MMQB: A First Step Toward HGH Testing—in the Wrong Direction

[MattFancy]

http://mmqb.si.com/2013/07/24/hgh-test/

 

After two years of relative stalemate, the NFL and the Players’ Association have agreed in principle to collaborate on a study that would remove one of the major hurdles to HGH testing. On Monday an e-mail from the union advised players to prepare to give blood samples during training camp as part of an NFL “population study.”

 

The point of a population study is to characterize normal growth hormone levels in a particular group—in this case, NFL players—so that biostatisticians can set a cutoff or “decision limit,” essentially, a goal line on one side of which a test is positive, and on the other negative.

 

The World Anti-Doping Agency has already conducted such studies of athletes and used them to set decision limits in Olympic sports. (The WADA guidelines are also used by Major League Baseball.) But during the NFL’s two-year-long impasse over HGH testing, which was agreed to in principle in the 2011 CBA, the union was adamant that NFL players are a unique population, potentially with special growth hormone profiles, and thus deserve a separate study to determine their decision limits. Says Domonique Foxworth, president of the NFLPA, “Just assuming that we can follow guidelines about someone’s body that were set up with a population study on non-football players, I think, is somewhat problematic.”

 

Now, if this was MLB, there would be all kinds of talk about this and how the players are looking for a way out. But because it's the NFL, people are just sort of looking the other way. Why such a double standard for the 2 sports?

[DCSaints_fan]

They should just test Shaq and that should be the upper limit.

[Larry]

So, the plan is to test a bunch of people, who, we assume, some of whom are using. And to take the results, and label them as "average"?

[MattFancy]

So, the plan is to test a bunch of people, who, we assume, some of whom are using. And to take the results, and label them as "average"?

 

Right. Seems a bit fishy to me. Like the article said, essentially all the players could take HGH before the test and rig the results.

[DCsportsfan53]

My first question would be, if administered properly, what are the long term health risks of HGH?  Also, it's allegedly a huge aid in recovering from injury, are there health risks with it being administered as an injury recovery aid for limited periods of time?  I'm all for limiting of and fighting PEDs but these guys are given a crap ton of legal drugs, including addictive pain killers, and I don't seem to recall hearing all the horror stories like with steroids in relation to HGH so I wonder if the focus should be on understanding its proper uses/risks and regulating it as opposed to simply banning it.  Particularly when you're talking about the possibility of cutting recovery times from injury in half and possibly even increasing the likliehood of fuller recoveries, is simply banning it without thought because it can be used to enhance performance the right way to go?  One of the main reasons steroids are banned is the long term destructive effects they have on the body and the mind.  if HGH can be used effectively without those risks (and I have no idea if that's the case, admittedly) I think it should be investigated, particularly from an injury recovery perspective. 

[MattFancy]

Well here's a interesting question I have, couldn't cortisone shots be a PED? 

[DCsportsfan53]

Well here's a interesting question I have, couldn't cortisone shots be a PED? 

And that's my point.  There are tons of drugs already used that can enhance performance in one way or another and, when it comes to HGH, the only things I ever hear being discussed are how to ban/test for it.  I've never heard or seen a single discussion in the media about why it should be banned or what negative effects on the body it could have.  Even in a quick google search about its dangers most articles I find talk about the risks associated with improper needle use, contaminated drugs and severely overdosing.  Those are reasons to regulate and oversee its use, not reasons to ban it.  What's the reason for it to be banned, especially considering the potential recovery benefits?