TheStroBro wrote:
DrAlexHarrison wrote:
TheStroBro wrote:
DrAlexHarrison wrote:
AchillesHeal wrote:
I am pleasantly surprised however to see USADA confronting WADA. It gives me a glimmer of hope that there are forces in the world fighting for justice.
Don't be too swayed by USADA as the anti-corruption good guy. They're still 50% funded by the same organization that makes money by producing entertaining competition, which is absolutely enhanced by athletes being... enhanced.
***climbs up on soapbox***
If you're talking about the UFC Partnership, that partnership is over. Ended in October when McGregor re-entered the testing pool, it was gonna get killed off by Christmas I'm sure as the UFC wanted to move to a more NFL like sanction model (be a lot softer) and USADA didn't want to be a part of that. They now contract out to Drug Free Sport International.
Nah. The USOPC which has an ARR of half a billion dollars mostly from media deals provides roughly 50% of USADA's $30-40M annual operating budget.
Ok, incredibly confused by you here. Without USOPC funding and other NGB funding, USADA doesn't exist and there is no anti-doping agency at all.
I didn't mean that the UFC partnership statement was or was not true. And I didn't mean that the USOPC should or should not continue to fund USADA.
By "Nah" I meant: "Nah, I wasn't talking about that UFC partnership."
By the rest of it, I meant: the USOPC is a media-funded corp which funds anti-doping efforts. ā That is what I was referring to when I said "They're still 50% funded by the same org that makes money by producing entertaining competition, which is absolutely enhanced by athletes being... enhanced."
Overall, I was just clarifying that, no, I wasn't talking about UFC, but rather USOPC funding. Sorry for the confusion!
BTW, I make no claim as to how that should change or remain. Just stating facts, neutrally. I'm just calling out where incentives align. Specifically, USADA is 50% financially incentivized to produce entertaining competition that people believe is clean because generally people want to believe that most competition is fair and clean, at least when it is reported on, as such. USADA is incentivized to be a better marketing agency for the success and vigor anti-doping efforts, more than they are incentivized towards highest-possible efficacy of actual anti-doping efforts themselves. :)
For everyone's awareness, I'm not saying whether that's good or bad, necessary or unnecessary, should change or remain, etc etc. I'm not judging it or assessing at all. I'm just stating the incentive alignment. And I also happened to relay 4 personal anecdotes that seem in alignment with their alignment if you 'nom sayin'. Again, I seriously am not making an assessment or judgement here. Complete non-stance here. If my tone is anything but neutral it's purely a matter of personality. :)
Dr. Alex Harrison | Founder & CEO | Sport Physiology & Performance PhD
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
š± Check out our app ā
Saturday: Pro Fuel & Hydration, a performance nutrition coach in your pocket.
Join us on YouTube ā
Saturday Morning | Ride & Run Faster and our growing
Saturday User Hub