Feb 25, 2010, 7:57 AM EDT
The entire statement can be read here. The relevant part in my mind:
This week, a British rugby player was suspended as a result of a
reported positive blood test for HGH. This development warrants
investigation and scrutiny; we already have conferred with our experts
on this matter, and with the Commissioner’s Office, and we immediately
began gathering additional information. However, a report of a single
uncontested positive does not scientifically validate a drug test. As
press reports have suggested, there remains substantial debate in the
testing community about the scientific validity of blood testing for
HGH. And, as we understand it, even those who vouch for the
scientific validity of this test acknowledge that it can detect use
only 18-36 hours prior to collection.
Putting these important issues aside, inherent in blood testing of
athletes are concerns of health, safety, fairness and competition not
associated with urine testing. We have conferred initially with the
Commissioner’s Office about this reported positive test, as we do
regarding any development in this area. We look forward to continuing
to jointly explore all questions associated with this testing — its
scientific validity, its effectiveness in deterring use, its
availability and the significant complications associated with blood
testing, among others.
This pretty much tracks my thinking from yesterday. Jumping in with both feet now, based on the rugby player’s test would be an exercise in PR, not a reasoned implementation of expanded PED testing.
To the extent there’s a line in the sand here, it’s that the union seems unwilling to accept blood testing of any kind, instead wanting to wait for a urine test. I know that no urine test exists for HGH. The key question here is whether that’s the case simply because one hasn’t been developed yet or if there is some physiological reason why there can never be a urine test (Rays Fan — any insight here?).
Either way, I expect someone to spin the blood/urine test as the union being intransigent. To those who do, I ask whether or not their employer tests their blood on a routine basis, and if not, how they would feel about it if they suddenly began to do so.
- And That Happened: Tuesday’s scores and highlights 21
- Dodgers announce Vin Scully will return for 2015 season 43
- Jon Lester scratched Wednesday amid trade speculation 30
- Rays are “talking and willing” to trade ace lefty David Price; Cardinals and Dodgers interested 35
- Phillies wanted Joc Pederson, Corey Seager, and Julio Urias from Dodgers for Cole Hamels 83
- Matt Cain is going to pay a visit to Dr. Andrews 7
- The Nationals and Orioles dispute over TV money is about to explode 88
- The Red Sox are expected to deal Jon Lester and the Pirates are a “dark horse” 36
- Expert’s Corner: How to troll fans of all 30 teams (201)
- “Caucasians” t-shirts are hot sellers on Canadian Indian reservations (190)
- Verducci: baseball should think about an “illegal defense” rule to combat shifts (165)
- Must-click link: sexual depravity — and possibly rape — in the minor leagues (103)
- Ray Rice is awful, but let’s not pretend baseball has a great record on domestic violence (91)