Pro cycling vs. Pro tennis

[Andynonomous]

I know that many of you feel that cycling is getting the short end of the stick in bad publicity, when other sports are just doing a better job at keeping the problem of PEDs in their sport quiet, so I want to compare cycling with the other sport I watch (tennis). Which is the "cleaner" sport ?



1) Which sport has the physical requirements that PEDs would make the greatest difference to ?

"Physical sports" (high requirements for speed, and or strength, and or endurance) are clearly the sports that PEDs would benefit the participant more, therefore those sports would likely have more "cheats", since the gains are greater.

Although tennis has become much more physical due to equipment changes in the last 30 years , long distance cycling does require endurance to a very large degree. I believe this is the major reason that cyclists are tempted by EPO, and autologous blood doping.

Advantage : tennis

2) Which sport has the more thorough drug testing ?

This is a no brainer. Cycling has the blood passport, tennis doesn't. Cycling tests more often, and for more types of drugs (tennis tests their top players about 1 TIME PER YEAR OUT OF COMPETITION). Cycling does blood testing, tennis rarely does.

Advantage : cycling

3) Which sport is more transparent with respect to who was tested, and when and the results ?

Both seem to try to keep as much out of the public eye as they can get away with. In my opinion, tennis is doing a better job of keeping the public in the dark. Tennis did publicize who was tested OOC, and when for the 2009 season, then withdrew the information from their website, No other information of this type has been released since.

Advantage : cycling

4) Which sport is getting more media attention with respect to PED usage ?

The more scrutiny by the media with respect to cheating, the less the sport's authorities can get away with. We just saw in the Contador affair that it is likely that the public would have been kept in the dark, if not for a persistant German journalist. Although media attention leads to a poorer public perception of the sport, it also leads to more pressure on the authorities to do their job to keep the sport clean.

The tennis media has been fully co-opted into protecting tennis's ugly secrets (the tennis media attacks anyone who suggests that there may be a problem with PEDs in tennis - see Bodo, Wertheim et all - they suggest that those people who are suspicious of PEDs in tennis are just "paranoid tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists", or bitter fans of a different player). The "Omerta" in tennis is MUCH stronger than it is in cycling.

For example Lance Armstrong gets a LOT MORE scrutiny for PED usage than does Rafael Nadal (both deserve even more in my opinion). As well there is NO WAY you are allowed to post the types of threads I have been posting here, over at the tennis forums (Mens tennis forums, tennis warehouse).

Advantage : cycling



Conclusion : Although cycling has more incentive to cheat (Doping gives you a bigger advantage over a clean competitor than does doping in tennis), cycling is doing a better job of dealing with it. The Omerta, and denial in cycling isn't nearly as strong as it is in tennis.

As much as we like to complain about the corruption at the UCI, it is MUCH worse at the ITF (International Tennis Federation).

Congratulations cycling !


Ps - Although I am no expert in these other sports, the appearance is that FIFA, NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB are even worse than tennis is.

 

[WonderLance]

you don't get much advantage from hiding a tiny motor in a tennis racquet.

 

[Andynonomous]

you don't get much advantage from hiding a tiny motor in a tennis racquet.

I forgot to add one category in the comparison :

Who has a better sense of humour : Cycling enthusiasts.

 

[The Hitch]

Phil Ligett on Lance Armstrong dominating the tour de France

"He has more hunger and trains so much harder and longer than his competitors"

Eurosport Nadal and Federer hero worship club (take P and P for Armstrong and multiply it by 10) on Nadal not being able to walk one day, then going 5 hours no problem in the final the next

"He has more hunger and trains so much harder and longer than his competitors".

Well those words arent exact, but well almost. It is the excuse they give for both Armstrong and Nadal. That they train harder than their opponents.

Because Djokovic and co, they just go to play playstation after an hour or 2 on court

 

[Andynonomous]

More similarities than differences.

