I didn't see anyone require "each year". Take the IOC estimate for what it is worth.
The IOC is only a partial estimate, and doesn't include most non-Olympic sports, or peripheral things like the cost for athletes to defend themselves to pay for lawyers and for scientific testing, which can easily run into 5 or 6 figures.
I don't say they are comparable, but that it is hypocritical to ask for that level of detail while never providing any level of detail when asked to support your baseless claims.
Maybe your doping industry estimate includes supplements and weight trainers at the local gym who don't compete professionally. No idea what Al Jazeera meant because they just throw out a figure without any explanation of what it represents.
You didn't see anyone require an annual figure? You are really quite ridiculous. If it isn't an annual figure it is meaningless, because it could be spread out over any period - decades. No useful comparisons can be made if the expenditure isn't for a specified period. The figures provided for anti-doping are annual, as is the much greater amount spent on doping. The figure wasn't "just thrown out" by Al Jazeera, it was based on estimates from WADA and others involved in anti-doping.
My calculations are based on the annual income and expenditure accounts from published audited accounts which are then also reflected in the balance sheets.
A whole lot better that the IOC ‘s figures for 5?years ago which where limited to taking the number of tests and then multiplying by an assumed average test cost ( using older cheaper methods) and then adding a guessed overheads figure.
Thus I can easily get to a Billion dollar anti doping industry.
And they would have used that to do a Carbon Isotope test and there was no positive from that.
No CIR for either the forbidden method or the off score jumps. Neither could have been proven by additional tests.
But for the testo jump, yes, they should have done that, but never mentioned it.
In any case, if they'd get an unexpected CIR for the testo, say -23 instead of -19‰, Rupp could always blame a wild moose or even a beef burrito. CAS might not fall for that though.
You didn't see anyone require an annual figure? You are really quite ridiculous. If it isn't an annual figure it is meaningless, because it could be spread out over any period - decades. No useful comparisons can be made if the expenditure isn't for a specified period. The figures provided for anti-doping are annual, as is the much greater amount spent on doping. The figure wasn't "just thrown out" by Al Jazeera, it was based on estimates from WADA and others involved in anti-doping.
Even when it is an annual figure, it is meaningless.
Not any period, but the IOC said over an Olympic cycle (4 years).
I don't have any opinion whether that constitutes a billion dollar industry by some unspoken criteria you deem meaningful. That actually doesn't seem important all that important of a threshold. Would the point change if we called it a 1/3 billion dollar industry? What is the threshold for cottage industry?
All meaningless questions.
Al Jazeera actually gave no basis or detailed explanation for the figure they threw out. It was one statement, then they moved on. In any case, how would WADA and others involved in anti-doping know what is spent on doping? Are you so dim that you don't know the difference between anti-doping and doping?
That sounds like exactly the same thing as Houlihan -- the CAS did not conclude there was sufficient evidence to meet the burden of establishing the source on the balance of probability.
There is no conundrum -- we know all the details of the Salazar case because there was a long investigation. We know all about the sabotage experiment, and the L-carnitine infusions, and the rest, from lengthy AAA Panel reports, and a follow-up CAS report.
That you think my comment was essentially the same as the CAS determination on Houlihan is a sad reflection on your intellect. There was no burden on CAS to establish the source of the nandrolone - it was found in Houlihan. The burden was hers, to show she hadn't doped. She couldn't. It furthermore shows how confused your thinking is if you think I am effectively saying that because a burden of proof was not met in the NOP investigation and also by Houlihan in her case the cases are therefore the same. Salazar engaged in doping practices but the evidence didn't extend to his athletes; Houlihan was found with a banned drug in her system but couldn't produce a source that would exonerate her. NOP showed how hard it is to pin doping on athletes without a failed test, while Houlihan showed a failed test is difficult to refute.
You have nothing worth saying about Salazar and the NOP investigation.
Your every post is a reflection of your intellect.
We were comparing Houlihan's burden with USADA's burden. The CAS has no burden but to adjudicate within the artificial framework defined by the WADA Code.
In both cases, the respective tribunals found Houlihan/USADA failed to meet their burden. The CAS could not find Houlihan's ADRVs "not intentional", as all of the evidence was insufficient, and the AAA Panel could not find any NOP athlete ever committed an ADRV, because the evidence was insufficient.
Whether you say it, effectively say it, or don't say it, the similarity is there.
