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.
- Drooling over Miguel Sano’s incredible numbers through 50 career games 18
- Matt Williams puts up another strong performance in his quest to get himself fired 100
- Settling the Scores: Tuesday’s results 73
- Yankees reveal Mark Teixeira’s shin injury is “more than we thought” 16
- There’s a chicken pox outbreak in the Royals’ clubhouse and multiple players are infected 27
- Shoeless Joe Jackson is not being reinstated 67
- And That Happened: Monday’s scores and highlights 66
- Cubs acquire Austin Jackson from Mariners 22
- Sarah Palin sticks up for Curt Schilling, tells ESPN to “stick to sports” (266)
- Dan Patrick: When does ESPN cut ties with Curt Schilling? (202)
- Curt Schilling taken off of ESPN’s Sunday Night Baseball telecast this week (134)
- Matt Williams puts up another strong performance in his quest to get himself fired (100)
- Joe Girardi would like Carlos Gomez to “play the game right” (97)