11/21/24
June 10, 2006
Report: NFLPA against blood testing for HGH: "When you start talking about coming in to take a person's blood, that's different than taking someone's urine," Upshaw told the NFLPA. "I know personally I would have a problem with someone coming in and trying to take the players' blood. I'm not ready to make that leap."
posted by wingnut4life to football at 06:45 PM - 18 comments
If the NFLPA agreed to a blood test for HGH, it wouldn't happen just once a year at physical time. I believe it stays in the blood for only 3 weeks (or thereabouts). An invasive procedure for a test that isn't scientifically validated doesn't sound like a good deal for the players.
posted by bperk at 09:08 PM on June 10, 2006
they would be better off pulling hair samples that goes back 6 months to a year !
posted by chieffette at 10:25 PM on June 10, 2006
Pulling hair samples would work well with players like Polamalu--but not ones like Matt Hasselbeck!
posted by curtangle at 10:43 PM on June 10, 2006
Whats next? random cavity search, liver biopsy on demand? Where does the line get drawn?
posted by CB900 at 11:17 PM on June 10, 2006
Whats next? random cavity search, liver biopsy on demand? Where does the line get drawn? If you want to prove to your fans that you are a "clean" athlete, I feel that you should take the test. Blame it on the cheaters. 90% of these athletes make millions of dollars a year, so it would be a small price to pay. It's a sign of the times, and if you refuse to take the test it sends a message to everyone that you have something to hide. Sign o' the times...
posted by wingnut4life at 08:05 AM on June 11, 2006
I'm all for random blood tests in the NFL. Unless you have something to hide I don't think any athlete making millions of dollars a year should have a problem with a blood test. You have to test for HGH, It doesn't show up in urine samples, and unless you want professional sports overun with cheaters, they should start testing for it this fall. How many more Romo's does the NFL actually need??
posted by Grndizzle at 09:18 AM on June 11, 2006
I am tired of hearing unless you have something to hide it should be ok.This has nothing to do with how much a player makes and everything to do with standing up for and holding onto the rights of all Americans. Unless you have something to hid:You should not mind the government taping your phone calls. Unless you have something to hide:You should not mind the government checking where you go on the internet. Unless you have something to hide:You should not mind the government checking on what books you check out. I as much as anyone feel that players of all pro sports are over paid, but no price can be put on our rights as Americans and no amount of money can buy back our rights if we give em up. Yes I know its not the government asking for this but the NFL, this week, next week it may be your employer who wants a blood draw. What are you going to say; I don't make enough money to be required to do this.
posted by CB900 at 10:11 AM on June 11, 2006
It would be one thing to ask for the blood test if the blood test actually worked well, but that isn't the case here. And I think the idea of holding onto samples until there's a test is nuts - that provides lots of time for samples to be altered or for the things like the recent Lance armstrong debacle to happen.
posted by spira at 11:19 AM on June 11, 2006
This has nothing to do with how much a player makes and everything to do with standing up for and holding onto the rights of all Americans. Playing a professional sport is not a right. It is a privilege conferred on an individual when he's hired by an employer to be a part of a team. A lot of employers outside sports ask for drug tests before hiring a person. They are concerned about whether these drugs will affect an individual's job performance. It has already been shown that steroids affect an athlete's performance on the field -- or putting it another way, the athlete's performance on the job. The frequency of the blood tests depends on whether the employer believes drugs are affecting the employee's performance on the job. It has been shown that athletes take drugs throughout the season. If an athlete does not want to work for a team because of drug tests, the employee has the option of not working for that employer. And the employer has the option of not hiring that employee. An employer has the option of putting blood tests in a contract. The player has the option of agreeing to that contract -- and the blood tests -- or not taking the position. If the players association wants to forbid blood tests on players, then Gene Upshaw will be asked for his reasoning. Then the Court of Public Opinion will decide whether Gene Upshaw's reasoning makes sense, or whether the players association is hiding something. And the Court of Public Opinion generally doesn't care about innocent until proven guilty. Just ask Barry Bonds.
posted by roberts at 01:51 PM on June 11, 2006
A lot of employers outside sports ask for drug tests before hiring a person. They are concerned about whether these drugs will affect an individual's job performance. Id like to see a list of the ones that require a blood test. There is a big diffrence between taking a piss in a cup and having a needle stuck in your arm to draw blood.
