What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

NFL Demands HGH Testing (1 Viewer)

David Yudkin

Footballguy
LINK

NFL wants players tested for HGH

Alex Marvez FOX Sports

Mar 24, 2011 7:12 PM ET

Human growth hormone testing is coming for all NFL players if the league has its way in labor negotiations.

NFL vice president and general counsel Adolpho Birch told FOXSports.com on Thursday that the league is insistent upon HGH testing when a new collective bargaining agreement is reached with the NFL Players Association.

"We want it. We think it's necessary. We're going to ensure that it's done," said Birch, who oversees the NFL's drug-testing program. "That's something very important to us and the integrity of our game. We believe some of the basis for going slowly on it before has been addressed. At this point, it's proper for it to be an active part of our program."

Birch said the NFL had discussed the matter with NFLPA representatives before labor talks ended March 11 and a work stoppage began. An NFLPA source told FOXSports.com that an agreement for HGH testing "would have to be part of settlement discussions with the class," referring to the attorneys representing 10 NFL players in an antitrust lawsuit against the league. The NFLPA decertified as a union before the previous CBA expired in anticipation of an NFL lockout.

Testing for HGH — a performance-enhancing substance barred but not tested for in the NFL's previous drug-testing program — could become a contentious subject among NFLPA members. It also could become a bargaining chip for the NFL in CBA negotiations.

An aversion to blood testing, including the fear of needles, is one of the main reasons former NFLPA executive director Gene Upshaw resisted HGH testing for his constituents. There currently is no reliable HGH urine test although medical and scientific research is being done to create one.

Before his death in 2008, Upshaw had said, "Until a test is developed for HGH, there’s really not an awful lot to talk about. When that test is developed, we really believe it should be a urine test. No one is interested in a blood test. We've got a lot of big tough guys, but even they don’t like to be pricked on the finger to give blood.”

HGH testing at the Olympic Games began in summer 2004. But with no athletes having tested positive during Olympic competition, the program's effectiveness has come into question.

Major League Baseball implemented HGH testing in its minor leagues last July but not at the major league level. The NBA and NHL don't test for HGH.

A failed test under the NFL's performance-enhancing substance policy brings a mandatory four-game suspension.

Initially marketed for medicinal purposes like aiding children diagnosed with dwarfism, HGH began finding its way into mainstream athletics in the 1990s. Among its possible benefits are quicker recovery from injuries, increased muscle mass and loss of body fat. Potential side effects include abnormal growth of body parts like hands and feet, loss of stamina and higher likelihood for diabetes.

During a 2009 interview with Tampa radio station WQYK-AM, Tampa Bay Buccaneers running back Earnest Graham said he believed about 30 percent of all NFL players use HGH.

"I’d say a lot of NFL players are doing it," Graham said. "Any sport (where) guys come across injuries and need to get back fast and come back stronger than they were before, I wouldn’t be shocked."

The NFL formally requested the implementation of HGH testing from the NFLPA in January 2010. The NFLPA, now under the leadership of DeMaurice Smith, declined the request because it believed the issue should be part of CBA negotiations.

"The NFLPA along with the NFL has supported research to find a suitable test that will detect sustained HGH use," the NFLPA said in a February 2010 statement. "We have and will continue to work with the NFL to build a system that is fair, reliable and maintains the integrity of our game and the health and safety of our players.

"In 2007 the NFLPA agreed to strengthen its steroid policy to discipline players if they are found through sufficient credible evidence to have used, possessed or distributed performance-enhancing substances of any kind. We believe in and collectively bargained for a system that supports the testing of all banned substances. We look forward to discussing the NFL’s proposed blood-testing program in our next CBA meeting."

Disagreements over the invasive nature of Olympic-style drug testing and its effectiveness have generated controversy in other sports.

The first positive HGH test of a professional athlete came in February 2010. British rugby player Terry Newton, who admitted HGH use in his autobiography, committed suicide seven months after being suspended.