With USADA, we don't simply talk about failed tests of one athlete, but failed tests of *all* NOP athletes, all time, even while under heightened scrutiny and increased testing during the investigation, and -- did I mention -- it was a multi-year intensive investigation including 30 witnesses, a wide range of evidence including eye-witness proof, testimonies, contemporaneous emails, and patient records, more than 2,000 exhibits, and 5,780 pages of transcripts, reviewed by 4 separate anti-doping organizations.
And they would have used that to do a Carbon Isotope test and there was no positive from that.
No CIR for either the forbidden method or the off score jumps. Neither could have been proven by additional tests.
But for the testo jump, yes, they should have done that, but never mentioned it.
In any case, if they'd get an unexpected CIR for the testo, say -23 instead of -19‰, Rupp could always blame a wild moose or even a beef burrito. CAS might not fall for that though.
Never mentioned it!
If the CIR test had been positive they would have prosecuted not just mentioned.
You just don’t understand.
Elevated T:E that caused concern, CIR test to check for and exogenous Testo. Simples.
Like most people on this board, I was initially a Houlihan supporter for the simple reason I didn't think she fit the profile of what 'I thought' a doper was. My thoughts were mostly rooted in my prejudgments and biased opinion as opposed to any science, data or objective analytical thinking. That's a mindset a lot of us locked ourselves into, but I broke out of it quicker than most once I started to get some information and opened myself up to the possibility and then the likelihood Houlihan was a doper. I caught quite a bit of flack when I came out against Houlihan because at the time the majority of this board was firmly in the Houlihan camp. The things that opened my eyes were precisely the things that caused me to close my eyes in the first place. Being an educated, upper middle-class American White girl who everyone liked and whose career we've followed does not mean you have earned a greater presumption of guilt or innocence over other athletes who are different in certain ways. The other thing that helped me think straight about this situation was the demonization of Prof Christiane Ayotte. This reminded me of the same thing that happened to Dr. Henry Lee, forensic scientist in the OJ Simpson trial and ore recently Dr. Anthony Fauci, Chief Medical Advisor to the President. These are smart, highly credentialed, and esteemed individuals who were demonized by some mainly because they were less than perfect at some point in their career now, they are reaching a conclusion that does not fit with your 'opinion'.
With all of that said, I would prefer to see 10 guilty people go free than one innocent person get falsely convicted. That is the logic behind the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard of proof that must be surpassed to convict an accused in a criminal trial. If Houlihan was put before a criminal trial jury, she would be found guilty. Humans have the innate ability to believe what they want to believe, that is why we have cults and all the crazy cultural and political nonsense that is currently dividing us in America. But the facts are the facts, and you don’t get to choose your facts. The facts are, there is overwhelming verifiable evidence of guilt and almost no verifiable evidence of innocence in the Houlihan case.
Interesting post...
Good for you to realize your prejudgements and bias instead of applying science, data, and analytical thinking. The same methods should apply whether the athlete is an upper-middle class American white girl like Houlihan, or whether we are talking about the 50 impoverished Kenyans sanctioned for nandrolone between 2004 and 2018.
The questions surrounding Prof. Ayotte are not emotional or evil, but related to the published data in her peer-reviewed work (i.e. as much as 130 ng/ml and -23.6 per mille) versus what she represented to the CAS Panel was her experience (2.5 ng/ml is a max in the literature, and -18-21.5 per mille).
There are similar factual questions with Prof. McGlone's testimony, and how, despite conceding things were different during the pandemic, still arguing that nothing statistically changed.
In a criminal court, the AIU would have to gather much more "real" evidence specific to Houlihan to get a conviction. The burden on the AIU would not be so lax as permitted by WADA, especially after 2015 changes to the Code. In a real criminal court, the AIU would actually have to prove two points 1) that a crime actually occurred, and 2) that it was intentional.
The main issue that Houlihan faced is the same for all cases of potential accidental ingestion: the fairness of any athlete being required to establish the source of a banned substance and proving the nature of ingredients ingested more than one month in the past, without a sample to test. Athletes are expected to train and race, and should not have to become experts in the history of meat, supplement, or pharmaceutical industries, as to how these things are manufactured, produced, processed and distributed in their country.
