From the article:
-----------------------------------------------------
Riding High: Why is there so much more doping in professional cycling
than in other sports?


The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency has charged cyclist Lance Armstrong with
doping, claiming that his blood samples from 2009 and 2010 indicated
Erythropoietin use and/or blood transfusions. According to the New
York Times, all but two of the Tour de France winners since 1995 have
been involved in doping controversies. Why does doping seem to be so
much more common in cycling than in other endurance sports?

Heightened scrutiny, among other things. Doping is depressingly
prevalent in cycling, but it’s not entirely clear that the situation
is better in other endurance sports. In 2010, cyclists failed 1.19
percent of the doping tests administered by the World Anti-Doping
Agency. Triathletes did only slightly better, failing 1.09 percent of
their tests. It’s difficult to compare those results to marathon
runners, because the agency lumps their results in with other
nonendurance track-and-field athletes like pole vaulters. (Overall,
track-and-field athletes failed 0.78 percent of tests.) Taking all
sports into account, the fail rate in cycling is rather middling.
Athletes involved in weightlifting (2.42 percent), boxing (1.94
percent), and archery (1.47 percent) all failed at significantly
higher rates than cyclists. (Archers, if you’re wondering, take beta
blockers to keep their hands steady under pressure.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read it at
http://www.slate.com/articles/sports..._cycling_.html
or http://tinyurl.com/bnzqhmp




J. Spaceman