![]() |
|
|
| |
« Willis Signs Extension With Tigers | Main | Olney On Blanton/Mets »
This is a great read. J.C. Bradbury makes his case for baseball to legalize the use of HGH, since it has "little to no effect on athletic performance." He says the players have been duped. Should we be more sympathetic with guys who tried to cheat but chose the wrong performance-enhancer?
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b9a69e2010534b4ba05970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Bradbury: Legalize HGH:
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


|
|
I have an odd question: is there any evidence to suggest that HGH is physically addictive? I'm certain that there's a psychological addiction, at least for some, but what about an active physical addiction?
Bradbury's suggestion for legalizing HGH is very similar to what some people think should be donw with other drugs, like cocaine. But cocaine is physically addictive, which could make it a very different scenario.
The only dangerous substance I can think of that's both physically and psychologically addictive AND legal is tobacco, and the result is a lot of people dying from it; but tobacco was already an established product before its harmful properties were discovered, and even now the tobacco companies are skewing the evidence.
HGH could be a fascinating test substance to see what happens if strong education regarding its negative effects is provided BEFORE it's made legal. I'm not saying I think it would be successful in discouraging use, but it would definitely be interesting to see the results. And a psychological addiction is easier to combat than both psychological AND physical addictions together.
Posted by: metafrantic | December 20, 2007 at 12:27 PM
I understand what Bradbury is driving at, but I think that there are a bunch of flaws in his argument.
1) HGH is not like a candy vitamin - it can have some nasty side-effects that aren't worth "gaining an edge over the competition."
2) If players are looking for anything to gain said advantage - or as Bradbury put it, a placebo to THINK they're gaining an advantage, then by nature they will have to go to something illegal. It wouldn't be an edge if everyone were using it legally.
3) Gaining an edge in this manner is cheating. it doesn't matter if a player thinks it is a make-or-break year or whatever, it unlevels the playing field. If they aren't good enough, then they aren't good enough. Better yet, perhaps they could try place-hitting instead of swining for the fences. Heck Cobb did it, why can't anyone else?
4) (and finally) Unprescribed use of HGH is illegal OUTSIDE of baseball, not just banned by baseball. so these guys aren't just cheating, they're also breaking the law, and it's not up to baseball to legalize it.
Posted by: bignatsfan | December 20, 2007 at 12:36 PM
bignatsfan, I think you're misunderstanding what he's proposing. He's just saying that you have to educate the players on its inefficacy and its godawful and dangerous side effects, and then to send a message that you're telling the truth, remove it from the list of banned substances.
Illegal substances are still illegal in baseball, they just don't have any special punishment the way that substances on the banned substances list do.
Posted by: Wreckard | December 20, 2007 at 12:46 PM
“The only dangerous substance I can think of that's both physically and psychologically addictive AND legal is tobacco, and the result is a lot of people dying from it; but tobacco was already an established product before its harmful properties were discovered, and even now the tobacco companies are skewing the evidence.”
Actually, the additives added to the tobacco makes it much, much more dangerous and addictive then the tobacco itself. Its kind of funny that the tobacco industry is free to add whatever horrible concoction of chemicals it wants without problem but we cant get new drugs approved for 10 years or more until they are proven safe and side-effect free… What a mixed up country we have...
Posted by: darkstar1661 | December 20, 2007 at 12:46 PM
Wreckard: Well, I wasn't really commenting on the education side of things - education about the drug and it's side effects is a must. I actually think that the education should be expanded to cheating in general. Because let's be honest, if it's not HGH, it'll be something else that players will use to try to get an edge on the competition. Which is where flaws 2 and 3 listed above come in.
The INTENT of these players was to gain an unfair advantage, and is therefore cheating, and is therefore wrong. I think the drug being illegal will be a part of that lure, and as soon as it were to be made legal, it would lose that allure, only to be replaced by a DIFFERENT illegal substance.
Posted by: bignatsfan | December 20, 2007 at 01:06 PM
HGH regrows human muscle at a faster rate so that atheletes can start working out again. It does have an affect on athletic performance, becuase it'll allow users to get workout more frequently and get stronger faster.
Posted by: napes22 | December 20, 2007 at 01:18 PM
My solution: don't penalize the guys who already used it, but ban it anyway. They got by just fine without it before, so why legalize it and make it standard for everyone in the league to use it. Who knows what effect it might have on someone who uses it for a whole 20-yr career anyway? It can't be healthy to flood your body with something like that for that long.
Posted by: FineHamAbounds | December 20, 2007 at 01:20 PM
napes22 got it right. while it won't make someone someone a better hitter or pitcher from the skill standpoint it will allow them to use whatever skill they posses with more frequency due to the fact that HGH allows muscle tissue to repair a marginally faster rate. If used in season it amounts to someone playing 100% over 162 games without having to suffer through sore arms, shoulders, knees, and such.
