Sure because getting tested for 2 months is more stringent then year round?
Yes, because what does it matter if you taking random tests that aren't so stringent and can be beat? If for instance the Nevada Commission is doing random urine testing year-round, but being that it's weak testing, how effective is that? If it's 2-months though and stringent, that is actually better since it tests for way more illegal substances and more difficult to beat.
This sport has been deteriorating more and more over the last decade. If this form of drug testing is mandated and becomes standard practice, we may see a ****e in the level of competition.
Comment