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 42
- Zack Wheeler goes six scoreless innings in MLB debut 15
- The San Jose lawsuit against Major League Baseball should be thrown out of court 43
- San Jose sues Major League Baseball, challenging its monopoly power 26
- Original Biogenesis source: “the people running Major League Baseball are the biggest scumbags on Earth” 41
- MLB hands down the suspensions for Tuesday night’s Dodgers-Diamondbacks melee (111)
- Neil deGrasse Tyson explains why beanball wars are stupid (104)
- Democrats beat the Republicans 22-0 in the Congressional Baseball Game (98)
- And That Happened: Wednesday’s scores and highlights (97)
- And That Happened: Thursday’s scores and highlights (88)
- Heat rally to beat Spurs in Game 6
- PBT: After blowing lead, can Spurs rebound in Game 7?
- PST: On-fire Altidore lifts USA over Honduras in WCQ
- CSN: Pats' Hernandez questioned in murder case
- Underseeded? Nadal draws No. 5 at Wimbledon
- CSN: Celtics-Clippers KG, Rivers trade talks dead
- HBT: Mets' Wheeler goes six scoreless in MLB debut