You can probably carry out 20 tests per player per season and still rarely catch anyone if the only time you perform tests is in-competition or in-training. As far as I know, there's still no whereabouts system in association football. So, cycling indeed has a broader arsenal than some of the biggest sports out there.
But let's get back to athletics.
@MrHenders:
Changing a culture is not something that will come lightly or spontaneously, whether we talk about athletics or cycling does not really matter. However, athletics is in a far worse state to do that than cycling is, as can be inferred from More Strides Than Rides's insightful post. If we use
game theory or, more specifically, a complex version of the
prisoner's dilemma, I think we can conclude that it will be very difficult to change the current culture. Let me explain.
In one of the classic versions of the prisoner's dilemma you have two who are suspected of committing a crime together, held in solitary confinement with no way of communication with each other. The prosecution has just enough evidence to probably convict them of a lesser crime than the principal charge, but obviously wants to convict them for the principal charge too, so they trying to make a deal with at least one of the suspects. As the suspects have no way of communication with each to decide on a strategy, they have to make their decisions independently of each other. Now, things get interesting.
If both suspects remain silent, then they both get sentenced, say, 6 months for the lesser crime. If one of them talks ("defects"), betraying the other, while the other remains silent, the defector walks (goes free), while the other gets a harsh sentence for non-cooperation for the principal charge of, say, 2 years in prison. If both talk, then no one walks and both get convicted for the principal charge, but they receive a reduced sentence for cooperation of say 1.5 years. Just like with doping, the gain is the greatest if you defect (i.e., dope) if the other does not (i.e., not dope). If you play around with the outcomes, the optimal strategy for the individual players will change.
However, the situation for doping is far more complex, not only do you have multiple players quite possible grouped in some way (e.g., teams), who are able to communicate (including lies and deceptions), but the outcomes are non-symmetrical for the players. Let's assume player A is a hyper-responder to doping, while player Q. is a more naturally gifted athlete. If we assume no anti-doping efforts, both athletes will be inclined to defect/dope, as if they don't, but the other does, they are going to lose. However, cooperation (both not defecting) is strongly in the advantage of the "naturally gifted" athlete, as the hyper-responder would probably have had no chance without doping, while the "naturally gifted" would face a decimated field without the inclusion of hyper-responders. (Sure, the situation is even more complex than that, but it's an abstraction.) This decreases the likelihood of a stable state in which no one uses doping, as the hyper-responders have no interest in supporting such a state, while the "naturally gifted" are not gifted enough to go without doping to beat the defecting hyper-responders.
So, how do we deal with this? The answer lies in diminishing the advantages of defecting/doping by making it harder/impossible to use "high octane fuel". While I don't think we can ever fully banish doping from professional sports, we can try to lessen the advantage, hoping to give more and more athletes the possibility of cooperating (i.e., not using doping). I think the best way to look for culture change in cycling is not the players (the athletes or teams), but more or less "external" forces that influence the incentives, the outcomes, such as WADA and governing bodies. However, the latter is burdened by all kinds of financial motives as well (image protection for sponsorships, mainly), so is very limited in the actions it can take, stretching out the process over a period of many years or even decades. (Think about it, what would happen to cycling or athletics if all the top athletes were suddenly caught and almost every race revealed to be decided by doping? This would end the commercial life of the sport, especially if other sports don't cooperate. Yay, another prisoner's dilemma. The only solution is slowly changing the sport and the anti-doping regiment, warning the athletes on forehand, never catching anyone but slowly changing diminishing the reward of doping. Does that sound familiar?)
This shows why cycling is in a better state as, say, athletics. While doping is probably still rampant in cycling, the power numbers do seem to go down slightly, decreasing the gap between the outcomes of "clean" (i.e., cooperating) versus "doping" (i.e., defecting). This does not mean the stable state has shifted into the direction of "not doping", but that we're slowly moving in the direction of an outcome balance in which it would be possible to do so. Athletics, viewed in this way, is way behind cycling, as athletes are still almost free in using the "high octane stuff".
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram