Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Cycling fourth-worst sport for positive doping tests

Athletics tops the list ahead of baseball, weightlifting, and cycling's 16 convictions in 2014...

Does cycling have a bigger problem with doping than all other sports? No, according to a survey of 2014 positive tests that shows cycling in fourth place last year.

According to the Movement for Credible Cycling (MPCC) there were 16 positive tests in cycling last year, including 13 road cycling cases - 3 World Tour riders, 2 Continental Pro riders, 7 Continental-level riders, and one female rider.

Those figures put cycling in fourth place behind athletics’ 95 positive drug tests, which made the multi-discipline sport by far the worst offender. Baseball, with 62 positive tests, came in second and weightlifting followed with 28.

It’s worth noting, however, that despite 13 road cycling positives, only three of those were uncovered at the top level of the sport.


2014 doping cases (click for bigger version)  

The MPCC’s aim, according to their website, was to “to better situate cycling compared to other disciplines” when it comes to cultures of doping. To achieve that they have used a dataset derived from from official anti-doping agency and sporting federation communications that confirmed positive doping tests and suspensions, dismissals, or self-suspensions where required.

The data does not, however, include suspensions that have been issued for offenses other than a direct positive test for a banned substance. So, suspensions for riders who are found to have irregularities in their Athlete Biological Passport (ABP), like those that resulted in British rider Jonathan Tiernan-Locke’s suspension, are not included in the MPCC study.

Relying on official confirmation may seem like the best way of going about gathering this sort of data, especially in a sport like cycling where such confirmation is required. However, such rules are not enforced universally, so cross-sport consistency is an issue.

The MPCC are aware of this potential shortcoming, but have noted that cycling is an exception. On their website they have written: “Identifying cases of doping is not an easy task and is subject to discretion if required by their respective international federations, some do not advertise doping cases in their discipline.

“Cycling, in contrast, reveals each positive test. Our numbers are therefore based on proven cases in 2014, according to official communications federations and anti-doping agencies, etc.”

 

 

Add new comment

28 comments

Avatar
andyp | 9 years ago
0 likes

Fourth *best*, I think you'll find. At least cycling is doing something about it... footie is *riddled*.

Avatar
manmachine | 9 years ago
0 likes

 21  24 Pure bullshit...mpcc propaganda.  35

Avatar
toddysax2 | 9 years ago
0 likes

I see Cycling is the second most tested sport (WADA) only exceeded by Football. However the most guilty sports appear to be the body building group - weight lifting in particular.
I do think we are getting there, and Cycling has been at the forefront of stamping out doping, unfortunately attracting a lot of adverse publicity in the process.

Avatar
pedalpowerDC | 9 years ago
0 likes

In the big American sports like baseball, football, and basketball, the player's unions have largely shielded athletes from legitimate testing protocols. It's easy to pass a drug test if the regulators have to give you 2 months notice that you're going to be tested.

Avatar
manmachine replied to pedalpowerDC | 9 years ago
0 likes

Spot on analysis.

As well it should be too. The unions and player reps do a very good job of protecting the athletes from massive over-regulation and absurd rules that are absolutely arbitrary enforced. Which are, by in largely politically and financially motivated-driven by corrupted governing bodies and governments. Once in a while you hear about a player getting "caught" to appease the corporate controlled media and small minded muppets.

The stick & ball sports exist and thrive just fine with the amount of performance enhanced athletes, who are simply engineering their potential as in ANY other sport or situation. Whether it is a piece of equipment, machine or the body. The illogical perception that is any different reveals a severe lack of comprehension by most statist-minded muppets.  29

Avatar
Lungsofa74yearold | 9 years ago
0 likes

Don't worry - Vino and Astana are working flat out to make sure cycling regains the coveted No 1 slot!!!!  19

Avatar
Cyclist | 9 years ago
0 likes

Walsh did an article in the Sunday times that was headlined' it can happen to anyone'. Obviously any failures of doping in track and field is okay? When it comes from tainted supplements, however, if it comes from tainted meat and involves cyclists, that's a different story.

