Testing in cycling relative to other sports

[Jamsque]

Whenever a big cycling doping story comes up, like today's, I (as the 'cycling guy' in my group of friends) always end up getting drawn in to a conversation about it. Once I've explained the details of the case, invariably someone makes a comment along the lines of "well, everyone knows cycling is the dirtiest sport in the world, not like my precious [soccer / American football / tennis / golf / tiddlywinks]." I usually try to make the point that doping is endemic in pretty much all big modern sports, and cycling just seems worse because it has stricter tests, but most people don't believe me.

Am I even right about this? I spent a while looking but I have struggled to find hard numbers on how many tests a cyclist undergoes in a season compared to, say, an NFL player or a Champion's League footballer. I know cycling was the first to implement the bio-passport, and other sports have yet to follow suit, but does anyone have any other hard evidence I can point to when I'm having these kind of arguments?

 

[Der_Gestreifte]

but does anyone have any other hard evidence I can point to when I'm having these kind of arguments?

Recently: no blood-testing during the european and world swimming championships.
Germany´s tabletennis player Ovtcharov just got hist B-sample tested positive for... right, clenbuterol.

 

[Tyler'sTwin]

Testing statistics for tennis:

IC
Urine: 1749
Blood: 157 - Only done at slams (one at each for top players).
EPO: 21 - 4 at Roland Garros, 15 at Wimbledon, 2 at the US Open.

OOC
Urine: 154 - At least 60 of these were actually carried out at tournaments. 49 missions resulted in "no sample being collected". No player was tested more than twice.
Blood: 0
EPO: 0