I agree. Look at how the Supreme Court has solved (or perhaps "rectified") the problem of political corruption - by legalizing it!

We don't know if HGH is an effective PED. There's no evidence that it is, but as far as I know there's also no evidence that it isn't. Rigorous studies in the appropriate populations haven't been done yet.

I think MLB could afford to sponsor a few studies. Let's start a publicity campaign.

Right now, nobody in MLB really has to do anything since there's no testing for HGH at all. I do not think legalization would lessen its use at all. Ballplayers who use such things aren't doing it because it's somehow glamorous. They do it to get that one more hit or one more strike out that might be the difference between being buried in the minors, making very little money, and being in the big leagues where they can count on $400K/yr even as a bench warmer. They do it to get that one more HR that might "earn" an all star turn, or to get back off the diabled list so as not to lose their spot in the rotation. Regardless, they won't be deterred by a lack of scientific evidence.

What about drugs even less harmful that are now not legal? What about international issues with doping laws regarding sports?

The only part of Bradbury's argument with which I disagree is (d). There's no way that legalization would disincentiveize use with players, because players are terrified that other players might have an edge that they don't. Look at the MLB rates of use for Lasik and Adderall, which are legal.

HGH is already virtually legal, in that it's undetectable under current MLB testing. You can only be caught if someone rats you out or your supplier gets pinched. I doubt that a literal legalization would change the number of users very much.

J.C. has been saying this for years, and I agree with him. If ballplayers want to kill themselves with a non-performance enhancing poison, let them. Speaking of Wade Boggs, he was known as a drinker. All those Budweisers surely didn't help his performance, and may damage his body. HGH should be the same.

Should we legalize pot while we're at it? C'mon....

Um, actually, yeah, I'd be all for the legalization of pot. And I say that having not smoked any for well over a decade, with no plans to do so again any time soon.

Catchpa: "rugby president."

This indeed is a slippery slope, making HGH legal will rationalize it's use by a lot of players. You will not be able to tell the players that it is ineffective as a performance enhancer they will almost certainly experiment with the drug and draw their own conclusions. How do you regulate the drugs use? Do you make the team responsible for the players health when they are using HGH? The players would almost assuredly need to be under the care of a doctor when using HGH, right? What is the possibility that players using HGH go on to use new designer steroids that are hard or impossible to detect without invasive testing?
I tend to agree with Rays fan and OldNo7 making HGH legal is not going to reduce the use by players as long as the players see the drug as a way to bolster their careers and move from the Minors to the Major Leagues. Legalizing this drug is no different than repealing prohibition it will simply move the drug use from the dark corners of the locker rooms and weight rooms into the mainstream of the everyday, and it may get some of the players to consult doctors on the drugs proper use (which would be a good thing), but thinking that the use of the drug is going to completely disappear is extreme optimism.

I'm all for these ideas but how can we expect a country that can't rationally discuss economic issues that are threatening our future have a rational discussion about something as relatively trivial as this?

PS - Having to type in two words at the bottom of a blog about baseball is really annoying. What purpose does it serve?

The two words at the bottom of the post ensures that those leaving comments are real people and not spam bots. Since we instituted it last week, spam comments have almost been completely eliminated. This has done away with what is a tremendous annoyance to me in that I read every comment that comes into this blog, and now I don't have to delete hundreds of spam comments a day. It has also done away with a potential danger to your computer in that the spam comments came with hyperlinked user names, some of which, when clicked, led users to websites full of malware, spyware and other nastiness.

So yes, the two words are a petty annoyance, but they are, regrettably, quite necessary. Suggestion: do what many readers have done and look for unintentionally hilarious word combinations such as the one on this comment. "fur sandwich."

Fair enough, Craig. Thanks for the explanation.

"abstain move"

1.3 billion per year is spent fighting marijuana use in the US. This is only Federal tax dollars, not state. Not sure what that is. If they were to flip the script and tax it, well we'd have a more efficient gov't god forbid. The tax revenue would be huge and the treatment of drug addicts could be improved with the money. Now onto another crime with no victims. Prostitution. Each of Americas biggest cities averaged 12 million per year fighting this IN 1985! God knows what Uncle sam dishes out today. I'm quite sure Freedom includes the right to legalize both mentioned, but tax and regulate it. Imagine our deficit shrinking considerably... I'm a libertarian if anyone hasn't noticed. I'm told I'm free and live in a free country. I want that. Not that I'd exercise those rights, but I like the option if I'm truly free.

