ESPN: Goodell: HGH Testing a MUST in Next CBA

[KDawg]

I know, I know, this is more of a ATN forum topic, but I'd like to discuss it moreso with the Stadium community.

WOODLAWN, Md. -- One of the hundreds of high school students attending an assembly Monday about the dangers of performance-enhancing substances wanted NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell to answer this question:

Why is there more drug use in baseball than football?

Goodell began his response this way: "I'm not sure that's true."

While making sure to emphasize that he believes the NFL's drug-testing program is a strong one, Goodell acknowledged that it can be improved, and said the league will insist that its next labor deal with players -- whenever there is one -- includes testing for human growth hormone.

"We'd be naive to think that people aren't trying to cheat the system. But we have to have the best testing program to be able to offset that," Goodell told reporters after joining Rep. Elijah Cummings, a Maryland Democrat, to speak to area students at Woodlawn High School in Baltimore County.

"I made it clear to the kids in the room today that the integrity of the NFL is critical, and we need to make sure we're doing everything possible to have the best drug program in sports," Goodell said. "Making changes to our program is critical and we have done that over the years. We need to do more, including the inclusion of HGH testing."

Preventing athletes from using HGH is a key target in the anti-doping movement. The substance is hard to detect, and athletes are believed to choose HGH for a variety of benefits, whether they be real or only perceived -- including increasing speed and improving vision.

HGH use is prohibited by the NFL, but the league's old collective bargaining agreement did not have testing for it. Goodell thinks players "recognize the importance of" adding HGH tests.

The NFL Players Association has opposed blood tests in the past but did say last summer it would be open to hearing a proposal from the league during CBA talks. Goodell said Monday that HGH was "part of a broader proposal on where we go with our drug program."

The rest of the article can be found here

To me, Goodell could be shooting himself in the foot here. I think we're going to open a HUGE can of worms. Not that its a bad thing morally or ethically, but this could be the undoing of the NFL itself.

I think, if HGH testing is mandatory, we're going to find an EXTREMELY high number of players who are found guilty of using HGH. I also think we're going to see a high number of players cycle off and see their play and production drop off a cliff.

This is good in a number of ways. As a fan, its now a pure sport. And as a coach myself, I can tout the importance of staying clean and doing things the right way. For a commissioner, a clean league shows that you care about the integrity of the sport and what's right and wrong in the world. That's a good thing. It should also reduce the number of injuries due to hard hits (which will still be in the game, but you'll see less of them I'd wager). Indirectly, this could also help to deflate player salaries at some point due to less production.

As a business aspect, this is not good for the NFL. If play drops off, hits become less damaging/awesome looking then the fans are going to be less excited for NFL play.

I'm not sure this is the best idea out there, but I certainly respect the morality behind it.

But, let's just say this. The article says the players have been against blood testing - I wonder why.

[authentic]

Another way to look at it is that it could end up like baseball where you go from the occasional 45-50 HRs (during the Sosa, McGuire, Bonds era) to 25-30 HRs (during the current drug testing era). Sure you may not have the crazy numbers as before, but its much more beneficial for the health of the sport.

[KDawg]

Another way to look at it is that it could end up like baseball where you go from the occasional 45-50 HRs (during the Sosa, McGuire, Bonds era) to 25-30 HRs (during the current drug testing era). Sure you may not have the crazy numbers as before, but its much more beneficial for the health of the sport.

I absolutely agree here.

But I think by doing this the NFL is opening the doors to a WORLD of controversy. And quite honestly, bad pub. It's not fair that making a good moral decision has that consequence, but it will.

[Fred Jones]

I guess, it's the right thing to do, is in question in this thread. Yes, it is easy for me to type those words, but I guess it has become common place in business to overlook the right thing and do it for the money.

[KDawg]

I guess, it's the right thing to do, is in question in this thread. Yes, it is easy for me to type those words, but I guess it has become common place in business to overlook the right thing and do it for the money.

I think I'm misunderstanding your wording here.