Matt Socholotiuk, a running back for the University of Waterloo in Ontario, became the first North American athlete to register a positive HGH test last September.

In professional boxing, the proposed mega-bout between Manny Pacquaio and Floyd Mayweather Jr. has been derailed over the former's failure to submit to random and strict drug-testing standards beyond what is already required by the sport's sanctioning body in Nevada. Pacquaio's trainer, Freddie Roach, has said his fighter is willing to comply with the request. But Roach also says he will respect Pacquiao's reluctance to have his blood drawn 48 hours before a proposed fight for HGH testing.

The NFL is barred from testing its players for performance-enhancing or recreational drugs during a lockout. Birch estimates that roughly 6,500 tests are randomly administered during the offseason. Birch, though, said any player who is caught using illegal drugs or arrested for such will assuredly be subject to punishment under the league's personal conduct policy once a new CBA is agreed upon.

"The laws still apply to steroids and things like that," Birch said. "Those issues will be addressed. We've been very clear about that with the commissioner's obligation and authority to handle matters dealing with these things that have an effect on the best interest of our game and conduct detrimental to our game.

"There can be no serious discussion that that type of behavior doesn't have a negative impact on our game. It's going to matter to the fans, it's going to matter to us and the commissioner is going to have to take action. He's said that and will continue to say that."

HGH testing isn't the only proposed change being made to the NFL's policies. During its last CBA offer to the NFLPA, the league agreed to a "jointly-appointed neutral arbitrator" to hear all appeals from failed tests. Some NFL players — notably Minnesota defensive tackles Pat Williams and Kevin Williams and former Denver running back Travis Henry — have filed lawsuits to protest their failed tests and subsequent suspensions.

"We've maintained that the arbitrators used and designated are independent people who express independent thoughts and are not stooges of the commissioner," Birch said. "Listen — I think there is something to be said for having people hear these cases who are intimately familiar with the business of football, the history of our game, and are steeped in the views of the integrity of our game and its importance. If it's somebody that's not, that will probably bring another set of plusses and minuses.

"We did in the (CBA) proposal agree to a system of third-party arbitrators for drug and steroid appeals. If that's something that ends up being the case, we'd be OK and go forward."

 
I think this is one of those things the owners add now and conveniently drop in the negotiation. I doubt either side wants this added. But it's a smart PR move for the owners to take now.

 
I think this is one of those things the owners add now and conveniently drop in the negotiation. I doubt either side wants this added. But it's a smart PR move for the owners to take now.
:goodposting: I was thinking the same thing, sounds good, but do they really care about anything but a good product on the field when you boil it right down?
 
I think this is one of those things the owners add now and conveniently drop in the negotiation. I doubt either side wants this added. But it's a smart PR move for the owners to take now.
Yes. It will be the first thing they "give back" during negotiations.
 
I think this is one of those things the owners add now and conveniently drop in the negotiation. I doubt either side wants this added. But it's a smart PR move for the owners to take now.
That was my first thought. Testing fot hgh is expensive(much more expensive than steroids). Why would the NFL want to pay to have an inferior product on the field?
 
I would agree that this will probably be dropped in negotiations, but I really believe at the core of a lot of the "safety" issues by the league the last few years is a major fear of lawsuits. The direction that lawsuits about working conditions causing health problems in later life have become easier to win (for the plaintiff) and much more expensive. Even if the worker new their profession carried inherent risks. See the emphasis on concussions currently. Someone that cannot function or remember how to get home, etc 10 years after they are out of the league would certainly pull at the hearts and minds of a jury.

One of the main causes of the injuries currently is due to the fact that players are approx 20% heavier and yet much faster than their counter parts from the past. Butkus I believe would have to be a free safety in the current NFL if he weighed the same as his playing days. I do think there are those that feel if they can get HGH out of the league, the mass of the average players will drop which significantly which will reduce the force of impacts, thus limiting injuries.