If it doesn't hurt you (much), it should probably be legal (I mean, is HGH worse for you, or better for you, than alcohol?). As Bill James wrote a few months ago, this will all be much ado about nothing in a decade or two, when we are all using something like HGH to keep us smarter, younger, healthier, longer. Of course, those that think they know better than me about what is safe (on both sides of the aisle) will make this harder than it needs to be....

Lawrence, you have it backwards. It is incumbent to prove something has an effect, not that it has no effect (though typically, the answers are mutually exclusive and this is semantical argument. Just because you are unaware of decades of research, doesn't mean the work doesn't exist. There have been many dozens of studies evaluating the effects of HGH on otherwise healthy individuals (i.e., people who are not naturally HGH deficient) and there has been no detectable positive effect (or effects that could translate into performance enhancing) on people with normal HGH levels....you don't heal faster, you don't develop more muscle mass, you aren't faster or stronger....nothing (except poorer for wasting your money buy shady product). HGH has great benefits to people that are naturally deficient, but hasn't been shown to do anything positive for people that are healthy, which is why it has not been approved for things like healing after operations.

All I know is that Sylvester Stallone has a neck the size of a tree trunk at age 65.

And so the ongoing steroid apologist discussion comes to a head.

Legalizing HGH would turn baseball games into a Homerun Derby. Old Hallowed records will be broken, broken again and then become a joke. Games will take twice as long thanks to the HUGE increase in offense.

Small ball, defense and speed will completely disappear.

This is a TERRIBLE idea.

Evan, it may be a terrible idea because HGH can be dangerous when taken in high dosages by people who don't need it, but there is no solid evidence that has yet been adduced to show that it enhances athletic performance on its own (and no one is suggesting that steroids, with which HGH is often mixed, be legalized).

Your view on this seems to have been conditioned by a sporting press that has ignorantly and inaccurately portrayed HGH as some kind of miracle drug that turns mortals into supermen. It's simply not so, however.

One of Craig's ongoing mantras is to state as fact only what we know as fact, and to refrain from making sweeping generalizations that only distract from legitimate arguments.

Evan, you state that legalizing HGH WOULD do all these harmful things. You don't know this to be a fact. Craig's point is that there's no science that proves HGH in and of itself enhances performance. In almost every case where an athlete was shown to be using HGH, he was also using anabolic steroids.

Arguing that legalization would encourage the use of a potentially dangerous and mysterious substance, as others have done here, is a valid debate. Making absolute statements about speculation and mystery is not.

How about this; legalize it with the caveat that all usage is public knowledge. Create an HGH-register or something like that. Maybe players will be a little less likely to use it if they knew that everyone would be aware of their definitive use.

Craig and OldNo7,
.
No solid evidence? I point to exhibit A) Barry Bonds, Alex Rodriguez, Roger Clemens, Sammy Sosa, Miguel Tejada, David Ortiz, Manny Ramirez, Mark McGwire, Rafael Palmerio.
.
I point to exhibit B) Their stats, records and accolades compared to their peers.
.
Finally, I point to exhibit C) All or most of them used HGH.
.
The sporting press can say what they want. The numbers don't lie. If you don't think that HGH provides a benefit to major league players, you're living on another planet.
.
OldNo7. Who died and made you the Argument Police? So long as we're "speculating" about the concept of legalizing steroids, its VERY appropriate that I speculate about the potential effects of said legalization. My argument is completely legitimate. If baseball EVER explored the idea of legalizing HGH for use by its ballplayers, I'm 100% certain they would discuss the potential effect on the game starting as I have done.

Evan, all of those players were also linked to steroids as well. In some cases -- David Ortiz, A-Rod -- only steroids and not HGH. None of them have been linked to HGH alone, and the current medical understanding is that HGH alone -- without steroids -- is ineffective as an athletic performance enhancer.