Phil Ligett on Lance Armstrong dominating the tour de France

"He has more hunger and trains so much harder and longer than his competitors"

Eurosport Nadal and Federer hero worship club (take P and P for Armstrong and multiply it by 10) on Nadal not being able to walk one day, then going 5 hours no problem in the final the next

"He has more hunger and trains so much harder and longer than his competitors".

Well those words arent exact, but well almost. It is the excuse they give for both Armstrong and Nadal. That they train harder than their opponents.

Because Djokovic and co, they just go to play playstation after an hour or 2 on court

There are a lot of similarities between the two sports (Denial, Omerta, Lack of transparency) but there is more media attention to the problems in cycling than there is in tennis. Without the extra attention cycling gets, it would be just as corrupt as tennis.

Clearly both sports though, need a totally independant (independant from the internal workings of the sport, AND independant from national authorities) body to catch the CHEATS. I don't know if WADA is that body or not (Spain's most corrupt official - Jaime Lissavezky - is on the board of WADA).

 

[hfer07]

There are a lot of similarities between the two sports (Denial, Omerta, Lack of transparency) but there is more media attention to the problems in cycling than there is in tennis. Without the extra attention cycling gets, it would be just as corrupt as tennis.

Clearly both sports though, need a totally independant (independant from the internal workings of the sport, AND independant from national authorities) body to catch the CHEATS. I don't know if WADA is that body or not (Spain's most corrupt official - Jaime Lissavezky - is on the board of WADA).

the problem I see here is your biased opinion on Spanish athletes. I guess the same question never crossed your mind when Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi and Roger Federer were dominating the sport while the little humble Spaniards were in the shadows....

 

[Andynonomous]

the problem I see here is your biased opinion on Spanish athletes. I guess the same question never crossed your mind when Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi and Roger Federer were dominating the sport while the little humble Spaniards were in the shadows....

Jaime Lissavetzky was caught in a set of bald faced lies. When Operation Puerto broke he claimed that there were no tennis players, or track athletes, or footballers on the Fuentes list. Fuentes has repeated over and over that there were. As well, Dominguez was investigated by the Spanish police because she WAS a client of Fuentes during the OP investigation.

Throughout all of the scandals involving Spanish sports, Lissavezky has done nothing but deny that there is a problem (El Puerto, Valverde, Contador, All of the other cyclists caught doping, El Galgo,...). There is no bias to claim Lissavezky is severely corrupt. It is well known that he is.



By the way, when the authorities fail to do their jobs to catch the CHEATS, the stench falls on all the participants (clean or dirty).

Roger Federer -
- Has a very high level of endurance (his level of play does not drop much, the longer the match goes on).
- Does not complain much about doping in tennis (a clean player should be perturbed about being CHEATED out of prestige and money).
- Has had a late career resurgence in the fall of 2010.

Pete Sampras -
- Didn't win a single tournament (not even a small one with few of the top players there) for more than two years at the end of his career. Then, like magic at the age of 31, he ran through the 2002 US Open grand slam tournament field like a hot knife through butter, in spite of him having a condition that limits his endurance.

Andre Agassi -
- Admitted that his father gave him what he believed to be stimulants when he was a junior.
- Was known to have failed a drug test for Crystal Meth (he admitted this himself). He lied to the authorities about it.
- Although his career performance was on the downslope, he associated himself with a shady "fitness coach" (Gil Reyes), then came back "buffed up" at the age of 29. His performance was MUCH better after his association with Reyes than it was before (most tennis players peak out before the age of 25).
- Was rumoured to be one of the seven players to have tested for Nandralone in the early 2000s.


I have stated often in the tennis forums that I STRONGLY suspect that Agassi was a juicer. Of course, he is retired, and therefore gets less attention these days.

 

[Hugh Januss]

the problem I see here is your biased opinion on Spanish athletes. I guess the same question never crossed your mind when Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi and Roger Federer were dominating the sport while the little humble Spaniards were in the shadows....

All one needs to know about Spain's official attitude (at least in the past) towards doping is that Spain is where Armstrong, Hamilton, Landis, Hincapie etc. all chose to live during their seasons
Or maybe that was a coincidence.