I tend to agree with a lot of things you say. From your posts I sense you are someone with deep insights into the sport, as well as having life experience and you come across as a serious-minded person. With that said, I disagree with you on this one. You are correct, athletes 'should' not have to be food experts, but that is the same as me saying I 'should' not have to pay as much taxes as do...sometimes you have to do what you have to do. After the well published Ajee Wilson case involving food trucks, the smart thing all athletes to do is simply avoid them. Just like missing 3 whereabouts, there are penalties in life for simply being stupid. "The main issue that Houlihan faced is the same for all cases of potential accidental ingestion" (Not so) Ajee Wilson and Jarrion Lawson for example, with much less support than Houlihan where able to put forth a credible defense mainly in the form of only having trace amounts of dope in their system, being able to provide complete and verifiable traceability from a purchase to a source, etc.
Then there is also an issue in the Houlihan case and not so much in the aforementioned athletes of the analytical findings in which the athlete test positive when there is a somewhat suspicious performance improvement. When Houlihan went from 4:06 in 1500 2017 to 3:57 and someone who had never broken 15 minutes in the 5K to 14:34 the following year. This is what you hope for in an athlete and these types of improvements do happen cleanly, but they certainly become suspicious when they just happen to coincide with a doping positive. My 2 years of premed (micro, chem, org chem, cell bio) and being a CSI/forensic science buff tells me that WADA/AIU was very thorough in their analysis and it is highly (very highly) likely they got it right. In terms of my prejudice / prejudgments, they still exist but hopefully to a lesser extent. The fact is in Kenya and some other 3rd world countries, dope is easily accessible, most transactions can't be traced, testing is lax and federations are reluctant to pop athletes who are national heroes. This not so much the case in the U.S.
Good for you to realize your prejudgements and bias instead of applying science, data, and analytical thinking. The same methods should apply whether the athlete is an upper-middle class American white girl like Houlihan, or whether we are talking about the 50 impoverished Kenyans sanctioned for nandrolone between 2004 and 2018.
The questions surrounding Prof. Ayotte are not emotional or evil, but related to the published data in her peer-reviewed work (i.e. as much as 130 ng/ml and -23.6 per mille) versus what she represented to the CAS Panel was her experience (2.5 ng/ml is a max in the literature, and -18-21.5 per mille).
There are similar factual questions with Prof. McGlone's testimony, and how, despite conceding things were different during the pandemic, still arguing that nothing statistically changed.
In a criminal court, the AIU would have to gather much more "real" evidence specific to Houlihan to get a conviction. The burden on the AIU would not be so lax as permitted by WADA, especially after 2015 changes to the Code. In a real criminal court, the AIU would actually have to prove two points 1) that a crime actually occurred, and 2) that it was intentional.
The main issue that Houlihan faced is the same for all cases of potential accidental ingestion: the fairness of any athlete being required to establish the source of a banned substance and proving the nature of ingredients ingested more than one month in the past, without a sample to test. Athletes are expected to train and race, and should not have to become experts in the history of meat, supplement, or pharmaceutical industries, as to how these things are manufactured, produced, processed and distributed in their country.
I tend to agree with a lot of things you say. From your posts I sense you are someone with deep insights into the sport, as well as having life experience and you come across as a serious-minded person. With that said, I disagree with you on this one. You are correct, athletes 'should' not have to be food experts, but that is the same as me saying I 'should' not have to pay as much taxes as do...sometimes you have to do what you have to do. After the well published Ajee Wilson case involving food trucks, the smart thing all athletes to do is simply avoid them. Just like missing 3 whereabouts, there are penalties in life for simply being stupid. "The main issue that Houlihan faced is the same for all cases of potential accidental ingestion" (Not so) Ajee Wilson and Jarrion Lawson for example, with much less support than Houlihan where able to put forth a credible defense mainly in the form of only having trace amounts of dope in their system, being able to provide complete and verifiable traceability from a purchase to a source, etc.
Then there is also an issue in the Houlihan case and not so much in the aforementioned athletes of the analytical findings in which the athlete test positive when there is a somewhat suspicious performance improvement. When Houlihan went from 4:06 in 1500 2017 to 3:57 and someone who had never broken 15 minutes in the 5K to 14:34 the following year. This is what you hope for in an athlete and these types of improvements do happen cleanly, but they certainly become suspicious when they just happen to coincide with a doping positive. My 2 years of premed (micro, chem, org chem, cell bio) and being a CSI/forensic science buff tells me that WADA/AIU was very thorough in their analysis and it is highly (very highly) likely they got it right. In terms of my prejudice / prejudgments, they still exist but hopefully to a lesser extent. The fact is in Kenya and some other 3rd world countries, dope is easily accessible, most transactions can't be traced, testing is lax and federations are reluctant to pop athletes who are national heroes. This not so much the case in the U.S.
