In today's NY Daily News, it is reported that the World Anti-Doping Agency is encouraging Major League Baseball to take a stand and start testing for use of HGH (Human Growth Hormone), something the MLB players union has not been in favor of. Yea, what a surprise!The article World Anti-Doping Agency calls on Major League Baseball to implement HGH testing by Christian Red and Nathaniel Vinton delves into the idea that the players union feels it "inappropriate" for blood testing to be done. They are much more inclined to approve a urine test but seem to be opposed to a blood test for this or any other performance-enhancing drugs (PED).
United States Anti-Doping Agency chief Travis Tygart stated that "There are at least four potent performance-enhancing drugs that are not detected in urine," (HGH is included as one of these four), "It is simply false to say that urine can detect everything that you would be concerned about. It can't."
Ok, can someone shed some light on any of this? I mean if baseball wants to demonstrate its honest and sincere efforts to "clean up the game," then why would they oppose such a test?
Additionally, the MLB, even though it seems to catch the brunt of thrashing from the media, is certainly not the only elite level sports venue where HGH (or any other PED) is being used. Anyone who believes that is either very naïve or has been living under a rock for many years.
So with that in mind, is there any logical reason that elite and professional athletes, their unions, and/or organizations would oppose blood tests that could prove complete innocence above all else?
That is, any reason other than $$$$$$$.
