I'm not out here to make myself feel good about myself. But before people will act against a problem they have to be made aware of it. Granted I have not presented a solution with where to get the money, but that does not mean it is not fair for me to highlight the need for more money. I remember bitching about the drug problem with my dad one time and he said, "Well why don't you do something about it instead of just complaining". The first step is education. I don't have a concrete plan yet but that does not mean I have not thought about it and don't want to spend all day typing here (people can feel free to email me privately with their own suggestions or comments if they really want to get involved) but professional sport and Olympics sports are a multibillion dollar business. Others have argued there is a public health component involved (ie the government should have an interest), so without really debating the specifics let's just say there is plenty of money out there to combat the problem if it is seen as a problem. And yes once more money is put into the system there are questions as to where it should be spent. But that does not mean that we don't need more money to seriously combat the drug problem in sports. Do you agree or disagree that a significant infusion of funds spent on developing better anti-doping tests and protocols would make the fight against doping much more effective?
Old Runner you seem to be able to point out the flaws in any thing but you yourself don't seem to be offering solutions. In other threads you have implied that if the government got involved in drug testing that would make us like a communist state. You have compared Andre Agassi's cortisone shots (you can get permission to use cortisone) to doping. You love to try and blur the lines with everything but I don't think that detracts from the need for more resources (ie cash) to be put in the anti-doping system.
Have WADA labs done sloppy work? of course (but just because someone hand writes a lab number instead of typing it does not mean that they are faking tests). Is the WADA system perfect? No. Are WADA and USADA way better than anything before them? Yes.
Are there police investigators who do sloppy work? Yes. Does that mean we should get rid of the police? No.
You say. "And his doping comments were in the middle of a wide ranging interview. For this reason, I did not take what Kennedy said very seriously".
Personally I don't care when his comments were said. You are free to not take them seriously. But are you denying that funding is not a problem in the anti-doping movement? Or are you just trying to say Kennedy does not know what he is talking about? Or are you trying to say Kennedy really does not believe that there needs to be more funding?
I however read what he said and saw it to be fairly specific and not some generic "we need to do more for anti-doping.". I already believed in the need for more funding in the process, but believe Kennedy does have a unique and knowledgeable perspective on the matter, and take his comments seriously. Let me conclude by just quoting him again, and ask you how serious you think he really was "I think the question then becomes when, and at what point are we, as organizing bodies, USA Track and Field, IAAF, the other national governing bodies from all over the world, going to really invest the money that its necessary in testing to keep up and get ahead of, the people who are using the system to cheat. And that will take money. It takes money to develop the tests for the different variants of the drugs that these people are coming up with, and only when you have that kind of investment will you really stop it. Otherwise, they're just faking it."
One more random thing:
1) Kennedy's ignorance on cycling (how many riders were kicked out of the tour) does not mean he doesn't have a great perspective on doping in the elite levels of endurance sport. I don't know how many riders were kicked out of the tour. I just googled it and saw 13. I think I couple of teams pulled out as well so that might be what 20+ riders who didn't start because of some affiliate with doping. Who knows maybe the 13 is included in this. I think this just shows Kennedy does not know a lot about cycling. It does not mean he does not have valuable insight on doping in the elite levels of endurance sports. I think this error you point out is like a lot of the other issues you seem to focus on, just a red herring that tries and blur the lines of the main issue at hand.