Olympic blood doping

The other thing to remember
The other thing to remember is that often many athlete’s will dope in the run up to a competition then allow it to leave their system naturally well before they race. A sprinter (unlike a pro cyclist) will race two or three times in the space of 3 days maybe, each time only over a short distance. The doping they do is mainly in preparation and few would be still doped at the time of competition.

It’s easier to catch cyclists because they compete over extended distances for days at a time so to stay at their doped level will need to keep doping through competition. Random testing and biological passports also help to keep track of the cyclists chemical levels and spot any odd results.

Implementing a biological passport would certainly help in other sports but it may not be the silver bullet. You have to remember that at the elite level of cycling there’s a fair amount of money targeted at what in fairness is a relatively small field of athletes. I’m not sure who is responsible for paying for anti doping and testing but I’m sure it’s not funded by national governing bodies like in athletics. That means that there is money to test properly, regularly. That money isn’t there for all countries and competitors in other sports, do you think that the Kenyan Athletics authorities have the funds and ability to test all of their athletes to the same extent as Sky Procycling and the UCI test their cyclists? What about some of the really minor nations?

Then you’ve got the arguement that a system needs to be in place that is fair for everyone across the board, it wouldn’t be fair if UK athletes are tested more often than other countries or are competing against athletes who haven’t been tested to the same extent. That means you’re operating a system which fits the poorest nations and isn’t really fit for purpose.

If you were to implement a cycling style system for athletics with the national athletics federations footing the bill for testing their athletes you’d effectively price out some nations from competing because they would not be able to effectively test and regulate their athletes in the same way trade cycling teams and the UCI does. That’d scrap the whole ethos of the Olympics, that anyone from anywhere can compete.

Of course, the international athletics bodies could foot the bill… but they’re more interested in squeezing out as much from the Olympics commercial rights as they can X(

SideBurn wrote:when was the

SideBurn wrote:

when was the last time you heard of a tennis player testing positive?

Only one I can think of is Petr Korda who tested positive for nandrolone in 1998. I agree with your point though.

No, but physical strength +
No, but physical strength + technique appears to be greater than technique alone. Even within a sport, there are many variables, a good thinking footballer doesn’t run much (Sheringham carved out a few years extra on this basis) but a running central midfielder like Steven Gerrard has to be strong and very fit.

The impact of drugs on a
The impact of drugs on a sport varies with each sport.

Tennis is a technique sport and while it is a physical game the physical side cannot make up for a poor technique.

100m sprinting though is pure physique and obviously drugs can have a mcuh greater impact on an athlete’s performance.

I would say that sports which are not as heavily tested (football, tennis, badminton, table tennis, gymnastics?) are those where proportionally drugs will have a smaller impact as opposed to increased training or natural ability.

I agree – no other sport
I agree – no other sport pursues its athletes like cycling. I dont think cycling should stop this – but its time for other sports to step up to start catching their own athletes