 
I disagree that it is a smart issue to bring up. Doesn't the mentioning of it (with intent or not) indicate that there is an issue? To me it is a power move to attempt to threaten the players and gain some sense of control.

 
'David Dodds said:
I think this is one of those things the owners add now and conveniently drop in the negotiation. I doubt either side wants this added. But it's a smart PR move for the owners to take now.
I've never understood why it's the owners who want testing and the players who resist it. It should be the other way around.If the players are all on 'roids, the game is more impressive. It should shift the demand curve to the right, increasing ticket prices and TV ratings. The owners should want all the players to juice.The players, meanwhile, may not want to risk their long-term health. If I'm a player, I might prefer to lay off the chemicals — but if everybody else is doing them, then I have to as well. So what I'd really want is a good testing program that keeps everybody else from doing them.Everyone has it backwards, IMO.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'Ksquared said:
I would agree that this will probably be dropped in negotiations, but I really believe at the core of a lot of the "safety" issues by the league the last few years is a major fear of lawsuits. The direction that lawsuits about working conditions causing health problems in later life have become easier to win (for the plaintiff) and much more expensive. Even if the worker new their profession carried inherent risks. See the emphasis on concussions currently. Someone that cannot function or remember how to get home, etc 10 years after they are out of the league would certainly pull at the hearts and minds of a jury.

One of the main causes of the injuries currently is due to the fact that players are approx 20% heavier and yet much faster than their counter parts from the past. Butkus I believe would have to be a free safety in the current NFL if he weighed the same as his playing days. I do think there are those that feel if they can get HGH out of the league, the mass of the average players will drop which significantly which will reduce the force of impacts, thus limiting injuries.
Not anybody who knows what they are talking about. A person taking HGH alone doesnt really gain much weight, if any....maybe even the opposite.

 
A person taking HGH alone doesnt really gain much weight, if any....maybe even the opposite.
I almost mentioned this, but didn't want to rehash it all once again. That's why I just said our American policy is ludicrous, and the facts be damned. And add to the fact that HGH can dramatically help the body recover from injuries, which is a good thing when discussing the context of player health.
 
A person taking HGH alone doesnt really gain much weight, if any....maybe even the opposite.
I almost mentioned this, but didn't want to rehash it all once again. That's why I just said our American policy is ludicrous, and the facts be damned.

And add to the fact that HGH can dramatically help the body recover from injuries, which is a good thing when discussing the context of player health.
I was going to let it go too, but after a couple of people talked about weight gain i thought would make a quick mention.

As for the bolded, i agree 100%,

 
Never going to happen. Owners are using this as a future bargaining chip to use as a concession. Quite frankly, the NFL is littered with doped up cartoonish players that beat the crap out of eachother for my enjoyment. I seriously doubt I would even want to watch the NFL if they weren't on HGH.

 
Never going to happen. Owners are using this as a future bargaining chip to use as a concession. Quite frankly, the NFL is littered with doped up cartoonish players that beat the crap out of eachother for my enjoyment. I seriously doubt I would even want to watch the NFL if they weren't on HGH.
B.S.
 
'David Dodds said:
I think this is one of those things the owners add now and conveniently drop in the negotiation. I doubt either side wants this added. But it's a smart PR move for the owners to take now.
This is what I thought when I first heard this.
 
Drug-test grandstanding simply NFL's latest PR play

By Ray Ratto

CBSSports.com Columnist

March 25, 2011Tell Ray your opinion!

The National Football League, whatever that is, announced Thursday that it would insist that the artists formerly known as The League's Players would be made to submit to testing for human growth hormone.

I mean, since they're not talking anyway, they may as well start not talking about the big stuff, right?

In fact, when vice president and general counsel Adolpho Birch told Alex Marvez of FoxSports, and we quote, "We want it. We think it's necessary. We're going to ensure that it's done," he sounded exactly like someone who knew it was safe to do a little free-range grandstanding.

And as soon as he said it, you know the union said to itself, "Who cares what you want, and you can't ensure that anything gets done. Now we have one more thing to fight about. Yummy."

