, those people need to be absolutely transparent about not cheating, otherwise no-one has confidence in the results of competitions and the whole thing starts to unravel. 🙂

That's why people stating (as fact) things like "doping is … well established in the big leagues" annoys me.

Hand up!

My logic.

1. Doping was well run and effective in cycling at a very minimum.
2. There have been episodes of organised doping being uncovered in football – eg Juventus (http://www.wsc.co.uk/component/option,com_kunena/Itemid,73/func,view/catid,27/id,388361/) which show that it does happen to some extent at least
3. Professional Football is a pretty ethically, morally bereft sport
4. Puerto is widely accepted/believed to have included a lot of football players
5. Dope testing in football is laughably lax
6. The heart attacks – exactly what happened in cycling and was passed off as normal/innocent

None of this is proof but it sufficiently circumstancial for me to believe that it is the case. Just as it was for cycling when there was no proof that EPO and blood doping was going on but we were all pretty sure it was and were proven right.