 

[D-Queued]

All one needs to know about Spain's official attitude (at least in the past) towards doping is that Spain is where Armstrong, Hamilton, Landis, Hincapie etc. all chose to live during their seasons
Or maybe that was a coincidence.

Some call it good preparation.

Dave.

 

[brianf7]

Tennis requires different drugs to Cycling some drugs cyclist are acused of useing dont work on tennis players. But then again its trial and error some dont work on Cyclists.

 

[hfer07]

All one needs to know about Spain's official attitude (at least in the past) towards doping is that Spain is where Armstrong, Hamilton, Landis, Hincapie etc. all chose to live during their seasons
Or maybe that was a coincidence.

they decided to train & dope carefree in Spain since Weisel & USAC are so ethical & tight on anti-doping standards......
wait a minute-aren't they involved in the LA's case at all?

 

[theswordsman]

What a joke of a thread. Seriously, I've been trying to avoid the forum, and this might be just enough to do it. It's basically a groupthink hate session on a sport that no one seems to have actually played. Let's deal with the logic first.

Sampras was at the top of the game for years, piling up Wimbledon championships. Then he had tendinitis and back problems, which can be an issue when you depend on being able to serve 130 MPH on a regular basis. He didn't win for a couple of years, then had a pretty decent draw and won the US Open.

How on Earth is this meant as proof that he used PED's? Are you saying that he couldn't buy any for two years and that was the problem, but he got in a supply in time for the 202 US Open? Or are you acknowledging that he was talented enough to win Wimbledon seven years out of eight, but needed to dope to win the US Open at the end of his career? Seriously, for all the bluster, what are you even saying here? He lost for two years because he couldn't cheat, or he won one tournament because he did?

And Federer is guilty because he doesn't talk about doping? Or whine because you think he's being cheated? He was ranked number one in the world for 287 straight weeks. At what point do you think he should have complained about guys doping against him?

The Australian Open tournament is coming up. It's two weeks long, and usually played in extreme heat. I suggest that all of the people here who think that you're experts on the sport watch the Women's matches. Watch Kim Clijsters, Caroline Wozniacki and tiny Dominika Cibulkova play. Notice how many points are won or lost by a ball landing on the line or an inch outside. See how many points are lost because someone is having a problem with their service motion and getting the ball in. Or because someone didn't bend their knees, or took their eye off the ball. Maybe there's a lapse of concentration for a game. Maybe on a key point, the ball hit the top of the net and landed just on the other side. Look at the angles, and the spins, and the combinations. Look at how often they have to do short sprints and let their heart rate and breathing recover so they can go again. Listen to the announcers talk about mental toughness and concentration on key points. Notice which player has better footwork that puts them easily into position to hit their shots. Notice which one puts more shots closer to the baseline. Look at the topspin lobs and touch volleys and drop shots. Then acknowledge that drugs wouldn't be helpful to most of that. It's skill and practice and repetition and creativity, knowledge of the opponent, etc. And a PED that might help one part of the game would probably hurt another part much more.

I realize that you guys had men's tennis in mind. But it's the same balls, the same court surface and dimensions. A fit guy at 6'6" tall with good technique can hit the ball harder than a six foot woman with equal technique. He needs all the same skills the women do. They need to be able to move quickly for short distances, but arrive with perfect balance and position and slow things down, then recover to do it all again. They need agility, which doesn't come in a bottle. They need to compute exactly where a ball moving more than a hundred miles per hour will land, what the spin will make it do, how high and fast it will move after the bounce, and have their own racket in proper position while they're running to hit the shot at the right time on the right line at the right speed with the right spin so it will be away from their moving opponent but stay within the lines. They also have to know the strengths and weaknesses of their opponent not just in general, but at that moment in time, because different shots are timed differently, and you can lose the timing on your forehand a bit while staying perfect on your backhand, or the sun can make lobs a good idea from one side of the court, or you can hit the ball hard with topspin into the wind and the spin will keep it in court.