And that's the subject we're talking about: HGH in isolation. If you want to deny that and continue on your current course, great, but know that you're making things up to match your personal beliefs, not dealing in the world of evidence.

Barry Bonds, Alex Rodriguez, Roger Clemens, Sammy Sosa, Miguel Tejada, David Ortiz, Manny Ramirez, Mark McGwire, Rafael Palmerio.

All of those players also presumably ate food during their playing years. Food and nutrition made them stronger. We should ban food!!! Save the records!!1!

The point is unless you know, using actual evidence, that HGH, on its own, increases performance, it is quite reasonable to consider legalizing it.

ROTFLMAO!

This has t be the most naive group I've ever seen. You know what, I'll tell the kids that drinking and drugs is unhealthy and not a good way to have fun, but that they can do as much as they can. That'll bring it to an end. Then I'll tell them that when they cheat on a test, they're only cheating themselves, and then put the class on the honor system. That'll take care of the cheating.

If they legalize HGH, every single player in BB and in the minors will be lining up. It must be April 1, right?

Given the choice between-

A-Believing Craig that HGH won't help,

or,

B-Looking at Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, etc and thinking that them shattering records every day might be related to HGH,

there will not be one single person out of the 750 in MLB right now that will not be using HGH.

I'm not saying that 749 players will use it. I'm saying all 750 will use it. You guys have an agenda. These guys live in the real world where their paycheck relies on their stats.

"The point is unless you know, using actual evidence, that HGH, on its own, increases performance, it is quite reasonable to consider legalizing it."

There is that pesky federal law prohibiting its use. BB can't legalize it without the feds legalizing it.

Except it's not about believing what I say. From Bradbury's article:

"Testifying before Congress in 2008, Thomas Perls, an HGH expert, said, "There is no credible scientific evidence that growth hormone substantively increases muscle strength or aerobic-exercise capacity in normal individuals." Perls didn't go rogue. He was reflecting the academic consensus that HGH offers little to no athletic benefits."

Again, all of the players you mentioned were also either confirmed or are suspected steroids users. If you have any information regarding the performance enhancing effects of HGH on athletes, you'd be the first to possess it.

Ok, so show me a study that concludes that HGH, by itself, increases athletic performance.

Might want to research how many prostitutes are physically abused by their pimps, held as sex slaves by their pimps, and forced by the pimps to take addicting drugs in order to make them more dependant. After that you might see that it's not a "crime with no victims"--it's one where the most visible "criminal" is in fact the victim.

"Testifying before Congress in 2008, Thomas Perls, an HGH expert, said, "There is no credible scientific evidence that growth hormone substantively increases muscle strength or aerobic-exercise capacity in normal individuals."

That won't make one scintilla of difference.

One player in 71 years hit hit more than 60 HRs. In a space of 4 years, it was done 6 times.

61 HRs was once the most storied records in the history of the world. Sosa averaged 61 over the course of 4 seasons.

Who do you think the players will believe? Do you think they'll believe the guy in Washington, or do you think they'll believe what they see with their own eyes?

Hi Craig,

Thanks for the link and your thoughts.

I think it be appropriate if the two words I had to type after this comment were "placebo effect."

I think I already addressed what players may believe in the post, and used that assumption to walk back the notion that legalization might be a good idea.

I'm more interested in what you believe. Your comments above indicate that you believe that HGH is super drug. Is that not the case?

Steroids, though not the only reason we saw an increase in HRs (see smaller parks, league expansion, contracts paying more for HRs than AVG, etc) are not the same as HGH. There is no evidence that shows that HGH increases athletic performance without the addition of steroids.
HGH is not the same as steroids.

Evan and JoeyB apparently do not realize that steroids and HGH are two entirely different types of hormones with completely different sets of effects. Thus, they aren't comprehending that saying HGH has not been shown to be an effective PED is NOT saying the same thing about steroids.

Also, to JoeyB, HGH is a covered drug in the Controlled Substances Act; it's only illegal to feds if the person using it doesn't have a prescription from a licensed medical provider. Plus, there's yet to be a MLB rule that says MLB has to punish anyone additively on top of whatever the courts do. MLB could very easily make a statement stating that HGH is being removed from its list of banned substances. For MLB, it would be "legalized" in that its use would not be cheating, regardless of whether the player obtained the drug legally via prescription or not.

