Put the whip down for a moment and realise that Cycling has less registered athletes than most other organisations, tests more than everyone else, catch more dopers per head than everyone else and has been at cutting edge every step of the way.
I think this an interesting point Orbytal. Is cycling that much dirtier, or does it just try harder to catch people?
Power sports like American Football, rugby, athletics are full of people with very unnaturally muscular bodies.
How robust is their doping programme?
Interesting article about testing in tennis
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/te...f-the-Lance-Armstrong-scandal-in-cycling.html
To summarise, Murray has said (elsewhere) he has only had 5 blood tests this year - one of them this week.
All during tournaments. There were only 21 out of competition tests in the whole of tennis in 2011 - and there are a hell of a lot of tennis players.
His point was the only real heavy training time they get is December when the ITF should gort busy with surprise blood tests.
Also the "whereabouts" thing, where the governing body can find them only applies to the top 50 in singles and the top 10 doubles.
He also draws attention to the lack of testing at the lower ends of the sport - these are the people trying desparately to break into the sport.
Dick Pound drily wonders "whether the ITF’s program, and others like it, are actually designed to succeed or designed to fail and merely cover their butts"