It's not a question of whether it's the right thing to do MORALLY, morally there's no question about it.

Business wise, I guess that is the question.

The NFL has kind of been a don't ask, don't tell league. Goodell wants to change that. Morally? Outstanding decision. Business wise? Not so much. I don't envy his position, but I do give credit for doing the right (morally) thing.

[The Tris]

I hope no one is delusional enough to think that:

a) there is not a high % of HGH use in the NFL, and

HGH testing will hurt the short term quality of play.

In the long run, this is a good thing for the NFL. I think the concussion issue is a huge deal, and as we learn more, could potentially do far more to dilute the NFL talent pool (less people playing football in Pop Warner, MS, HS, etc) than what the loss of articifically enchancers would. I agree that curbing HGH use should make the game safer from that standpoint.

[KDawg]

I hope no one is delusional enough to think that:

Sometimes the way you come into threads smacks of arrogance... Fortunately, I know you as a poster and respect you and know that's not your intent...

a) there is not a high % of HGH use in the NFL, and

HGH testing will hurt the short term quality of play.

Agree with A. Disagree with B. Baseball had an immediate drop, and so will the NFL. Which is fine by me, but will it be fine by the more casual fan who only watches for those big hits?

In the long run, this is a good thing for the NFL.

Agreed. Moral codes generally have a place amongst the community.

[megared]

It'd be a great idea if testing for HGH was anything like testing for anabolic steroids, which it isn't.

There's no available testing available for HGH through urine. The most important difference is that HGH is only detectable for 3 days at most, as opposed to steroids which takes 3-6 months to drop below detectable levels. Players could still theoretically cycle off of it in time for the season, or when recovering from injury and not have it detected.

I don't understand why it bears mentioning. This issue will not be a deal breaker in the next CBA talks...and it looks more like Goodell is painting the picture that the players don't want it, when in reality they've said they would listen to arguments for it.

[The Tris]

I think I got tripped up with those double negatives - HGH testing is going to hurt the short term quality of the NFL. That is the price to pay for years of turning a blind eye.

And please feel free to check me when my, um, aggressive, writing style boils over into the arrogant. I try to toe the line of opinionated but not douchey. Sometimes I fail.

[Spear]

Let's be careful not to use HGH and anabolic steroids interchangeably. HGH testing in baseball is recent and is not responsible for the end of the home run era -- steroids testing was. The performance-enhancing benefits of HGH are unclear and unproven.

If there is a drop-off in play, it would probably be due to the fact that players going off HGH aren't producing enough of it naturally in their pituitary. And it would probably not affect explosiveness, but rather a player's ability to recover.

[KDawg]

Let's be careful not to use HGH and anabolic steroids interchangeably. HGH testing in baseball is recent and is not responsible for the end of the home run era -- steroids testing was. The performance-enhancing benefits of HGH are unclear and unproven.

They exist. No, they aren't the same. But HGH has definite advantages. How much of an advantage is the question. Either way, they are both performance enhancing.

[Rocky52Mc]

I absolutely agree here.

But I think by doing this the NFL is opening the doors to a WORLD of controversy. And quite honestly, bad pub. It's not fair that making a good moral decision has that consequence, but it will.

Goodell doesn't make money based off of how well the league is doing. His position is treated on how the league is currently fairing ect. This is basically a threat and it means a couple things:

1. The players would obviously NOT want to get tested for HGH.

2. If they were tested for HGH, players would not be able to come back off of injury as quickly as they do - less big names on the field.

3. The players want the NFL's expenses to be exposed - do you think they want to just let the NFLPA get away with that?

4. The NFL is simply biting back here and it's a smart move.

The future of this league depends more so on the players to help keep it the same way by giving up some of what they can get. Let's hope the retirement benefits are good, at least.

[Spear]

Baseball implemented HGH testing not even a year ago, so you can't claim that there has been some kind of drop-off.

And there are lots of things that enhance performance -- where is the line drawn between a supplement and a drug? The body produces HGH naturally and there are ways to boost HGH production without direct HGH injections (L-glutamine supplements).