See, HGH testing is actually one of those things both the league and the players should want, and in the current climate between the two, ultimatums are the worst possible way to achieve such an end.

And besides, anyone who has paid any attention to labor negotiations in sports knows that the first items off the table when things get serious are the nonfinancial ones. It's how Major League Baseball could always say it brought up steroids in negotiations with the union without ever having actually fought for it a single time.

Why, you ask? Because testing costs money, and the owners aren't all that interested in spending money even if it might be for a sensible cause.

Now maybe if Birch had said, "We want it. We think it's necessary. We intend to make it a serious part of negotiations so that both sides eventually come to agree on the need," one could say, "OK, they're serious about getting this done because they want to cooperate with the players on getting it done."

But no, "We're going to ensure that it gets done" is just a way of squeezing the union's shoes for public consumption. The players know it, and just out of the principle of "Ensure this!" will now have one more wedge issue upon which to bloody the owners.

We know that HGH testing would catch some high-visibility players, which neither side would actually want. We also know that a lot of players have already graduated onto the next plane of undetectable performance enhancers because that is the nature of progress on the chemical front.

But we know most of all that these negotiations rise and fall on the money, and when the scent of cash gets in everyone's nostrils, bigger concepts get swept aside. It has always been thus.

Not only that, both owners and players regard the players' bodies less respectfully than in any other team sport. That's why contracts aren't guaranteed, career spans average barely three years and why both sides wince and look away when stories like Dave Duerson's death due to brain-trauma-induced suicide surface.

In short, football is dangerous, everyone knows it and yet there is an almost unlimited supply of players to fill in when one goes down. It's how the owners can have such little regard for the players -- they view the players as hammers on a tool belt. When the head flies off the handle, they go and grab a new hammer off the shelf.

Logically, this would suggest that drug testing to make the game safer would be of nobody's interest except as a club with which to beat the other side, and when Birch decided to declare it an inviolable truth of negotiations that the owners would demand and achieve victory on testing, we could only laugh.

If they wanted it, they would work with the players to agree on it. But since it doesn't bring more money in, we know and the players know that it's just grandstanding designed to put the players in a temporary public relations box.

This was, is and will always be about money, first and foremost, and one should not forget that. It's the same as it has been with all the other sports at times like these. Health and safety is important until it becomes time to talk about health and safety. Then it becomes about money, because money is what they want to argue about.

Maybe the league just thought it might be a good time to bring it up with the Barry Bonds degrade-o-thon beginning in San Francisco. Maybe they see that people are coming to realize that the most pronounced side effect of steroid use is that it makes you a bad judge of companions. And maybe they thought it would help shame the players.

Well, fine. Except the league shaming players for public consumption tends to make players less likely to respond well to the point the owners say they're trying to make. And they knew that when they sent Birch out with his podium, microphone and storyline.

So we'll see how long negotiations teeter on HGH testing when the two sides actually meet again. The over/under is 25 minutes. The over has never paid off.

Ray Ratto is a columnist for Comcast SportsNet Bay Area.com.

 
I've never understood why it's the owners who want testing and the players who resist it. It should be the other way around.
I guess the owners want it for PR reasons. As for the players, I think they're suspicious of the efficacy of the test. Instead of merely needing to take drugs to compete, you would now need to take drugs and constantly keep up with the latest and greatest drug-test-beating technology. It's just one more layer of complexity that everyone has to deal with, or else risk losing his job to someone who does.

If they could stick a needle in their arm once a month and have a perfect test, I think most players would be in favor that. But because, probably since high school, they've known guys who have consistently openly defeated various drug tests, they don't believe it'll work like that.