It's no comparison to an endurance sport where you sit down most of the time, always moving forward, with your feet and legs traveling in the same motion thousands of time. Kim Clijsters will win some points in Australia because she rotates her wrist a bit while hitting a down the line forehand, imparting a bit of sidespin that will make the ball fade to the right an extra six inches by the time her opponent gets there, causing them to not hit the reply in the middle of her strings. There's not a drug in the world that makes that happen. And Rafa Nadal is great because of his spin shots and the angles he can pull off while well behind the baseline. Drugs don't do that.

Where's the Sports Illustrated article about Lance?

And what was the motivation for picking tennis to hate on out of all the sports available?

Seriously, I added ten miles per hour to a strong wood racket serve by incorporating a wrist snap at the right time. Graphite rackets made it so hard shots took no effort, and I had to actually slow down my arm speed to get the ball to land in the service box at a faster speed than before. That was fifteen years ago, and I could do it while being way out of shape from working for a living. It was all shoulder flexibility, timing, a good motion, and weight transfer from my legs along with a shoulder turn. With new rackets and string technology, I'm sure the same results are possible with even less effort. So take a tall guy, with better timing than mine, who's had his motion coached for years, and his talent level is the best in the world, and I don't see anything I don't believe, based on hitting tens of thousands of shots in my life, just counting practice.

 

[hfer07]

By the way, when the authorities fail to do their jobs to catch the CHEATS, the stench falls on all the participants (clean or dirty).

I'd like to remain you that cheaters in the USA are caught when the FEDS get involved-not by any means the anti-doping authorities or the sporting authorities whatsoever-so before we're eager to point fingers at another nation's stands on doping, We better off recognize our own problems.
I simply see the arise of many Spanish athletes as a mere leveling on doping practices with the rest of the dominant countries in sports-nothing less-nothing more....

 

[Andynonomous]

Read carefully before you respond.

What a joke of a thread. Seriously, I've been trying to avoid the forum, and this might be just enough to do it. It's basically a groupthink hate session on a sport that no one seems to have actually played. Let's deal with the logic first.

Sampras was at the top of the game for years, piling up Wimbledon championships. Then he had tendinitis and back problems, which can be an issue when you depend on being able to serve 130 MPH on a regular basis. He didn't win for a couple of years, then had a pretty decent draw and won the US Open.

How on Earth is this meant as proof that he used PED's? Are you saying that he couldn't buy any for two years and that was the problem, but he got in a supply in time for the 202 US Open? Or are you acknowledging that he was talented enough to win Wimbledon seven years out of eight, but needed to dope to win the US Open at the end of his career? Seriously, for all the bluster, what are you even saying here? He lost for two years because he couldn't cheat, or he won one tournament because he did?

And Federer is guilty because he doesn't talk about doping? Or whine because you think he's being cheated? He was ranked number one in the world for 287 straight weeks. At what point do you think he should have complained about guys doping against him?

The Australian Open tournament is coming up. It's two weeks long, and usually played in extreme heat. I suggest that all of the people here who think that you're experts on the sport watch the Women's matches. Watch Kim Clijsters, Caroline Wozniacki and tiny Dominika Cibulkova play. Notice how many points are won or lost by a ball landing on the line or an inch outside. See how many points are lost because someone is having a problem with their service motion and getting the ball in. Or because someone didn't bend their knees, or took their eye off the ball. Maybe there's a lapse of concentration for a game. Maybe on a key point, the ball hit the top of the net and landed just on the other side. Look at the angles, and the spins, and the combinations. Look at how often they have to do short sprints and let their heart rate and breathing recover so they can go again. Listen to the announcers talk about mental toughness and concentration on key points. Notice which player has better footwork that puts them easily into position to hit their shots. Notice which one puts more shots closer to the baseline. Look at the topspin lobs and touch volleys and drop shots. Then acknowledge that drugs wouldn't be helpful to most of that. It's skill and practice and repetition and creativity, knowledge of the opponent, etc. And a PED that might help one part of the game would probably hurt another part much more.

