Thanks holden, answered most of my questions but not all. Give him the benefit of the doubt. Saw his interview before the game. Seemed genuine to me.
Would the HG be considered a PED if it was legally prescribed? Potentially, yes, if that's how the rules are structured. Prescription asthma medications are prohibited under WADA rules, for instance -- you can compete without 'em, or you can't compete, period. Now, it's MLB and not WADA, but given how reluctant MLB was for years to tackle the complexities of regulating PEDs, and how uber-complicated is the problem of regulating use of a drug that is both medically necessary and performance-enhancing, I really doubt that MLB has even touched the issue of medical exceptions.
Prescription asthma medications are prohibited under WADA rules, for instance -- you can compete without 'em, or you can't compete, period. Now, it's MLB and not WADA, but given how reluctant MLB was for years to tackle the complexities of regulating PEDs, and how uber-complicated is the problem of regulating use of a drug that is both medically necessary and performance-enhancing, I really doubt that MLB has even touched the issue of medical exceptions. MLB has what are called therapeutic use exemptions/waivers, which permit players to take drugs on the banned substances list without penalty. According to this article, MLB has never granted (and did not grant to Paul Byrd) a therapeutic use waiver for HGH, but I believe various players have received therapeutic use waivers for drugs ranging from asthma medication to ADD medication. Contrary to popular belief, MLB has one of the most developed PED policies in all of North American professional sports.
Contrary to popular belief, MLB has one of the most developed PED policies in all of North American professional sports. That's kind of like saying that Uzbekistan has one of the most developed economies in central Asia.
That's kind of like saying that Uzbekistan has one of the most developed economies in central Asia. No, it's not. Sure, it's not like the over-the-top policies of WADA and other international/olympic organizations, but in no North American team sport will the difference made by a PED be the sole determinant of an outcome, as may be the case in Olympic-type sports where the athletes are so closely bunched that the little edge of a PED can make the difference between podium places. What can/should MLB be doing more than it is? (And let's focus on now, rather than what might have been done in the past.) Intrusive blood testing for HGH, a substance on which there is really not a scientific consensus as to the benefit it imparts (particularly in the baseball context)? You have to look at the benefits of the drugs when considering the invasiveness of testing, and I think MLB has struck a perfectly reasonable position. Perhaps that's because I personally don't think (a position that is not shared by all, certainly not by the media hand-wringers) that the "sanctity of the record book" is sufficient justification for drawing blood. MLB has some of the most rigorous testing and penalties in North American sports, and I would posit that it's beyond what's necessary considering the potential harm to the integrity of the game.
Sure, it's not like the over-the-top policies of WADA and other international/olympic organizations Well, that was kind of my point: having the most well (as in thoroughly) developed rule set of the major North American professional sports doesn't say much. What can/should MLB be doing more than it is? (And let's focus on now, rather than what might have been done in the past.) Intrusive blood testing for HGH, a substance on which there is really not a scientific consensus as to the benefit it imparts (particularly in the baseball context)? You have to look at the benefits of the drugs when considering the invasiveness of testing, and I think MLB has struck a perfectly reasonable position. I would be over the moon about it if MLB, or some other non-WADA-touchable league, were able to inject just that note of sanity into the whole question of PEDs in sports. Unfortunately, there's a little too much hysteria about "cheaters" for that to be likely.
I would be over the moon about it if MLB, or some other non-WADA-touchable league, were able to inject just that note of sanity into the whole question of PEDs in sports. Unfortunately, there's a little too much hysteria about "cheaters" for that to be likely. It sounds like we're largely in agreement. I understood your point about MLB being the tallest midget and all that, but I do think we need to look at PEDs in the context of team sports and what that means, without blindly suggesting that more testing (or WADA-approved testing) is necessary or better -- which I understand is not the point you're making. It seems strange to me that many would advocate importing an olympic-style testing approach that might make sense for individual events into a team sport context where the benefits gained from using PEDs are more likely to show up in an athlete's bank account than in the standings.
I personally don't think that the "sanctity of the record book" is sufficient justification for drawing blood. Cut them with a rusty knife and make them fill a bucket. That'll teach 'em.
Read a good take on Byrd situation on Hogger blog at fox website. Can't figure out how to post however the site is community.foxsports.com ---Paul Byrd-medically speaking, your story doesn't add up.
Even if Byrd had legitimate medical reasons for taking HGH, his circuitous path to get it, and his purchasing habits, are extremely sketchy. According to PTI yesterday, both the Indians organization and MLB are denying any knowledge that Byrd was using HGH. I can't find documentation for that right now, just this statement from MLB.
