Upshaw's Opposition to Blood Testing for HGH

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Could someone please explain to me how Gene Upshaw can, with a straight face, oppose the blood testing of players for human growth hormone (HGH)? My understanding is that Upshaw and the NFLPA assert that the tests are unreliable and should not be used until they become more reliable. News outlets, however, are reporting that such tests are fairly reliable and other sports organizations use them.

I would be most grateful if anyone could shed some light on the issue. I am particularly interested in learning how reliable such tests are and if Upshaw has any other objections.

[BrudLee]

Devil's advocate style?

Testing a player's blood, unlike urine, is an invasive procedure. On strictly legal grounds, that's the only opposition he needs. To the best of my knowledge, there are no invasive tests performed on NFL players.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by BrudLee

Devil's advocate style?

Testing a player's blood, unlike urine, is an invasive procedure. On strictly legal grounds, that's the only opposition he needs. To the best of my knowledge, there are no invasive tests performed on NFL players.

Hmm, I never thought of it like that. I think I'm with Upshaw on this one especially if you're getting a needle stuck in you 2 or more times a year.

Find a better way to test for it I say.

[Daseal]

Find a reliable test, and even if it's blood I bet the NFLPA goes along with it. Their biggest concern probably comes with false positives.

[saskin]

He opposes it cause he knows whats going to happen.

[backrow]

Originally Posted by BrudLee

Testing a player's blood, unlike urine, is an invasive procedure. On strictly legal grounds, that's the only opposition he needs. To the best of my knowledge, there are no invasive tests performed on NFL players.

Thanks BrudLee! You are right in line with the local Sportstalk host in Hampton Roads. With a straight face (made for radio, I might add!) he claims our Executive Branch (President), Legislative Branch (Congress and Senate), and Judicial Branch (Courts), are not tested for Drugs, so why should players be submitted for any such since our top politicos are not?

And he thinks the same politicians are after B. Bonds, soon to be Baseball's home run king.

[The Huddle]

Originally Posted by BrudLee

Devil's advocate style?

Testing a player's blood, unlike urine, is an invasive procedure. On strictly legal grounds, that's the only opposition he needs. To the best of my knowledge, there are no invasive tests performed on NFL players.

I have no idea what I'm talking about as I have no legal training, but on the surface that sounds pretty flimsy to me. We're not talking about strapping guys down to a table here. No one's getting hauled off to jail. You don't want to submit to the procedure? Fine. Try the CFL.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by Daseal

Find a reliable test, and even if it's blood I bet the NFLPA goes along with it. Their biggest concern probably comes with false positives.

I hear Upshaw's claim that the tests are unreliable. The problem is that I hear that the tests are reliable from others. I could be wrong, but I seem to recall hearing that the Olympics uses such tests.

As for the invasiveness of the procedure, I understand that gripe, but these are football players. If they can't take needles they are probably in the wrong business (think how many IVs they need for fluids or needles they need for meds).

[Daseal]

I agree that the invasiveness thing is far too flimsy to hold up for long, and I do believe the Olympics took a lot of flack using fairly unproven tests to determine if athletes were using HGH, et.

[mike340]

If anybody would like to see a sport having a disastrous time with doping issues look at cycling. Landis's tests look like they were shoddy work by a French lab out to get Zidane off the front pages worldwide. (The same one, by the way, that kept on trying and failing to get Armstrong.) In the meantime Dick Pound (world Wada chief) is being an idiot and an asshole, declaring that riders are guilty who have never failed a test and some who have never been under suspicion. One of the favorites this year in the Tour de France was not allowed to race because quite a lot of his teammates were under "suspicion" in relation to "Operacion Puerto" (a drug sting in Spain), but in the end his teammates were exonerated. In a great tragedy, the Spanish police are not giving out information, leaving those riders who might "possibly" be implicated unable to ride due to the code of ethics of cycling. (If you are suspected then you cannot ride!)

As far as that community goes, HGH testing is standard, and there don't seem to be too many questions about it except if the lab was sloppy. (It did a horrible job in Landis's drug case.)

It would be kind of ironic if cyclists regularly get blood tests and football players are too afraid of needles to get a blood draw.

[offiss]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

Could someone please explain to me how Gene Upshaw can, with a straight face, oppose the blood testing of players for human growth hormone (HGH)? My understanding is that Upshaw and the NFLPA assert that the tests are unreliable and should not be used until they become more reliable. News outlets, however, are reporting that such tests are fairly reliable and other sports organizations use them.

I would be most grateful if anyone could shed some light on the issue. I am particularly interested in learning how reliable such tests are and if Upshaw has any other objections.

It's this simple the NFL is very aware of just how bad the HGH issue is amoungst it's players and want's nothing to do with getting rid of it, so every once in a while they have a sacrificial lamb to throw to the wolves to say hey we are tough on performance enhancing drugs, when all the while these drug's continue to produce more and more stars for them to promote, as well as a faster more physical game to excite the fans. The NFL want's to find out who is on performance enhancing drug's, like a fish that want's to find dry land.

[JGisLordOfTheRings]

Originally Posted by offiss

It's this simple the NFL is very aware of just how bad the HGH issue is amoungst it's players and want's nothing to do with getting rid of it, so every once in a while they have a sacrificial lamb to throw to the wolves to say hey we are tough on performance enhancing drugs, when all the while these drug's continue to produce more and more stars for them to promote, as well as a faster more physical game to excite the fans. The NFL want's to find out who is on performance enhancing drug's, like a fish that want's to find dry land.

Excellent...thats how I feel. Publicly, they hate 'em. But behind closed doors, who knows! THEY MAY PROMOTE THEM!