I realize that you guys had men's tennis in mind. But it's the same balls, the same court surface and dimensions. A fit guy at 6'6" tall with good technique can hit the ball harder than a six foot woman with equal technique. He needs all the same skills the women do. They need to be able to move quickly for short distances, but arrive with perfect balance and position and slow things down, then recover to do it all again. They need agility, which doesn't come in a bottle. They need to compute exactly where a ball moving more than a hundred miles per hour will land, what the spin will make it do, how high and fast it will move after the bounce, and have their own racket in proper position while they're running to hit the shot at the right time on the right line at the right speed with the right spin so it will be away from their moving opponent but stay within the lines. They also have to know the strengths and weaknesses of their opponent not just in general, but at that moment in time, because different shots are timed differently, and you can lose the timing on your forehand a bit while staying perfect on your backhand, or the sun can make lobs a good idea from one side of the court, or you can hit the ball hard with topspin into the wind and the spin will keep it in court.

It's no comparison to an endurance sport where you sit down most of the time, always moving forward, with your feet and legs traveling in the same motion thousands of time. Kim Clijsters will win some points in Australia because she rotates her wrist a bit while hitting a down the line forehand, imparting a bit of sidespin that will make the ball fade to the right an extra six inches by the time her opponent gets there, causing them to not hit the reply in the middle of her strings. There's not a drug in the world that makes that happen. And Rafa Nadal is great because of his spin shots and the angles he can pull off while well behind the baseline. Drugs don't do that.

Where's the Sports Illustrated article about Lance?

And what was the motivation for picking tennis to hate on out of all the sports available?

I listed the circumstantial evidence against Agassi, Federer, and Sampras because it was suggested that I am biased against Spain, and would never consider those three players as dopers. Everybody has suspicious circumstances surrounding them. It is the cumulative weight of the evidence that determines the likelyhood of guilt.

I was making a point about clean players being swept up in the accusations when the authorities don't do their jobs to catch the cheats. I actually think Federer and Sampras are/were clean. I think if you read the posting I was responding to, then my posting carefully, you will understand this.

You are actually agreeing with what I wrote about tennis vs. cycling. Cycling is a more "Physical" sport which would lend itself to more cheating. However tennis is doing a poorer job to catch it's cheats (weak testing, media not investigating suspicious players,...) than is cycling. I also listed 5 sports that are doing an even worse job than tennis in weeding out it's cheats.


Why tennis ?

Because it is what I know (I play recreationally, and watch the pros). I have noticed disturbing patterns in tennis that have been observed in other sports (baseball, track, cycling,...).

 

[Andynonomous]

I'd like to remain you that cheaters in the USA are caught when the FEDS get involved-not by any means the anti-doping authorities or the sporting authorities whatsoever-so before we're eager to point fingers at another nation's stands on doping, We better off recognize our own problems.
I simply see the arise of many Spanish athletes as a mere leveling on doping practices with the rest of the dominant countries in sports-nothing less-nothing more....

In 2010 Spanish athletes won :

World Cup,
Roland Garros (French Open),
London Triathlon,
European 50 mtr butterfly championship,
Wimbledon,
Tour de France,
US Open.


If you think this is normal for a country the size of Spain, then there is nothing to see here, we should just move along.

By the way, I am not American.

 

[Hugh Januss]

they decided to train & dope carefree in Spain since Weisel & USAC are so ethical & tight on anti-doping standards......
wait a minute-aren't they involved in the LA's case at all?

Never said they weren't doing the same in the US, just pointing out something drew a whole bunch of caught or suspected dopers to Spain during the racing season. Something attracted them all there rather than Italy or France.
I guess they could have stayed in the US but that would be a heck of a commute every week for 6 or 7 months.

 

[Hugh Januss]

What a joke of a thread. Seriously, I've been trying to avoid the forum, and this might be just enough to do it. It's basically a groupthink hate session on a sport that no one seems to have actually played. Let's deal with the logic first.

ETC.