"I'm more interested in what you believe. Your comments above indicate that you believe that HGH is super drug. Is that not the case?"

I do believe that to be the case. I firmly believe that the government should spend some serious coin, say the amount they wanted to spend on the bridge to nowhere in Alaska, investigating the costs and benefits associated with HGH. I've been taking vitamen supplements since I was a kid and beleive they have served me well.

Nor am I judgemental about their use. I will be the first to admit that I'd have taken them had I been a player. And I would still consider their use once I retire and get back to the gym.

But anyone that thinks all these guys woke up one day doubling their output either has an agenda, or is hopelessly naive, imho.

Craig, I read the mayoclinic website, wikipedia and webmd.
.
All 3 basically said the same thing:
.
- More research necessary.
.
- HGH increases muscle mass for healthy and non-healthy individuals
.
That doctor's testimony reflected the simple fact that it takes 210002x9843802938409328 years for the medical community to say anything with any substance. His "statement" is a "non-statement." It means nothing. In layman's terms, he's saying, "We don't know." Meanwhile, back on planet earth, we have already seen the effects of HGH in baseball.
.
The bottom line is this: If it didn't "work", players wouldn't use it. If the players who have been caught using it weren't mostly first round hall of famers (before they were caught), I wouldn't believe it worked. I'm not about to put this whole issue on hold until the medical community states what we already know.
.
Legalizing it is about as ignorant a position one can take. If people aren't 100% sure what something does, they don't feed it to their kids until the truth comes out. They ban it, make it prescription only and ultimately make it OTC if it is determined to be safe.
.
I'm sure glad you guys don't control the FDA. We'd all be dead in a week.

Rays fan,

I've come to the conclusion a long time ago that Craig is a big fan of one of the aforementioned steroid cheats. I'm not sure which one. He's upset that said cheat won't be voted into the Hall of Fame and is on a mission to clear the cheat's name by muddying the waters and implicating every baseball player (past and present) so that people throw their hands up and say, "ENOUGH!" Let everyone go into the Hall.
.
Seeing as Craig writes an almost daily article about steroid abuse in baseball, almost always siding with the abusers, his agenda is clear.
.
I won't let him do it. Not without a fight. Of course, the day Jeter becomes one of them is the day I throw my hands up and say, "ENOUGH" with baseball...

"Evan and JoeyB apparently do not realize that steroids and HGH are two entirely different types of hormones with completely different sets of effects. Thus, they aren't comprehending that saying HGH has not been shown to be an effective PED is NOT saying the same thing about steroids."

I think Rays fan apparently doesn't realize that I know the difference. The purpose of the article was that legalizing HGH would have the affect of discouraging its use. No one, I repeat, no one, will look at the results being attained by some of the players allegedly using HGH, and reach the conclusion that they won't take them.

100% of the players will take HGH the day it is legalized.

"The bottom line is this: If it didn't "work", players wouldn't use it. If the players who have been caught using it weren't mostly first round hall of famers (before they were caught), I wouldn't believe it worked."

These are the most basic of truths.

No one does anything serious 'just because'. Even at the bottom of the food chain, people like me investigate supplements before we take them because we don't want to take anything dangerous (which some are), and because we don't want to waste money. If players use HGH, they aren't doing so because they want an expensive and possibly dangerous drug that won't help them. I would hope this is fairly self-evident.

Does even one person in here take an expensive and possibly dangerous drug that won't help them? If not, why would athletes?

So which is it: are baseball players sheep that will do whatever the next guy is doing regardles of the evidence of its usefulness, or are they discerningly objective, so much so that they only do that which will help them? Can't be both, can it?

FWIW, baseball players are notorious for being superstitious creatures of habit. They believe in streaks. They believe in lucky socks. They believe that talking about a no hitter in progress jinxes it. They believe in curses and hexes and all manner of voodoo. Why, then, is not possible that they believe that HGH is useful simply because it is banned?

Okay, I re-read your first post and saw the "might" in there that I missed before and maybe should have left your name off my last post, my apologies. It was due to, as Craig mentioned, the names you listed being people associated primarily with steroids and not (necessarily) with HGH.

