There are a couple of interesting bits of information. First, there is a significant ramp in the anti-doping budget from 2013 through 2016. In 2013, the actual spend was $2 million. In 2014, the anti-doping budget is planned at $2.6. It hits $3 million in 2015 and $3.1 by 2016. This planned spending represents an increase of over 50 percent. (See the budget tables on page 12.)
Hopefully, the increase in budget is spent on designing and executing an effective and intelligent anti-doping program.
The other bits from anti-doping are the following (on page 152):
The number of samples collected under the Programme in 2013 rose by 26% compared to 2012, and a further increase is anticipated in 2014. (See figure 1). Following its introduction into the Programme in 2013, around 350 Athlete Biological Passport blood samples have been collected in 2014 at the time of writing. The total of 2,185 samples collected under the TADP in 2013 represents about two thirds of all samples collected from tennis players by all anti-doping agencies...I have to say that I'm not sure having the shortest time for TUE decisions is something to be proud of. How closely is the ITF looking at the applications?
A total of 48 Therapeutic Use Exemptions (TUE) were granted under the TADP in 2013. The average time from receipt of a complete TUE application to a decision by the TUE Committee was again under 3 days, which is believed to be the shortest of any anti-doping organisation.
The 2014 Programme is fully compliant with the World Anti-Doping Code. Testing under the 2014 TADP is ongoing, and at the time of writing, over 1,000 samples have been collected from around 40 events, including Davis Cup, Fed Cup, Grand Slams, ATP Tour and WTA Tour and Professional Circuits.
An additional point I'd make is that the ITF came in $208,000 over-budget for anti-doping spending for 2013 (budget of $1,848M v. actual $2,056). The extra-expenditure is described as being caused by "legal costs required for the cases which came up in the year." (page 7) This result is significantly different from the four previous years of underspend, where costs were typically stated to be "lower than expected due to fewer positive cases."
So, what exactly happened on legals costs in 2013 that was so different from previous years?
2012: $180K under
2011: $288K under
2010: $301K under
2009: $122K under