You don't think a htc of 50% + would be the tide turner in a 3 1/2 hour match between two players of near equal skills?
How about recovery drugs so they can practice longer and not break down?
I don't think that contemplating the possibility that they could be using these things to try to gain an advantage in a sport with tons of $ on the line strains the bounds of credulity very much.

 

[galaxy1]

You don't think a htc of 50% + would be the tide turner in a 3 1/2 hour match between two players of near equal skills?
How about recovery drugs so they can practice longer and not break down?
I don't think that contemplating the possibility that they could be using these things to try to gain an advantage in a sport with tons of $ on the line strains the bounds of credulity very much.

i don't think doping would be a decisive factor in tennis. ball skill is far, far more important. it is even possible to win a tournament carrying an injury, if you hit the right shots at the right times. on the endurance side, any healthy adult could play a five set tennis match after a bit of practice (compare with racing 5 cols in one day in the 3rd week of a GT).

however, doping could be an avenue for possible 0.1% improvement that can be the difference between winning and losing. a shortcut to big strength gains in a short time (see A. Murray). an aid to better recovery between intense practice sessions. an aid to better concentration/less out of breath at a key moment. for these reasons i'd be very surprised if the most 'professional' athletes were not experimenting.

overall i don't think tennis is clean, nor do i think that doping in tennis is a particularly interesting or big story.

 

[Mambo95]

In 2010 Spanish athletes won :

World Cup,
Roland Garros (French Open),
London Triathlon,
European 50 mtr butterfly championship,
Wimbledon,
Tour de France,
US Open.


If you think this is normal for a country the size of Spain, then there is nothing to see here, we should just move along.

By the way, I am not American.

I don't what to defend Spain as there's obviously some doping going on there, but...

Three of those seven events were one by the same person (Nadal)
One gold from 40 swimming events is a rubbish return from a nation of Spain's size.
And in football they have the best league in the world and have unacheived for decades. No amount of doping will make you play like Iniesta and Xavi.

Now, all of that lot may be doping, but just because they won a few things is hardly proof of anything.

 

[Andynonomous]

I don't what to defend Spain as there's obviously some doping going on there, but...

Three of those seven events were one by the same person (Nadal)
One gold from 40 swimming events is a rubbish return from a nation of Spain's size.
And in football they have the best league in the world and have unacheived for decades. No amount of doping will make you play like Iniesta and Xavi.

Now, all of that lot may be doping, but just because they won a few things is hardly proof of anything.

Then I guess when Spaniards call this their "golden age in sports", they are wrong.

 

[Mambo95]

Then I guess when Spaniards call this their "golden age in sports", they are wrong.

They're doing well at the moment, no doubt. But that is in comparison to decades of underachivement for a European country of their size - compare them to Germany, UK, France and Italy.

Why didn't you include Jorge Lorenzo or Fernando Alonso?

 

[poupou]

I don't what to defend Spain as there's obviously some doping going on there, but...

Three of those seven events were one by the same person (Nadal)
One gold from 40 swimming events is a rubbish return from a nation of Spain's size.
And in football they have the best league in the world and have unacheived for decades. No amount of doping will make you play like Iniesta and Xavi.

Now, all of that lot may be doping, but just because they won a few things is hardly proof of anything.

To be able to run at "full" speed
during a whole tennis or football match is a serious advantage in tennis and football!
It's difficult to play well when tennis or football players are tired, the ball becomes difficult to handle.

That is like for a rider using EPO, even not the best, in the 3rd TDF week he has a serious advantage on the other challengers.

 

[Mambo95]

To be able to run at "full" speed
during a whole tennis or football match is a serious advantage in tennis and football!
It's difficult to play well when tennis or football players are tired, the ball becomes difficult to handle.

It's even harder to play football if you never get the ball - which is how Spain play. If you want players who can run all day the look at the English Championship. Most of the players there would out run the Spanish team.

Doping can certainly help, but it isn't going to make an average player or team into a great player or team. It just means they're average for longer.

