According to documents from the ITF's 2012 Annual General Meeting held in Copenhagen, the ITF's anti-doping program came in under budget for the 3rd consecutive year "as there were fewer positive cases." Anti-doping expenditures were $0.288 million lower than budget ($1.6M budget v. $1.3M actual spend). (see pages 7 and 10 of the Agenda)
The ITF anti-doping program also came in under budget for both 2009 ($122 thousand under) and 2010 ($301 thousand under). The under spending in 2010 was "due to there being fewer positive cases."
As a result of the "fewer positive cases" in 2010 and 2011, the ITF actually spent more on anti-doping in 2009 ($1.43 million) than in 2010 ($1.28 million) and 2011.
Missing from the documents is any commentary or analysis on why "there were fewer positive cases." It there no doping in tennis? Nope. Is the program so good that is it deterring doping? That certainly can't be the case. The most likely answer is it that the ITF testing isn't catching anybody (see why here). And the program clearly isn't catching as many people as the ITF's planned budgets seem to be expecting. If that is the case, what is the ITF going to do about it?
Given that there have been only two positives recorded so far this year, it looks like 2012 will also come in comfortably under budget. The ITF needs to explain the continued discrepancy between its projected and actual spending on anti-doping.
I would note that this pattern of being under budget and fewer positive cases coincides with a time period where the tennis anti-doping program has decreased both blood testing and EPO testing. Surely, these budget surpluses could have been directed into increasing such testing, as well as, conducting more out-of-competition tests and other improvements. Why isn't it happening?
Who will hold the ITF to account?