Feb 24, 2010, 7:56 AM EDT
One day after I pondered whether baseball would react in an ignorant, knee-jerk fashion to that positive HGH test by that British rugby player, the New York Times reports that baseball plans react in an ignorant, knee-jerk fashion to that positive HGH test by that British rugby player:
Major League Baseball, which had long been skeptical about a viable
test for human growth hormone, now plans to implement blood testing for
the substance in the minor leagues later this year, according to an
official in baseball with direct knowledge of the matter . . .
. . . The decision to move ahead with blood testing comes one day after a British rugby player was suspended for testing positive for H.G.H. It was the first time
that an athlete had been publicly identified for testing positive for
the substance and was seen as overdue proof that the blood test, which
has been in limited use for six years, actually works. In a statement in response to questions from The New York Times, Major
League Baseball said it was “well aware of the important news with
respect to” the positive drug test of the British athlete.
As the professor quoted at the end of the article notes, this test has been around for several years, and they’ve caught one dude with it. Does that not suggest to baseball — and anyone else with half a brain — that the test is prone to giving false negatives? I mean, it’s not like it’s reasonable to think that one random British prop is the only guy on the stuff. But hey, if the Daily News is pumping up a single positive, why shouldn’t Major League Baseball and everyone else go all-in? Sheesh.
But hey, every other thing baseball has done with respect to PED testing has been PR, as opposed to science-driven, so why change now?
(thanks to reader Jeffrey S. for the heads up)