 
'David Dodds said:
I think this is one of those things the owners add now and conveniently drop in the negotiation. I doubt either side wants this added. But it's a smart PR move for the owners to take now.
I've never understood why it's the owners who want testing and the players who resist it. It should be the other way around.If the players are all on 'roids, the game is more impressive. It should shift the demand curve to the right, increasing ticket prices and TV ratings. The owners should want all the players to juice.The players, meanwhile, may not want to risk their long-term health. If I'm a player, I might prefer to lay off the chemicals — but if everybody else is doing them, then I have to as well. So what I'd really want is a good testing program that keeps everybody else from doing them.Everyone has it backwards, IMO.
First, HGH and steroids are not the same thing. HGH is naturally produced by your body. It just slows in production as you grow older. And as others have pointed out, HGH can be a good thing. I think the NFL just needs to regulate or administer it properly as opposed to the black market or underground nature of it right now. I think in time HGH can be an affective treatment for players.
 
I've never understood why it's the owners who want testing and the players who resist it. It should be the other way around.
I guess the owners want it for PR reasons. As for the players, I think they're suspicious of the efficacy of the test. Instead of merely needing to take drugs to compete, you would now need to take drugs and constantly keep up with the latest and greatest drug-test-beating technology. It's just one more layer of complexity that everyone has to deal with, or else risk losing his job to someone who does.

If they could stick a needle in their arm once a month and have a perfect test, I think most players would be in favor that. But because, probably since high school, they've known guys who have consistently openly defeated various drug tests, they don't believe it'll work like that.
Those are some very good points.
 
First, HGH and steroids are not the same thing. HGH is naturally produced by your body. It just slows in production as you grow older. And as others have pointed out, HGH can be a good thing. I think the NFL just needs to regulate or administer it properly as opposed to the black market or underground nature of it right now. I think in time HGH can be an affective treatment for players.
Yes. I don't know much about the long-term effects of either steroid use or HGH supplementation. I'm skeptical that either one is great for long-term health (if more HGH were helpful, I'd expect the body to produce more of it on its own), but I really don't know. If certain performance-enhancing drugs are perfectly healthful, my previous comments wouldn't apply to them (at least from the players' standpoint).
 
First, HGH and steroids are not the same thing. HGH is naturally produced by your body. It just slows in production as you grow older. And as others have pointed out, HGH can be a good thing. I think the NFL just needs to regulate or administer it properly as opposed to the black market or underground nature of it right now. I think in time HGH can be an affective treatment for players.
Steroids are naturally produced by your body.
 
'David Dodds said:
I think this is one of those things the owners add now and conveniently drop in the negotiation. I doubt either side wants this added. But it's a smart PR move for the owners to take now.
I've never understood why it's the owners who want testing and the players who resist it. It should be the other way around.If the players are all on 'roids, the game is more impressive. It should shift the demand curve to the right, increasing ticket prices and TV ratings. The owners should want all the players to juice.The players, meanwhile, may not want to risk their long-term health. If I'm a player, I might prefer to lay off the chemicals — but if everybody else is doing them, then I have to as well. So what I'd really want is a good testing program that keeps everybody else from doing them.Everyone has it backwards, IMO.
How is responsible use of HGH dangerous to players health?
 
'Truman said:
I think this is one of those things the owners add now and conveniently drop in the negotiation. I doubt either side wants this added. But it's a smart PR move for the owners to take now.
I've never understood why it's the owners who want testing and the players who resist it. It should be the other way around.If the players are all on 'roids, the game is more impressive. It should shift the demand curve to the right, increasing ticket prices and TV ratings. The owners should want all the players to juice.

The players, meanwhile, may not want to risk their long-term health. If I'm a player, I might prefer to lay off the chemicals — but if everybody else is doing them, then I have to as well. So what I'd really want is a good testing program that keeps everybody else from doing them.

