AS the shock from Dick Pound’s report last week, in which he revealed that “state-sponsored” doping had been discovered within Russian athletics subsides, the ripples began to spread wider.

Pound admitted the findings were “probably the tip of the iceberg” and soon after, accusations started to reach further afield; swimming was the first sport to have the finger pointed at it, but every sport is now looked at with an element of suspicion. The world’s top tennis players, who are taking part in the World Tour Finals in London this week, were asked for their thoughts; Andy Murray, Roger Federer and Rafa Nadal were all unequivocal that anti-doping controls within tennis should be strengthened.

Indeed, almost every sport has, in the wake of the Russian doping revelations, admitted that everything possible must be done in the fight against doping such is the very real threat to clean sport. But there is still one sport that still seems, by and large, to be in denial about the threat of doping: football. Apart from very occasional dissenting voices, football remains astonishingly resistant to the suggestion that performance-enhancing drugs could infiltrate the sport.

Yesterday, Arsene Wenger, the Arsenal manager, called for blood tests to be introduced as a matter of routine in professional football, having expressed his fear earlier in the week that doping could be widespread in the sport.

Arsenal were beaten in the Champions League earlier this season by Dinamo Zagreb, whose team included a player who failed a drugs test after the match.

“I never gave [my players] any product that would help enhance their performance – I’m proud of that,” said Wenger. “But I’ve played against many teams that weren’t in that frame of mind. To think we in football are just immune because we are football players is absolutely wrong.

What I want is deeper tests, better tests, because what we test is superficial. And that when people are caught they are punished and clubs are punished as well.

“Today, when you play away in the Champions League, most of the time we lose two hours when there is a doping control because people cannot fulfil the (urine) tests,” he added.

“With a little blood test it takes a minute and you can test for much more. It’s simple. Why can we not do it? In other sports they do it.”

Some observers accepted that Wenger was talking sense but the reaction of many to his comments was to brush it off and deny the suggestion that footballers are using performance-enhancing drugs. “Nah, footballers don’t dope” is the gist of the argument from many of the sport’s supporters. The most commonly cited reason for footballers not doping is that it is too much of a skill-based sport and that footballers would not particularly benefit from performance-enhancing drugs.

While it is certainly true that sports such as cycling and athletics, in which physical capabilities are directly related to one’s final result, are more susceptible to doping, it is an utter myth that sports which have a high skill factor are immune to the threat of doping. Every sport that has any kind of dependence on physicality is advancing rapidly; as the years pass, the athletes at the top of each particular sport are fitter, stronger and faster and football is no different.

Yes, merely being physically adept will not guarantee that a football player will reach the top of their sport but being physically poor will certainly ensure that they will not.

To suggest that skill outweighs physical ability to such an extent that players would not even consider looking for methods to improve their physicality is preposterous.

Tennis is unquestionably a skill-based sport yet the players who top the rankings are half human – half beast, so impressive is their athleticism and football is headed the same way – Cristiano Ronaldo is the world’s best player because he is the complete package, not merely because he is the most skilful.

It has also been suggested it would be too hard for footballers to get away with doping – that their clubs would spot it but this too, is not necessarily the case. It is a myth that performance-enhancing drugs immediately improve an athlete – rather, it allows individuals to train harder and recover quicker – do not suggest that this would not help a footballer.

In men’s football in particular, where mediocre players can receive tens of thousands of pounds in wages each week, the incentive to improve is massive. Yet the denial about doping continues. It is an interesting assumption that men who show little reluctance in throwing themselves to the ground at the slightest touch by an opponent would have some kind of aversion to cheating by doping.

The lack of positive tests in football is cited as proof that doping does not exist but only a fool would use this as evidence of an absence of drug taking, it just means that the dopers are not being caught. The notorious “doping doctor”, Eufemiano Fuentes, who was at the centre of Operation Puerto in 2006, claimed a range of sportspeople worked with him, including footballers, yet the alleged identities of these players was never disclosed.

The disbelief and denial that doping could possibly be a serious issue within football is damaging the sport. Every walk of life includes cheats and liars; wouldn’t it be remarkable if football was the only profession that had escaped this?