I completely agree with you that players will continue to take them, probably more so than they do now.

In fact, I will say that no amount of proof of inefficacy will keep some people from taking them and swearing by them.

"FWIW, baseball players are notorious for being superstitious creatures of habit. They believe in streaks. They believe in lucky socks. They believe that talking about a no hitter in progress jinxes it. They believe in curses and hexes and all manner of voodoo. Why, then, is not possible that they believe that HGH is useful simply because it is banned?"

You're making the mistake of beleiving that players are stupid, and even if they are, that their advisors are stupid. You are also making the mistake of believing that people can't be both superstitious and smart at the same time.

There are people out there with doctorates that will wear the same sweatshirt to every poker game. One has nothing to do with the other.

Here's what will happen, and it is not very difficult. Players will ask their doctors, their agents and their lawyers. All three will say that the evidence is inconclusive that it will help, and inconclusive that it will hurt. But knowing that they will be penalized if it helps others, and they don't take it, will lead them to the conclusion that they have to take it, just in case.

Now how do I know this? Because I would do the same thing. And so would you. If you were the #25 guy on the NYY, and everyone started using HGH because it was legalized, you'd use it as well.

I've asked others the same question, and every single one of them has said the same thing.

I sincerely hope you never feel forced to say "enough" to baseball--despite my handle, I like Derek Jeter too.

As for Craig's alleged agenda, please consider: You and I do not get to vote for who goes into the HoF, only 10-year+ members of the BBWAA do. If Craig wanted to shill for, say, Mark McGwire, constantly tweaking the noses of voters like Dan Shaughnessy or Jon Heyman is probably a pretty poor way to do it.

Instead, consider the possibility that he doesn't really care who is or isn't in the HoF but loves to comment on other writers' PED articles (as all these posts are commentaries on others' published work) because it's always good for 40 or more comments from readers like us--(1) keeping him employed, and (2) letting him have some fun along the way.

"In fact, I will say that no amount of proof of inefficacy will keep some people from taking them and swearing by them."

And with that, my work here is done. I'm not arguing for or against the use of HGH. I think there could be a role for it, and that it is legalized under certain circumstances. And I believe that players use it because it works. I've seen plenty of studies arguing that vitamens work and just as many that they don't work. The idea that a single doctor or study says there is no positive evidence is mostly meaningless.

But none of that matters. Why do people play Bach to their pre-natal babies? Maybe it helps and maybe it doesn't, so why not? Maybe the couple of hundred I spend each year on vitamens results in nothing more than expensive urine. But I will continue to take them so long as I believe that the benefits exceed the costs.

The players will do the same. If they don't take them, the risk of them being wrong is millions. If they are right, their reward is likely measured in the thousands. Virtually everyone will take them.

And the reverse psychology thing? It's nuts. If I told the kids at my local school that they could have unlimited ice cream, hoping they would no longer like, they'd loot the local Carvel.

Might want to research how many prostitutes are physically abused by their pimps, held as sex slaves by their pimps, and forced by the pimps to take addicting drugs in order to make them more dependant. After that you might see that it's not a "crime with no victims"--it's one where the most visible "criminal" is in fact the victim.

Wow, if it were legal, there would be no such things as Pimps, there would be brothels. There would be standard testing of Brothel prostitutes for STD's. There would be no market for street pimps anymore therefore none of the above mention atrocities would take place. The reason for all you mentioned above is due to it not being legal. Legalize, tax, and regulate the industry instead of blowing billions fighting it. It will never go away.

I think that if this drug was to be taken off the banned substances list in baseball or any other sport you would most certainly see the use of said drug rise among the players. Now that being said the players that have admitted the use of HGH have said that they used it to recover from injury. If these players believe in their mind that the HGH is responsible for their healing or enhancing their recovery time or simply making them feel better during the long season is that not to be considered PERFORMANCE ENHANCING. Lets face it not all of the drugs used by these players results is increased muscle mass or an increase of speed or vision acuity. If taking HGH makes these players simply feel stronger or more well rested and the results are that they hit more homeruns or pitch more innings or record more stolen bases then the drug has enhanced their performance. There is a clear cut difference between HGH and steroids whether you want to admit it or not but if your using these substances your mind is telling that you are benefiting from their use.

