Rappstar wrote:
The interesting question on this front is what - if any - is the ACTUAL cost of this sort of investigation in terms of a marginal perspective. In other words, where is the money really coming from? Is it actually costing someone more money to pursue this? Or is it coming out of already allotted money/time/etc?
In the case of the US Attorney's office investigating Lance, I can see the issues there, because there are certainly - in my opinion - fraud/conspiracy cases that should have been - and should be - investigated first (Countrywide, for example). So it seemed relatively clear that the Clemens/Bonds/Armstrong investigations were a potential misuse of funds/time/effort with regards to the public interest.
BUT, in the case of USADA, I'm not sure you can draw the same conclusion. Where does USADA's money come from? And how is it allotted? I.e., if they didn't spend the money on this, what would they be spending it on? It's easy to say, "the economy is shitty, and people are out of work, so that USADA money should be spent on X instead." Do you REALLY know it's "big time money?" I would say that you probably don't. And if the money is already allotted to USADA - from whatever source - I'm guessing it's just sitting there. It's not like they can redirect it back if they don't use it. It's part of their budget. That's speculation though. But it's a bit like having a lawyer on retainer. You've already paid, so you might as well use it. Now - to be sure - I do not know if that is the exact case. But I believe it to be as reasonable a possibility as what you've advanced.
So, to extrapolate that these are wasted dollars is - I think - a bit unreasonable. Not because of any "greater good" or whatever argument, but because I don't think you - or I - actually have any real insight into the particulars of USADA's financials.
As an additional aside, I also personally object to the general line of reasoning that you advance. It reminds me a bit of the folks who say they we should drill in ANWR because oil is too expensive. Or that we should open National Parks to private enterprise because they aren't making enough money. I think that, ultimately, the mission of USADA is an important one and a noble one. I don't think it's necessarily one that needs to demonstrate any sort of "ROI." Part of it is the impossibility of proving any effect. How do you prove that less people dope? You can't.
There is a huge difference between JP Morgan's trading losses and USADA "losing" money chasing people who may have doped. I would find it rather depressing if you didn't see that.
Sure, as long as this is strictly a USADA event. There is potential for increased investigations and litagation which could potentially cost more money.
As far as budgets go, the sad part of most budgets is they are allotted in advance and if not completely used up by the end of the fiscal period, then the next allotted budget will be less. This in turn forces departments to spend every penny of their budget so they can get the same amount or more next time around. Some times those budgets are waste JUST so they can make sure they can get the same again next time.
I'm not implying the USADA is doing this. Just playing devils advocate.
I would be more impressed with the USADA announcing more controls for age groupers in sports where there are prizes or qualifications at stake. Pro's are already in the spot light, let's get the microscopes out on the age groupers now. Besides, are the kids today learning to dope from pro's or from mom and dad?