If you're under 29, there's no real reason to even worry about HGH. The cruelty of nature is that your body produces progressively less and less HGH as you age. I really don't blame athletes if all they're trying to do is maintain the hormone levels of their younger days,

[KDawg]

Baseball implemented HGH testing not even a year ago, so you can't claim that there has been some kind of drop-off.

It's no secret that HGH enchances performance. It sounds to me like you're arguing that point.

And there are lots of things that enhance performance -- where is the line drawn between a supplement and a drug? The body produces HGH naturally and there are ways to boost HGH production without direct HGH injections (L-glutamine supplements).

The body does not in any way, shape, or form supply the same amount of HGH that these guys are getting. There ARE ways to boost HGH production without injections, however, the levels in which we're talking are beyond that.

If you're under 29, there's no real reason to even worry about HGH. The cruelty of nature is that your body produces progressively less and less HGH as you age. I really don't blame athletes if all they're trying to do is maintain the hormone levels of their younger days.

But that's not how the rules work. And that's not how life works. If you're 30 and your natural HGH levels are dropping, that's just the way it is. Using HGH puts you at an advantage. It enhances your performance.

[Voice_of_Reason]

There are a number of ways that they can make these tests work. The issue with blood vs. urine tests, as it has been explained to me, is that urine is freely given, and blood has to be forcibly taken. There are a number of privacy rights, and that kind of thing when you have to perform a specific medical procedure to acquire the fluid. I also don't believe that they are 100% accurate, and there are certain things that they still can't test for, at least that's my opinion.

I do think that a number of players would be found to be using. But if the players are willing to listen to a proposal, you could propose something like an amnesty period, and something (I think) that baseball does where the player doesn't get exposed on the first positive test. (I could be wrong about that, but I THOUGHT that was in the baseball steroid testing rules. I do understand they don't test for HGH in baseball either, but the same rule could apply.)

The problem is that you'd have to be able to conduct year-round random testing. Otherwise it's not effective.

The players aren't going to agree to anything where they are going to expose a great number of players immediately. There's going to have to be some "break in" period, with the proper stipulations, and all that.

This can (should, in my opinion) happen, but it's going to be tricky to negotiate. But there is middle ground here somewhere, and I think it would be easier to find this middle ground than the financial one.

[Conn]

I almost wonder, if HGH was tested more openly, would professional sports be open to using it in moderation to speed the healing process, in a controlled environment?

Governed usage of HGH around the league, monitored by the league, could lead to some kind of safe standard, which would speed the healing process for injuries (preferably only more serious ones), but not be abused for general performance enhancement.

Now, I don't know enough about the differences between HGH and steroids to say that HGH could even be used JUST for healing without causing long-term harm...I just think its something to look at.

I don't want to watch super-humans go at it on the field, as some who support anabolic steroid use would like to. But I wouldn't have a problem if there was a regulated, carefully watched usage of HGH if it was being used in a manner that really only benefited the healing process.

Again, not sure if that's possible. It would require very strict regulation and rules, and would need lots of testing first, to determine what "safe" is. But it would go hand-in-hand with regular blood testing, so that it wouldn't be used all the time for performance enhancement.

[Destructis]

There are a number of ways that they can make these tests work. The issue with blood vs. urine tests, as it has been explained to me, is that urine is freely given, and blood has to be forcibly taken. There are a number of privacy rights, and that kind of thing when you have to perform a specific medical procedure to acquire the fluid.

This is why this will not happen. The NFLPA will never agree to this. A blood test is an invasive procedure. Once they start drawing blood, they can start testing it for a lot of other things too.

[RiggosMohawk]

I hope no one is delusional enough to think that:

a) there is not a high % of HGH use in the NFL, and

HGH testing will hurt the short term quality of play.

I do agree with you on B. My take is that if a DE and a LT are both juicing, then having them both not juiced keeps the relative playing field the same. Baseball has the absolute measurable of a HR, which most definitely is impacted by a relative drop in a batter's performance.

