By Stephen F. Holder, Times Staff Writer
Friday, June 3, 2011
Imagine there was a substance athletes could take that might add years to their careers, give them more explosion and make injuries easier to overcome.
And suppose that substance was banned by a sports league but there was virtually no chance of violators being caught.
Well, this hardly is a hypothetical picture. This is, rather, the NFL's reality.
HGH, or human growth hormone, is said to have enormous benefits to athletes, as much as or greater than those of traditional steroids. It is considered a banned substance by the NFL, but the NFL doesn't conduct testing for it because past methods have been mostly ineffective.
But that appears to have changed, and that's where the potential for a fierce debate this summer exists.
Scientists believe they've developed an accurate blood test for HGH, but changes to the NFL's drug-testing policies will likely have to be collectively bargained, a painstaking process even when it comes to minimally-important matters.
"Usually, it becomes a bargaining chip and you definitely don't like to see that," said Don Catlin, a pioneer of the anti-doping movement who founded the group Anti-Doping Research to champion the cause. "But in Major League Baseball and the NFL, they are unionized sports and that's something you just have to accept."
Bargaining chip or not, the issue will, at some point, come to the forefront in the NFL's labor negotiations if commissioner Roger Goodell gets his way. Goodell continues to insist that the sides have earnest discussions about adding HGH testing.
Goodell says he has confidence in the improved blood testing methods now available and in use by the International Olympic Committee and a handful of sports leagues around the world, including the Canadian Football League and baseball's minor leagues.
However, the likelihood of an additional layer of testing being agreed to by players is probably minimal given the litany of unresolved issues that led to the NFL's lingering lockout. But, depending on where this issue ranks in importance to the league, it's possible Goodell and company could make a considerable push.
"We'd be naive to think that people aren't trying to cheat the system. But we have to have the best testing program to be able to offset that," Goodell said in April.
"… Making changes to our program is critical, and we have done that over the years. We need to do more, including the inclusion of HGH testing."
Most agree with Goodell on at least one point: Some players are probably using HGH. No one can know how many, but no one seems ready to dismiss the notion.
"I don't think it's prevalent, but I also don't think marijuana use in the NFL is prevalent. But are there guys using it? Yes," said renowned trainer Tom Shaw, a former strength coach for the New England Patriots and a staunch opponent of performance enhancing drugs.
"Being in the locker room, I never saw or heard anything," said Anthony Becht, a tight end who has played 10 NFL seasons, including three with the Bucs. "But with HGH, or any product — anything that will give players an edge (when) they don't have any reason to worry about getting caught — it would be silly to think people wouldn't pursue it."
Still, players seem lukewarm to the idea of having to submit to blood tests to find what some think is a relatively small number of cheaters.
"I don't have any feelings on it because it doesn't pertain to me," Bucs fullback Earnest Graham said. "Guys who do it, well, they just do it. For the guys who don't … it's a thing where you have look in the mirror."
The NFL Players Association has renounced its union status in the wake of the league's work stoppage and declined comment on labor-related issues. But the union has historically been against expansion of testing both for narcotics and performance-enhancing drugs, citing concerns about player rights, privacy and — in the case of HGH — the need for drawing blood. Currently, all testing conducted by the NFL is done through urine samples, which aren't useful in detecting HGH.
Another concern is a lack of confidence in the science. The players union hasn't yet expressed satisfaction with the accuracy of HGH testing methods because they are fairly new and, historically, have been imperfect.
Current tests do have limitations because they only detect very recent usage of the substance because it leaves the body quickly. But Catlin said there should not be concerns about accuracy.
"I think we're past that," he said. "The test continues to be improved. Sport has really longed for a test. We finally got one."
As for the objections by players to having blood drawn, Catlin scoffed.
"It's not reasonable," he said. "Doctors draw blood all the time and no one gets hurt."
Another concern expressed from players: What's next?
"There's always going to be a scientist who's going to come up with something new and then they'll be testing for that," Becht said.
Becht added that he prefers not to obsess over performance-enhancing drugs because doing so takes away from the overwhelming number of players who excel through legitimate hard work.
"I think it takes away from the work ethic that a lot of guys put in. I don't think it cheapens the sport because it's an individual decision," he said. "I was always a guy who wasn't the fastest or strongest but I prided myself in doing things the right way. … At the end of the day, it comes down to the individual."
Soon, however, those individual decisions could become the subject of a much, much larger and public debate.
Stephen F. Holder can be reached at sholder@sptimes.com.
