Wed, 07/28/2010 - 13:48
I had to go back to work this week after an excruciating month of July and I found myself doing nothing but listening to sports talk radio on ESPN1080 Orlando all week. Needless to say, on a 48 hour work week I'm pretty caught up on the world of sports. There are a few topics that I'm a little, shall we say, frustrated or confused about. The first being HGH testing in the Minor Leagues, and the second being the talk of the eighteen game regular season in the NFL. For now, I'm going to focus on the HGH testing.
In case you missed this new procedure that was passed last Thursday, here's a quick rundown:
- It has to be a blood test because the HGH chemicals do not show up in urine samples.
- It will not affect any player who has already been called to the Majors.
- It will occur after the game to 2 or 3 randomly selected players.
- The blood will be taken from the non-dominant arm of the player, as to not have the dominate arm affected by bruising or any after effect.
You may ask yourself why am I frustrated over mandatory drug tests. It's not the minors I'm questioning. It's the majors. I heard a quote on the radio that made me do a double take, so I came home and found it on MLB.com. This quote comes from MLBPA executive Michael Weiner:
"The union's position on HGH testing remains unchanged; when a test is available that is scientifically validated and that can be administered safely and without interfering with the players' ability to compete, it will be considered."
What? The problem I have with this is "without interfering with the players' ability to compete". So what you're saying is you would rather have doped up players getting in record books (see A-Rods chase to 600) than risk a bruised bicep to keep the sport clean? I'm sure I'm reading way too into that, but immediately that's where my mind went. If the blood sampling does turn out to be safe then "it will be considered". Considered? Just considered? Isn't there someone who can step in and just say "no drugs, even if they are natural, no way, no how"?
I get that the Major Leagues have a union and the Minor Leagues do not so everything has to pass through the collective bargainings. Apparently, it won't be looked at until the current Collective Bargaining Agreement expires on December 11, 2011. In essence, Major League players can get all doped up naturally for the next 17 months. If I was commissioner Bud Selig, I would step in and say, "time for some testing, gentlemen."
Unfortunately I am not commissioner of baseball or any other sport. Lord knows if I was, blood tests would be legal, Big Ben would be starting the season, and LeBron would owe every human who has ESPN $100,000 for wasting an hour of our lives.
Until any of that happens, Let's Go Pirates! (God knows none of them could possibly be doping.)
*Image from bostondirtdogs.boston.com