We'll start seeing more kickers go short on 55-yard FGs once this rule change goes into effect

[Passepartout]

There are a number of privacy rights and issues. Along with the lawsuits that the HGH is supplimenting. But if baseball can do it. Why not the NFL?

Players are afraid to get exposed, true. But it is a must. In order for those that don't take HGH, to play a fair game.

[ThomasRoane]

Business wise I don't think it will matter. Football is one of those sports where if a player is lost (be it from injury, retirement, a trade, criminal activity or drug use the game will continue on. Players will step up to fill the gap. Maybe not at the same level but if every team/player is in the same boat we will still see great plays. It's all relative really. Drugs help them to run faster hit harder but football is football when it comes down to it. I think we'll still see great plays.

Having two young sons playing (13 and 11) I applaud this! I won't let them cheat and if the NFL passes this then it should flow back down thru College and hopefully High School. So there may be some hope for them yet

[bikie]

I'm for a completely PED-free league... part of watching professional athletics, for me at least, is admiring the ability of these guys and knowing how rare their talent is compared to any level I have or could have played at... I don't want to watch say a chris horton run around the field like a laron landry due to the junk he's willing to inject in his body... the sport becomes a spectacle at that point, for me...

[ChampSkinsFanatic]

Probably the first thing Goodell has ever said that I agree with. I'm all for it.

[MartinC]

I absolutely agree here.

But I think by doing this the NFL is opening the doors to a WORLD of controversy. And quite honestly, bad pub. It's not fair that making a good moral decision has that consequence, but it will.

I disagree with you here. Testing for drugs, blood doping etc happens as a routine event in all Olympic sports in and out of season. Its well established and very effective and raises almost zero controversy now. This testing along with meaningful penalties of several years to life bans mean that Olympic sport has made huge strides in taking drugs and blood doping out of the equation.

If the NFL is serious about taking drugs out if the sport they need to adopt the WDA testing standards and put real and serious bans in place. If the NFLPA is really wanting to look after the players they should also be in favour of such policies and penalties. This is not just about providing a level playing field competetively its about players long term health and mental wellbeing. Not just NFL players either, its about kids in High School and College chasing an NFL dream and taking drugs as a shortcut or just to keep up with all the other guys who are using so they can compete.

The NFL and NFLPA have a duty in my view to protect the health of players and if the Union are really opposed to this kind of testing you have to ask why.

[KDawg]

I disagree with you here. Testing for drugs, blood doping etc happens as a routine event in all Olympic sports in and out of season. Its well established and very effective and raises almost zero controversy now. This testing along with meaningful penalties of several years to life bans mean that Olympic sport has made huge strides in taking drugs and blood doping out of the equation.

Americans don't care about the Olympics as much as they care about football.

If the NFL is serious about taking drugs out if the sport they need to adopt the WDA testing standards and put real and serious bans in place. If the NFLPA is really wanting to look after the players they should also be in favour of such policies and penalties. This is not just about providing a level playing field competetively its about players long term health and mental wellbeing. Not just NFL players either, its about kids in High School and College chasing an NFL dream and taking drugs as a shortcut or just to keep up with all the other guys who are using so they can compete.

I said something about the high school kids earlier in the thread, I think in the OP. I agree that blood testing is a good thing for the most part. I just see it as a can of worms that can hurt the NFL as well. Doesn't mean I still wouldn't go with the moral and ethical decision of testing anyways, though.

The NFL and NFLPA have a duty in my view to protect the health of players and if the Union are really opposed to this kind of testing you have to ask why.

The common response is: "it's invasive."

And I say, so what? You're being paid millions of dollars to play a game. If it means you get a blood test once in awhile, so be it.

I'd bet the PA is against it for other reasons.

[boobiemiles]

We are a bunch of hypocrits aren't we? We live in society that endorses ogmentation, viagra, plastic surgery, even jeans that makes your butt look bigger. But sports always tries be the moral police for "the integrity of the game". Please, I wonder what's the ingredients in those 5 Hour energy drinks that helps some of us get through the day.