Nandolone!, when you say she had been a serious drug user and is on whereabouts and is regularly tested!
I tend to agree with a lot of things you say. From your posts I sense you are someone with deep insights into the sport, as well as having life experience and you come across as a serious-minded person. With that said, I disagree with you on this one. You are correct, athletes 'should' not have to be food experts, but that is the same as me saying I 'should' not have to pay as much taxes as do...sometimes you have to do what you have to do. After the well published Ajee Wilson case involving food trucks, the smart thing all athletes to do is simply avoid them. Just like missing 3 whereabouts, there are penalties in life for simply being stupid. "The main issue that Houlihan faced is the same for all cases of potential accidental ingestion" (Not so) Ajee Wilson and Jarrion Lawson for example, with much less support than Houlihan where able to put forth a credible defense mainly in the form of only having trace amounts of dope in their system, being able to provide complete and verifiable traceability from a purchase to a source, etc.
Then there is also an issue in the Houlihan case and not so much in the aforementioned athletes of the analytical findings in which the athlete test positive when there is a somewhat suspicious performance improvement. When Houlihan went from 4:06 in 1500 2017 to 3:57 and someone who had never broken 15 minutes in the 5K to 14:34 the following year. This is what you hope for in an athlete and these types of improvements do happen cleanly, but they certainly become suspicious when they just happen to coincide with a doping positive. My 2 years of premed (micro, chem, org chem, cell bio) and being a CSI/forensic science buff tells me that WADA/AIU was very thorough in their analysis and it is highly (very highly) likely they got it right. In terms of my prejudice / prejudgments, they still exist but hopefully to a lesser extent. The fact is in Kenya and some other 3rd world countries, dope is easily accessible, most transactions can't be traced, testing is lax and federations are reluctant to pop athletes who are national heroes. This not so much the case in the U.S.
Nandolone!, when you say she had been a serious drug user and is on whereabouts and is regularly tested!
Sarms or a bio passport, perhaps,but Nandrolone.
And the positive did not coincide with the improvements you indicate.
If you think they do go get a refund on your science class.
Nandolone!, when you say she had been a serious drug user and is on whereabouts and is regularly tested!
Sarms or a bio passport, perhaps,but Nandrolone.
And the positive did not coincide with the improvements you indicate.
If you think they do go get a refund on your science class.
And these type of improvements are quite common. Houlihan improved 6 seconds in two years in the 1500m. She later improved another 2.35 seconds in a very fast WC race. Many other runners have seen a similar improvement. The 5000m wasn’t her race, being an 800/1500 runner, so it’s to be expected to have bigger jumps when you start being serious with pro training for a longer race.
You didn't see anyone require an annual figure? You are really quite ridiculous. If it isn't an annual figure it is meaningless, because it could be spread out over any period - decades. No useful comparisons can be made if the expenditure isn't for a specified period. The figures provided for anti-doping are annual, as is the much greater amount spent on doping. The figure wasn't "just thrown out" by Al Jazeera, it was based on estimates from WADA and others involved in anti-doping.
My calculations are based on the annual income and expenditure accounts from published audited accounts which are then also reflected in the balance sheets.
A whole lot better that the IOC ‘s figures for 5?years ago which where limited to taking the number of tests and then multiplying by an assumed average test cost ( using older cheaper methods) and then adding a guessed overheads figure.
Thus I can easily get to a Billion dollar anti doping industry.
They aren't. You don't have those figures and your wild estimate is refuted by experts who put it at about $350million, not a billion.
And the positive did not coincide with the improvements you indicate.
If you think they do go get a refund on your science class.
And these type of improvements are quite common. Houlihan improved 6 seconds in two years in the 1500m. She later improved another 2.35 seconds in a very fast WC race. Many other runners have seen a similar improvement. The 5000m wasn’t her race, being an 800/1500 runner, so it’s to be expected to have bigger jumps when you start being serious with pro training for a longer race.
That you think my comment was essentially the same as the CAS determination on Houlihan is a sad reflection on your intellect. There was no burden on CAS to establish the source of the nandrolone - it was found in Houlihan. The burden was hers, to show she hadn't doped. She couldn't. It furthermore shows how confused your thinking is if you think I am effectively saying that because a burden of proof was not met in the NOP investigation and also by Houlihan in her case the cases are therefore the same. Salazar engaged in doping practices but the evidence didn't extend to his athletes; Houlihan was found with a banned drug in her system but couldn't produce a source that would exonerate her. NOP showed how hard it is to pin doping on athletes without a failed test, while Houlihan showed a failed test is difficult to refute.