posted by Folkways at 05:16 PM on June 11, 2006
I have the feeling if they tested for HGH, 25%the league would be caught using. I see this as a battle come contract time.
posted by dbt302 at 06:03 PM on June 11, 2006
Unless you have something to hide I don't think any athlete making millions of dollars a year should have a problem with a blood test. So after they draw the athlete's blood and discover he has no HGH in his system, what is to stop them from doing some other medical tests on the sample? What if they find out he is HIV+? What if they find out he has a rare form of blood disease? Do you think they'll ignore that information and offer him the same contract there were going to before the blood test? An employer has the option of putting blood tests in a contract. The player has the option of agreeing to that contract -- and the blood tests -- or not taking the position. To be fair, I'd demand that ALL employees associated with the league (and teams) be forced to take the same blood tests. Sure, most of them would pass the HGH test, but how many would fail the recreational drug tests?
posted by grum@work at 08:35 PM on June 11, 2006
I don't go in for employers extracting my blood. I read books. I know where that little trail ends.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 10:32 PM on June 11, 2006
One with clean players who would test before every game, because they respect it and know they are blessed with such talent, (Ripken, Sandburg, Mattingly) I find it interesting that you assumed Ripken, Sandburg, and Mattingly are clean. If the use of "greenies" is as prevalent as many people seem to believe, there is a VERY good chance that those players used them as well. Do you really think that Ripken's consecutive games played streak was done without any chemical help whatsoever?
posted by grum@work at 01:48 AM on June 12, 2006
You may be right, considering one of Ripken's best seasons was 1999. I believe he hit around .340, and averaged a career high homerun every 19 at bats or so, while only striking out 40 times. No where near the big names in 1999, but that wasn't his game. Other than that, he basically just strapped it on, and played day in, day out for a team that pretty much "sucked", his entire career. Never got caught up in the money, SIGNED AUTOGRAPHS for fans, didn't hit his wife with a rum bottle, didn't threaten to kill girlfriends (if he even had any on the side) on their answering machine, and stayed with the team that drafted him. Might have something to do with his father, but more than likely has something do with being a man. His numbers are no where near Lou Gehrig's! Was Gehrig on "greenies" all those seasons? Maybe?? Mattingly's only problem was not wanting to cut his hair. Sandburg's issues involved everyone "screwing" his wife. Including, Rafael Palmeiro.
posted by topjimmy13 at 10:08 AM on June 12, 2006
Was Gehrig on "greenies" all those seasons? "Greenies" weren't in distribution in the 1930s, but have been available (and, according to accounts, widely available) in baseball since the 1960s. You may be right, considering one of Ripken's best seasons was 1999. It's interesting that you mention Ripken's 1999 season. It was his 4th best season (in relation to league OPS), and occured 8 years after his last signficantly good season (1991). In fact, in that time period (1992-1998), Ripken had put up 5 below average seasons and 2 barely above average seasons. He then followed it up with 2 more below average seasons before retiring. In summary: - performance well above his recent seasons - occurred VERY late in his career (age 38) - almost entirely driven by an increase in slugging/power, at levels never before seen in his career - happened right after the McGwire/Sosa HR chase Gosh. Sounds familiar to me... Of course, he was injured during the season and only played 83 games so his raw totals don't jump out at anyone, so nobody would notice it at a glance. As well, Ripken had built up such a shield of goodwill from the Streak that it would be journalistic suicide to even suggest anything was untowards.
posted by grum@work at 12:23 PM on June 12, 2006
I couldn't agree with you more. That's actually why I brought up the 1999 season. I will admit that I did not put two and two together until your "greenie" comment. Maybe I just had blinders on? I knew that "greenies" did not come into play until the 60's. Was only joking about Gehrig being on anything besides natural talent.
posted by topjimmy13 at 10:15 PM on June 12, 2006
I don't know, man. This is not a good idea. If you want to look like you're concerned about keeping players clean, you shouldn't be saying this. You should say that you will use the blood test until a urine test can be perfected. I'm sure that teams can add this blood test in with a players' physical...