Mambo95 said:
If you have a sport with more stringent testing then name it. Otherwise, shut up.
Ok.
Whoops, changed my mind.
The Hitch said:
Dr Masserati posted statistics in a previous debate we had on this (in which i recall you participated) and the stats showed that in the US cycling beat more popular sports "number of tests per year" by ridiculous ammounts. Something like 5 times as much for cycling as for sports with more money.
It even beat Athletics even though Athletics is a umbrella term for several different sports, and one of the most popular sports in the US.
If we are discussing the same dialog, then you may recall that while there has been an increase in tests with the Passport, the actual number of (anti-)doping tests has declined.
Please let me know if you would like me to provide you with those numbers again.
Again, all the number of tests prove is the degree of efficiency or inefficiency. What we need to know is how many riders dope today, and before the Passport.
If you want to categorically state that cycling has the most number of tests, then unless the rate of catching dopers has increased, cycling has moved into an even bigger lead in how inefficient the tests are. Cycling can now claim to have instituted more inefficient tests.
Inefficiency =/= stringency.
How about if we agree that Cycling does an insane number of tests?
*Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result*
This is a simple statistics discussion and relationship. Emotion and personal opinion have nothing to do with it.
To say that it is more stringent means that there is a before and an after.
The 'before' must have let more dopers get away with doping.
The 'after' must let less dopers get away with it.
Give us the number of dopers before and after... then you can say stringency has increased.
The WADA IO report from last year's Tour underscores what we can observe: Passport flagged riders were not given EPO tests when the indicators called for it. And there was NO economic or other rationale.
I don't know about you, but if you have plausible and actionable information and you 'choose' not to do anything, then that is leniency.
Dave.