You have nothing worth saying about Salazar and the NOP investigation.
Your every post is a reflection of your intellect.
We were comparing Houlihan's burden with USADA's burden. The CAS has no burden but to adjudicate within the artificial framework defined by the WADA Code.
In both cases, the respective tribunals found Houlihan/USADA failed to meet their burden. The CAS could not find Houlihan's ADRVs "not intentional", as all of the evidence was insufficient, and the AAA Panel could not find any NOP athlete ever committed an ADRV, because the evidence was insufficient.
Whether you say it, effectively say it, or don't say it, the similarity is there.
With USADA, we don't simply talk about failed tests of one athlete, but failed tests of *all* NOP athletes, all time, even while under heightened scrutiny and increased testing during the investigation, and -- did I mention -- it was a multi-year intensive investigation including 30 witnesses, a wide range of evidence including eye-witness proof, testimonies, contemporaneous emails, and patient records, more than 2,000 exhibits, and 5,780 pages of transcripts, reviewed by 4 separate anti-doping organizations.
All you are saying is that a burden of proof will apply in all cases. What a trite and mundane observation. The similarity between the NOP investigation and Houlihan's ADRV ends there.
You didn't see anyone require an annual figure? You are really quite ridiculous. If it isn't an annual figure it is meaningless, because it could be spread out over any period - decades. No useful comparisons can be made if the expenditure isn't for a specified period. The figures provided for anti-doping are annual, as is the much greater amount spent on doping. The figure wasn't "just thrown out" by Al Jazeera, it was based on estimates from WADA and others involved in anti-doping.
Even when it is an annual figure, it is meaningless.
Not any period, but the IOC said over an Olympic cycle (4 years).
I don't have any opinion whether that constitutes a billion dollar industry by some unspoken criteria you deem meaningful. That actually doesn't seem important all that important of a threshold. Would the point change if we called it a 1/3 billion dollar industry? What is the threshold for cottage industry?
All meaningless questions.
Al Jazeera actually gave no basis or detailed explanation for the figure they threw out. It was one statement, then they moved on. In any case, how would WADA and others involved in anti-doping know what is spent on doping? Are you so dim that you don't know the difference between anti-doping and doping?
You don't think it makes a difference to say a figure is annual or not? $350 million over a year is a vastly different scale of enterprise from one where the figure is spread out over 4 years. You might say you have an IQ of a given figure but I realize now that it will be a total accumulated from successive tests over several years. It explains a lot.
It isn't worth responding to any of your latter points about the Al Jazeera figure for doping estimates.
Your every post is a reflection of your intellect.
We were comparing Houlihan's burden with USADA's burden. The CAS has no burden but to adjudicate within the artificial framework defined by the WADA Code.
In both cases, the respective tribunals found Houlihan/USADA failed to meet their burden. The CAS could not find Houlihan's ADRVs "not intentional", as all of the evidence was insufficient, and the AAA Panel could not find any NOP athlete ever committed an ADRV, because the evidence was insufficient.
Whether you say it, effectively say it, or don't say it, the similarity is there.
With USADA, we don't simply talk about failed tests of one athlete, but failed tests of *all* NOP athletes, all time, even while under heightened scrutiny and increased testing during the investigation, and -- did I mention -- it was a multi-year intensive investigation including 30 witnesses, a wide range of evidence including eye-witness proof, testimonies, contemporaneous emails, and patient records, more than 2,000 exhibits, and 5,780 pages of transcripts, reviewed by 4 separate anti-doping organizations.
All you are saying is that a burden of proof will apply in all cases. What a trite and mundane observation. The similarity between the NOP investigation and Houlihan's ADRV ends there.
If you bother to read the Wada code; something that you have never ever demonstrated; it is clear that standard of proof for a conviction is comfortable satisfaction.
And these type of improvements are quite common. Houlihan improved 6 seconds in two years in the 1500m. She later improved another 2.35 seconds in a very fast WC race. Many other runners have seen a similar improvement. The 5000m wasn’t her race, being an 800/1500 runner, so it’s to be expected to have bigger jumps when you start being serious with pro training for a longer race.
Especially when you dope. Like she did.
Tautology ie circular argument.Logical error often seen in school playground insults.
Even when it is an annual figure, it is meaningless.
Not any period, but the IOC said over an Olympic cycle (4 years).
