*sigh*. If you're going to quote the scientific literature in support of your argument, you need to at least make some effort to understand it first.
The paper says that cosmic rays strongly correlate with ozone depletion. The data point to cosmic-ray driven reactions of halogenated molecules as being the cause of the correlation. The *only* halogenated molecules present in the stratosphere in any significant concentration are CFCs. I'll repeat that: where the paper talks about "halogenated molecules", it's talking about CFCs, HCFCs and other man-made chemicals.
Hence, this paper is presenting an alternative explanation to *why* CFCs damage the ozone layer. The prevailing hypothesis is that photolysis of CFCs (i.e. UV from the sun breaking them apart) is what kicks off the ozone-depleting catalytic cycle. This paper says "Nah, it's not photolysis, it's cosmic-ray-induced ionisation of the CFCs that sets the whole thing off".
From the paper:
In the CR-driven mechanism, the O3 -depleting reactions
depend on halogen concentrations, CR intensity, and PSC
ice (to hold the electrons) in the stratosphere [6,8]. From
1992 up to now, the Antarctic O3 loss has shown a clearest
correlation with the CR intensity. This is because the total
halogen amount of the stratosphere, particularly those of
CFCs, is nearly constant in that period of time ; thus
the regulating effect of CRs on O3 loss becomes manifest.
In contrast, such a time correlation is hardly seen in the
enlarging spring polar O3 loss during 1980s, since at that
period of time, the halogen loading increased dramatically
and thus ozone showed a drastic decreasing trend blurring
the CR-O3 loss correlation. And in the pre-1980s, no
significant halogen loading was found in the stratosphere,
and thus no significant O3 loss was observed.
Summarising that: since 1992, there's been loads of CFCs in the atmosphere, and hence the rate-limiting step in how much ozone gets broken down is how many cosmic rays there are. Before 1980, there were no CFCs in the stratosphere, and hence cosmic rays didn't destroy any ozone. Your bet is thus meaningless: this paper is part of the argument over *why* CFCs cause ozone depletion, not *whether*.