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.
- Major League Baseball needs to shift the All-Star week schedule 11
- Futures Game lineups: Team USA vs. Team World 6
- Braves suspend Dan Uggla one game for being extremely tardy on Saturday in Chicago 22
- Cliff Lee on track to return to Phillies’ rotation July 21 3
- MRI shows biceps strain, no structural damage, for Nationals starter Jordan Zimmermann 2
- Settling the Score: Saturday’s results 22
- Reds hope to get Joey Votto back for the “stretch run” 8
- Jean Segura leaves Brewers following the death of his nine-month-old son 47
- Shocker: the Red Sox publicly criticize A.J. Pierzynski after cutting him (192)
- John Lackey on Nelson Cruz: “Not even going to comment … I’ve got nothing to say about him” (143)
- Masahiro Tanaka diagnosed with partially-torn UCL in elbow (114)
- The 2014 All-Star rosters have been announced (103)
- Giants broadcaster says Angel Hernandez “does not belong in the big leagues” (102)