JumboElliott wrote: toyracer wrote:
ehop101 wrote:Well if we can't have a level playing field then maybe some countries shouldn't compete. This improving crap or it is getting better is for the birds.
What exactly is the standard in terms of a minimum level of testing?
The minimum standard should be that the anti-doping body should have the resources available to do an out of competition blood test or carbon isotope ratio urine test on any individual athlete in their testing pool at a given time.
They apparently have the resources now. The budget has been increased for Financial Year 2013-2014. But I don't think that just having the resources is enough. Actual testing is what counts. It's no use saying that the personnel and test kits exist to do 500 tests yet none are done. That doesn't do anyone any good. The test numbers for the first half of this Calendar Year showed a marked improvement in relation to the same period last Calendar Year, which is a good thing.
I think that the IAAF/WADA drop the ball where this is concerned. There should be a minimum amount of tests for each standard of athlete. "A" standard must be tested at least "x" times for the year while "b" standard must be tested at least "y" times for the year. When such a minimum target exists, then a national body can be called into question if the target is not met. Now, there is too much ambiguity. With no minimum target there isn't any real way to say that any national testing body is failing, and that's not good.