Everyone has it backwards, IMO.
How is responsible use of HGH dangerous to players health?
I'm not knowledgeable about that, but here's one study suggesting that the use of supplemental HGH is associated with increased likelihood of soft tissue edema, arthralgias, carpal tunnel syndrome, gynecomastia, diabetes mellitus, and impaired fasting glucose.I'm not trying to argue that supplemental HGH is generally harmful. I don't know whether it is — and my initial comments were addressed more to anabolic steroids than to HGH. (Not that I'm any kind of expert on steroids, either.) But my default presumption is that, when the body produces a given substance, it tends to produce it in about the right amount to promote general health. To be sure, there are well-known exceptions. Most Americans under-produce Vitamin D, for example, because they don't get as much sunlight as their genes expect them to; and most Americans would therefore benefit by taking supplemental Vitamin D. Maybe HGH is like that. But in most cases, I think supplementing with exogenous hormones is more likely to throw things out of kilter than to bring things into proper balance.

 
I would agree that this will probably be dropped in negotiations, but I really believe at the core of a lot of the "safety" issues by the league the last few years is a major fear of lawsuits. The direction that lawsuits about working conditions causing health problems in later life have become easier to win (for the plaintiff) and much more expensive. Even if the worker new their profession carried inherent risks. See the emphasis on concussions currently. Someone that cannot function or remember how to get home, etc 10 years after they are out of the league would certainly pull at the hearts and minds of a jury.

One of the main causes of the injuries currently is due to the fact that players are approx 20% heavier and yet much faster than their counter parts from the past. Butkus I believe would have to be a free safety in the current NFL if he weighed the same as his playing days. I do think there are those that feel if they can get HGH out of the league, the mass of the average players will drop which significantly which will reduce the force of impacts, thus limiting injuries.
Butkus was 6'3" 245.
 
Sirius had a noted drug doc on yesterday, and I wish I paid more attention the numbers.

IIRC, he stated the league does like 24,000 drug tests a year, and maybe 7,000 of those, are for steroids/performance enhanced drugs.

The rest of the testing is for recreational stuff.

Bottom line, the NFL does not have a huge hard line against PEDS. it's better than what MLB had, but probably not by much.

 
'Truman said:
I think this is one of those things the owners add now and conveniently drop in the negotiation. I doubt either side wants this added. But it's a smart PR move for the owners to take now.
I've never understood why it's the owners who want testing and the players who resist it. It should be the other way around.If the players are all on 'roids, the game is more impressive. It should shift the demand curve to the right, increasing ticket prices and TV ratings. The owners should want all the players to juice.The players, meanwhile, may not want to risk their long-term health. If I'm a player, I might prefer to lay off the chemicals — but if everybody else is doing them, then I have to as well. So what I'd really want is a good testing program that keeps everybody else from doing them.Everyone has it backwards, IMO.
How is responsible use of HGH dangerous to players health?
You know what is dangerous to players health? **** Butkis in his prime.
 
'Truman said:
How is responsible use of HGH dangerous to players health?
Do you think it would be a health risk for college and high school players to use PEDs more often if the NFL endorsed them? I mean that seems like a terrible idea for several reasons.
 
'Truman said:
How is responsible use of HGH dangerous to players health?
Do you think it would be a health risk for college and high school players to use PEDs more often if the NFL endorsed them? I mean that seems like a terrible idea for several reasons.
People not being responsible for themselves and their own actions (as you seem to promote) is about the worst idea we've ever encountered.
 
I think this is one of those things the owners add now and conveniently drop in the negotiation. I doubt either side wants this added. But it's a smart PR move for the owners to take now.
I've never understood why it's the owners who want testing and the players who resist it. It should be the other way around.If the players are all on 'roids, the game is more impressive. It should shift the demand curve to the right, increasing ticket prices and TV ratings. The owners should want all the players to juice.The players, meanwhile, may not want to risk their long-term health. If I'm a player, I might prefer to lay off the chemicals — but if everybody else is doing them, then I have to as well. So what I'd really want is a good testing program that keeps everybody else from doing them.Everyone has it backwards, IMO.
It turns out that Antonio Cromartie agrees with me on this, which almost certainly means I'm off-base.
 
"Jus was reading an article about HGH testing in the NFL. I'm for it I'm not against it. If u against that mean you hiding something."

- MT I mean, Mr Antonio Cromartie

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top