Avatar
Colin Peyresourde replied to Cyclist | 9 years ago
0 likes

Although Walsh's anti-doping credentials are high up there. One does suspect that he is used to give credence to athletes. The embedding with Sky last was a clear example of this. I'm not sure about the story of the tainted supplement. Has anyone accounted for its presence? Quite often the story which is given means that there is an element of doubt, such that 'it could be in the supplement', which is not the same as it was in the supplement, or even it was found in the athletes body because of the supplement....which is why they got guilty, but small sentences. But I guess what I'm saying is reserve judgement on these stories: quite often the narrative is twisted to one which works for them - a well worn path by Armstrong and other dopers. The PR machines are wonderful things.

Avatar
Simmo72 | 9 years ago
0 likes

61 of the 62 baseball cases were down to excessive consumption of hot dogs.

There is worrying trend that the lower levels of our sport have a high number of cases. Does this mean the younger riders are taking more risks to get to the top?

Also, you have to consider the results against the amount of testing. some sports have little testing and certainly not blood testing so there is more opportunity to get away with more.

Avatar
notfastenough | 9 years ago
0 likes

@portec - ooh thanks! I'll have a read of that.

Avatar
Airzound | 9 years ago
0 likes

This is awful. Cycling can't even get to the top, get first place, a gold medal for doping.

Avatar
balmybaldwin | 9 years ago
0 likes

I cant work out what advantage doping would have in baseball?

Avatar
Huw Watkins replied to balmybaldwin | 9 years ago
0 likes

Check out Barry Bonds for what differences PEDs make in baseball

Speed and strength are valuable attributes

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/23/books/23kaku.html?n=Top%2FFeatures%2FB...

"Mr. Bonds would go on to ingest an astonishing array of substances over the years, including Winstrol, Deca-Durabolin, human growth hormone, insulin, testosterone decanoate, trenbolone ("a steroid created to improve the muscle quality of beef cattle"), Clomid (usually prescribed to women for infertility) and "two undetectable steroids" known as The Clear and The Cream."

p.s. There's also the recovery element. Those guys play a lot of games

Avatar
wheelsucker | 9 years ago
0 likes

I agree, where have these figures come from and how are they compiled ? I saw the monthly UKAD figures the other day and there are currently 20 "Rugby" bans between the codes?? http://www.ukad.org.uk/anti-doping-rule-violations/current-violations/se...

Avatar
HalfWheeler | 9 years ago
0 likes

Talk about damning with faint praise...

Avatar
therevokid | 9 years ago
0 likes

62 in baseball ... !!!!!

Avatar
paulrattew | 9 years ago
0 likes

For these numbers to be meaningful (in terms of determining the dirtiest sport) they need to be normalized. To do this you would have to adjust for the number of people taking part in each sport and then you would have to adjust for the number of tests carried out.

So, it is useless to compare cycling with, lets say, football, looking simply at the number of positives. You have far more professional footballers than professional cyclists, but there are far fewer positive tests, which on that single measure would make it seem much cleaner. The chances of being tested in professional football are virtually nil though, so you would be comparing apples and oranges.

And this is all before you even think about the nature of the testing being carried out (e.g. blood versus urine), predictability of tests (i.e. can you dope around them) and a whole host of other factors.

Avatar
Cycleholic | 9 years ago
0 likes

Cheating is cheating regardles of the sport. Lance Armstrong finally came clean, but not everyone around him on the pro circuit did and they probably never will. I don't care how much of a desire you have to win or the pressure you feel to deliver results for your team, you're still a cheat. If you're not up to it without drugs, don't compete. Moroever, stay away from cycling and any other sport.

Avatar
mrmo | 9 years ago
0 likes

So how many tests did soccer do for example? only 7 positives and I am guessing it has one of the highest levels of participation of any sport? It also, at the top level, probably has more money than any other sport and after Puerto and the Serie A stories of a few years ago a real issue.