I don't have any opinion whether that constitutes a billion dollar industry by some unspoken criteria you deem meaningful. That actually doesn't seem important all that important of a threshold. Would the point change if we called it a 1/3 billion dollar industry? What is the threshold for cottage industry?
All meaningless questions.
Al Jazeera actually gave no basis or detailed explanation for the figure they threw out. It was one statement, then they moved on. In any case, how would WADA and others involved in anti-doping know what is spent on doping? Are you so dim that you don't know the difference between anti-doping and doping?
You don't think it makes a difference to say a figure is annual or not? $350 million over a year is a vastly different scale of enterprise from one where the figure is spread out over 4 years. You might say you have an IQ of a given figure but I realize now that it will be a total accumulated from successive tests over several years. It explains a lot.
It isn't worth responding to any of your latter points about the Al Jazeera figure for doping estimates.
Your normal response when in an intellectual corner…..”. it is not worth responding …”
What is the annual spend of the anti doping industry?
My calculations are based on the annual income and expenditure accounts from published audited accounts which are then also reflected in the balance sheets.
A whole lot better that the IOC ‘s figures for 5?years ago which where limited to taking the number of tests and then multiplying by an assumed average test cost ( using older cheaper methods) and then adding a guessed overheads figure.
Thus I can easily get to a Billion dollar anti doping industry.
They aren't. You don't have those figures and your wild estimate is refuted by experts who put it at about $350million, not a billion.
Accurate figures from published accounts and up to date.
The fugues have never been refuted as they are audited unlike the IOC guesses of a very limited part of the industry spend.
You don't think it makes a difference to say a figure is annual or not? $350 million over a year is a vastly different scale of enterprise from one where the figure is spread out over 4 years. You might say you have an IQ of a given figure but I realize now that it will be a total accumulated from successive tests over several years. It explains a lot.
It isn't worth responding to any of your latter points about the Al Jazeera figure for doping estimates.
I suppose if it did make a difference, you could tell me what difference it makes. Otherwise, It doesn't seem like an important distinction that allows you to make or break any point.
But I'll pass on your message to the IOC and to insidethegames that Armstronglivs find their figures meaningless because they don't match your previously unstated criteria.
Keep in mind that the IOC is not the only budget in the anti-doping industry, and their figure is not exhaustive, likely not covering the supplemental budgets of NADOs and international federations, and other signatories, nor professional or non-Olympic sports, universities, and costs to prosecute and defend litigation.
It wasn't even worth reporting the non-contextual Al Jazeera figure, because they didn't explain, and you can't explain, what it represents. We don't know who said it, how they estimated it, or what sports it includes, which of them are Olympic sports, or whether it includes any sport at all, nor which substances they counted as "doping", and whether these substances are only the ones banned by WADA. It was a rather passive statement that simply throws out the disposible unverifiable comment "it was estimated".
You don't think it makes a difference to say a figure is annual or not? $350 million over a year is a vastly different scale of enterprise from one where the figure is spread out over 4 years. You might say you have an IQ of a given figure but I realize now that it will be a total accumulated from successive tests over several years. It explains a lot.
It isn't worth responding to any of your latter points about the Al Jazeera figure for doping estimates.
I suppose if it did make a difference, you could tell me what difference it makes. Otherwise, It doesn't seem like an important distinction that allows you to make or break any point.
But I'll pass on your message to the IOC and to insidethegames that Armstronglivs find their figures meaningless because they don't match your previously unstated criteria.
Keep in mind that the IOC is not the only budget in the anti-doping industry, and their figure is not exhaustive, likely not covering the supplemental budgets of NADOs and international federations, and other signatories, nor professional or non-Olympic sports, universities, and costs to prosecute and defend litigation.
It wasn't even worth reporting the non-contextual Al Jazeera figure, because they didn't explain, and you can't explain, what it represents. We don't know who said it, how they estimated it, or what sports it includes, which of them are Olympic sports, or whether it includes any sport at all, nor which substances they counted as "doping", and whether these substances are only the ones banned by WADA. It was a rather passive statement that simply throws out the disposible unverifiable comment "it was estimated".
What difference does it make whether the figure is annual or is an accumulated total over 4 years? $300million in a year seems to be a lot more than $80 million a year. I would have thought a self-declared "mathematician with a statistical bent" would have grasped that.
I explained where the Al Jazeera estimate of the black market in doping came from. Because it doesn't have a single source you cannot grasp that either. Your stupidity is reaching Olympian proportions. The only medal you will ever get.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.