 

[Andynonomous]

i don't think doping would be a decisive factor in tennis. ball skill is far, far more important. it is even possible to win a tournament carrying an injury, if you hit the right shots at the right times. on the endurance side, any healthy adult could play a five set tennis match after a bit of practice (compare with racing 5 cols in one day in the 3rd week of a GT).

however, doping could be an avenue for possible 0.1% improvement that can be the difference between winning and losing. a shortcut to big strength gains in a short time (see A. Murray). an aid to better recovery between intense practice sessions. an aid to better concentration/less out of breath at a key moment. for these reasons i'd be very surprised if the most 'professional' athletes were not experimenting.

overall i don't think tennis is clean, nor do i think that doping in tennis is a particularly interesting or big story.

Everyone has an opinion, but mine (as well as the vast majority of tennis fans) is that tennis has become a MUCH more physical game in the last 40 years. Much of what you say is true of tennis (being a primarily skill based rather than physically based game) back in the 1960's.

Then Bjorn Borg came along in the 70's. Bjorn had an abnormally slow heart rate (believed to be a purely natural, but unusual occurance). He played VERY good defence (he had to do a LOT of running, requiring very good endurance).

In the 80's Ivan Lendl, took fitness to a new level. Nobody has ever suggested that Lendl used PEDs, but it is possible (he is from Eastern Europe in a time where athletes from that part of the world were known to be juicing). At the same time players switched from wooden rackets to lightweight (read powerfull) metal rackets.

In the late 90's and early 2000's, pro players started using polyester strings. These strings enable a player to "swing for the fences", yet keep the ball in play. Less skill, and more strength is required to use these strings.

Since then the "skill based" games of all-court, and serve and volley tennis have almost died out. It is now a game of "attrition" (players standing at the baseline, bashing the snot out of the ball, and waiting for their opponents to make a mistake - ie. hit a short ball, or hit out). This is even more true in the women's game (for whatever reason).

As I have said before, tennis isn't as physical as long distance cycling is, but it is a LOT more physical than it was. You combine the weak testing, with the strong Omerta, and you have an environment where PED use WILL grow.

Take a look of the difference in the builds of players from the past to today (say Borg vs Nadal, McEnroe vs Verdasco, or Serena Williams vs. Billie Jean King). The difference is striking.

 

[DirtyWorks]

Disagree

2) Which sport has the more thorough drug testing ?

This is a no brainer. Cycling has the blood passport, tennis doesn't. Cycling tests more often, and for more types of drugs (tennis tests their top players about 1 TIME PER YEAR OUT OF COMPETITION). Cycling does blood testing, tennis rarely does.

Advantage : cycling

Except, the point of the passport system is not to be thorough. The point is to keep dopers from killing cyclists with too much PED's. IF WADA was freed from passing everything through the UCI, I think your summary might be good. But, WADA's information passes through the UCI and the the UCI is suspected of passing testing advances and schedules onto favored sons. The UCI is known to suppress positives.

3) Which sport is more transparent with respect to who was tested, and when and the results ?

Both seem to try to keep as much out of the public eye as they can get away with. In my opinion, tennis is doing a better job of keeping the public in the dark. Tennis did publicize who was tested OOC, and when for the 2009 season, then withdrew the information from their website, No other information of this type has been released since.

Advantage : cycling

I'd call it a tie. It is widely acknowledged that positives are being passed to the UCI where there are no adverse analytical findings published. A different example of the madhouse that is the UCI is the radically different handling of two clenbuterol positives from last year.

4) Which sport is getting more media attention with respect to PED usage ?

For example Lance Armstrong gets a LOT MORE scrutiny for PED usage than does Rafael Nadal (both deserve even more in my opinion). As well there is NO WAY you are allowed to post the types of threads I have been posting here, over at the tennis forums (Mens tennis forums, tennis warehouse).

Advantage : cycling

Lance Armstrong's 'scrutiny' was manufactured to prop up the myth. Everyone on the money-side of the Armstrong myth was *at minimum* complicit in the doping.

It's pretty typical that a sport's followers will vigorously deny stuff because it cripples their view of the sport. (ex. Tennis) I didn't know it was that bad in Tennis though.