Avatar
kcr | 9 years ago
0 likes

I don't really care how cycling compares to other sports, and suggesting "cycling is better than sport X" seems a pretty poor response to the problems within the sport. This is not a battle that will ever be won, but I would like to see the UCI fighting a tougher fight against doping in cycling.

From today's news; Three top Belgian crossers excluded from the Worlds team:
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/favourites-meeusen-sweeck-excluded-from-...

Avatar
atlaz | 9 years ago
0 likes

The only UKAD sanction against a cyclist was for an amateur who refused to take the test.

Avatar
notfastenough | 9 years ago
0 likes

Ok, so are there any figures for how tested a sport is, say tests per competitor per year at a given level, for in-competition and out-of-competition? I'd love to see a correlation, because I'm inclined to think that the number of positives probably tracks the number of tests - i.e. if you look for doping you'll find it.

Avatar
portec replied to notfastenough | 9 years ago
0 likes
notfastenough wrote:

Ok, so are there any figures for how tested a sport is, say tests per competitor per year at a given level, for in-competition and out-of-competition? I'd love to see a correlation, because I'm inclined to think that the number of positives probably tracks the number of tests - i.e. if you look for doping you'll find it.

I think this report contains what you're looking for (PDF):
https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/resources/files/WADA-2013-Anti-D...

Here's the main page:
https://www.wada-ama.org/en/questions-answers/2013-anti-doping-testing-f...

Avatar
Colin Peyresourde replied to portec | 9 years ago
0 likes
portec wrote:
notfastenough wrote:

Ok, so are there any figures for how tested a sport is, say tests per competitor per year at a given level, for in-competition and out-of-competition? I'd love to see a correlation, because I'm inclined to think that the number of positives probably tracks the number of tests - i.e. if you look for doping you'll find it.

I think this report contains what you're looking for (PDF):
https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/resources/files/WADA-2013-Anti-D...

Here's the main page:
https://www.wada-ama.org/en/questions-answers/2013-anti-doping-testing-f...

Sadly it doesn't give details of the levels at which they were testing. As I said in another post. If you are testing the over 85 sportive competitors and under 16s you'd expect that any adverse findings to be rare...but if you concentrated it on the pros you might find more as the ability to dope is higher - actually it's probably those that are striving for the top and don't have access to the best doctors....but anyway. I'm sure that 850 of the tests were done by Lance Armstrong....by his count and perspective only.

Avatar
Colin Peyresourde replied to notfastenough | 9 years ago
0 likes

UKADA did release some results in an annual report (but this was for rugby). It was interesting in some ways and not in others. The numbers of positives were not large, and those busted were from almost all the different levels of the sport. They showed the testing numbers at sports events including the six nations, and also the in-competition and also out of competition testing.

The testing appeared to be extensive on the face of it. But when you looked at blood tests there were very few (hard to detect steroids in urine), and the out of competition was applied equally at all levels - this is a good and a bad thing, because it means that 'amateur' doping is targeted - something which is likely to be hazardous to an individual's health, but equally you'd expect the money and opportunity to dope happens the higher up, and that by picking individuals who are less likely to dope you massage any problems the sport may have.

I still think there is a lot of political expediency in how doping controls are done. For instance the number of pro-footballers caught doping is virtually nil. Rio Ferdinand is as close to that with his misses drugs test as anyone, but since Edgar David's and Jaap Stam I don't remember any except those caught doing recreational drugs. Yet EPO and testosterone would have a fairly magic effect on a team. With the money in football these days I think that a lot of this sort of stuff is going on under the table.

Avatar
marche | 9 years ago
0 likes

Don't worry - cycling is clean now…  19

Avatar
BSausage | 9 years ago
0 likes

It would be interesting to know how these figures pan out as a percentage of participants in each sport. I'm guessing athletics has a much larger number as it is effectively lots of sports..

Avatar
atlaz | 9 years ago
0 likes

Not entirely sure that's worth commenting on. UKAD alone has SIX bans in place for rugby in 2014, and one each for cycling, wrestling and weight lifting. France has 46 bans listed on the site for 2014. Admittedly not all of these will be professionals but surely a ban is a ban.

Latest Comments