Evan in Hartford - I have no idea how you can draw conclusions about HGH when no one else has and there seems to be no studies stating the facts on either side of the evidentiary scale. If you watch your television for a very short time you will notice that the FDA has given their stamp of approval to some drugs past and present that the side effects and long term effects of their use is absolutely frightening. So to say the people discussing this topic running the FDA would be even worse is an assumption which I believe to be false. I think the folks who post here could probably do no worse than the idiots who are currently running the FDA.

More testing to determine the full effects of HGH are needed to make an accurate law or non law on this subject. Plain and simple. We don't know enough about it and that's the only thing clear about this topic.

You say this: Does even one person in here take an expensive and possibly dangerous drug that won't help them? If not, why would athletes?

And you say this: 100% of the players will take HGH the day it is legalized
And you say this:Players will ask their doctors, their agents and their lawyers. All three will say that the evidence is inconclusive that it will help, and inconclusive that it will hurt.

And you say this: will lead them to the conclusion that they have to take it, just in case. ... Now how do I know this? Because I would do the same thing.

Are you fighting just to fight? Or are you so confused by the issue that you can't keep your arguments straight in your head?

This Bradbury guy is an idiot obviously he doesnt no anyone before they took HGH and after they took HGH.

It makes you HUGE. It adds more muscle and strength then most steroids. He can say there is no proof that its a PED but that doesnt mean its not. All it means is they cant prove it is. On my football team in high school alot of steroids were used probably a 3rd of the team used them plus countless other kids in the school not on the football team just using it to get bigger. The ones that used HGH grew the quickest and got the biggest. Also unlike steroids the growth you get from hgh stays for the most part. You might only retain 25% of the muscle you gain from steroids after you stop taking it but with HGH the numbers are more like 75%.

HGH is the risky of all these PED's to use. Because its not like steroids that for the most part only effect your muscles HGH can make everything grow from your bones to your organs. HGH is what your body makes in your pituitary glands when your growing up that makes your entire body grown. Once you reach a certain age its stops. What HGH does is it restarts the process. Which can lead to over sized hearts and livers that can kill you.

Bradbury is just talking about something he knows nothing about. HGH is highly effective and highly dangerous it should not be legalized because of that.

http://www.isteroids.com/steroids/Steroid%20Effectiveness%20Chart.html

Go to this link it will show you which steriods are the most effective in weight and strength gain, fat loss, which have the worst side effects, and which ones keep the most gains after you stop taking them.It breaks down how to use them in cycles and which ones are the best to use together. Ask anyone you know that has taken steriods and they will tell you everything on this website is true.

Trust me this chart has been proven by people who have used multiple cycles of steriods. On the list you will see that HGH is the strongest out of all the major steriods for weight and strength gain and for keeping the gains after you stop use.

Athletes and body builders know this even if writers dont.

http://www.isteroids.com/steroids/Steroid%20Effectiveness%20Chart.html

Go to this link it will show you which steriods are the most effective in weight and strength gain, fat loss, which have the worst side effects, and which ones keep the most gains after you stop taking them.It breaks down how to use them in cycles and which ones are the best to use together. Ask anyone you know that has taken steriods and they will tell you everything on this website is true.

Trust me this chart has been proven by people who have used multiple cycles of steriods. On the list you will see that HGH is the strongest out of all the major steriods for weight and strength gain and for keeping the gains after you stop use.

Athletes and body builders know this even if writers dont.

"Are you fighting just to fight? Or are you so confused by the issue that you can't keep your arguments straight in your head?"

I'm explaining the logic steps that most people would follow.

Unless the player can be shown real downside risk, they will take HGH. Even if they are not sure of its efficacy, they will take it just in case it does help the player next to them.

Examine it from the negative perspective. If you thought it might help, and there was no downside risk, why wouldn't you take it?

The abuses I mentioned all happen in brothels in developed countries in western Europe and Asia where prostitution is legal.

Well, actually prostitution isn't a victimless crime, there are a lot of underage girls that are taken advantage of by the underworld of prostitution. However, I would think that legalizing it would allow for regulation and age verification. I'm all for legalizing prostitution and marijuana, by the way.