Posted by: grimace455 | December 20, 2007 at 01:32 PM
Does it though? Bradbury's whole point is that people just believe these things about HGH despite a complete lack of evidence to support those beliefs. If you look through his posts he links to a number of medical studies on HGH that seem to indicate there's no benefit to athletes.
One of those studies he links to says this:
[i]There is no current study that has demonstrated a significant increase in workload capacity in response to human GH administration in healthy adults. The studies that have addressed the impact of GH on muscle mass and athletic performance do not show consistently favorable results. For instance, patients with acromegaly do have greater muscle volume than normal individuals, but they do not show an increase in strength or performance. No controlled study to our knowledge has shown a beneficial effect of supraphysiological doses of human GH on muscle strength in trained athletes.[/i]
From here: http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2007/12/more-reasons-not-to-worry-about-hgh-in-baseball/
Posted by: Wreckard | December 20, 2007 at 01:51 PM
Sabereconomics.com also had an article written in April or May how there is no evidence that steroids or hgh actually improves performance.
Again, this whole situation is about opinion. Do we care that the athletes are doing something illegal or is it the fact they are enhancing their performance. I hope to visit this issue on my blog soon.
Posted by: Brandon Heikoop | December 20, 2007 at 02:03 PM
No, we shouldn't be more sympathetic to those that tried to cheat but chose the wrong option. Stephen A Smith says that people that didn't really benefit from taking steroids shouldn't be held accountable on the same level as the big money guys that are the money-makers for baseball as a result of taking them. Basically, he is suggesting that not benefiting should be a big enough punishment.
The intention was there to gain an edge. Choosing poorly doesn't excuse those that made the choice.
Posted by: theillien | December 20, 2007 at 02:04 PM
I agree with theillien.
These guys cheated, and it doesn't matter whether this stuff worked for them or not - it is their INTENTION that was wrong, and that is so disturbing.
I don't think that there are too many positive spins you can put on the use of HGH, Steroids, or anything else for that matter.
Posted by: bignatsfan | December 20, 2007 at 02:11 PM
Brandon, I don't believe Bradbury has ever questioned the efficacy of steroids, their benefit is pretty well-documented.
Posted by: Wreckard | December 20, 2007 at 02:34 PM
HGH is not addictive. You are then implying that we are all addicted to HGH whether you've shot up or not because everyone has it in their body naturally and that's why they can't test for it. There is no difference between HGH produced naturally in your body and injected HGH. Otherwise, there would be a test for it.
HGH does not have side effects when used as prescribed. Side effects are only seen when the recommended dosage is exceeded and under a REAL doctor's supervision, that doesn't happen.
People do not do illegal drugs because they are illegal, they do them because they get the effects they want from these drugs that you can't get legally. HGH should be a manditory part of injury recovery for all players and anyone found using it outside of that window should suffer steep and severe penalties individually. Anything that can be done to keep these players healthy and reduce unfortunate career ending injuries and injury prone players is a gain for baseball. Why shouldn't the health of the players be improved with this? I'd rather see players on the field instead of on the DL with repeat injuries over and over because it doesn't heal back strong enough.
Steroids can kill you even when you are using them as directed while HGH has no side effects so long as it is used within medical guidelines and that is what most players aren't doing. HGH is used in children in the UK with stunted growth to make them grow normally with zero side effects. Do not just say that HGH produces side effects for everyone because you are looking at a whole generation of abusers. That is not the standard for everyone including those that use HGH properly and within guidelines.
By the way, HGH does make you stronger. Increased muscle mass = more muscle strength. All those little tears that you get in muscles from working out heal back stronger and with more mass and therefore, make you stronger and HGH accelerates that process. If it is constantly working in the body all season, that player is constantly getting stronger instead of wearing down over the course of the season. Yes, it is a performance enhancer when used in that way. I use two supplements myself that naturally increase HGH in the body and I noticed a difference inside of two weeks as to how fast my muscles were growing and you can get those at GNC. I no longer get sore for a couple days after I work out over time and I feel like I definately recover faster which is all great news. I worked out for about a year without these supplements and would get worn down after awhile and have to take a week or so off to heal muscle injuries, but after about four months of using these supplements, I get no pain or soreness whatsoever. I don't feel this is a coincidence. Athletes no doubt stress their body much more than I do, so I can imagine what some of those players go through injury wise and why they may decide to take HGH because at least for me, the benefits are obvious. Let them use it so long as they are on the DL and as long as a licensed medical doctor is overseeing their treatment.
Posted by: Sesshomaru | December 20, 2007 at 03:39 PM
Could someone tell me that if you aren't breaking the rules, how you are 'cheating'?
Is it because they had an edge over their competition? Okay, so give everyone the same bats, shoes, gloves, jock straps, batting cages, spring training facilities, etc.
Is it because they had an edge over their predecessors? Okay, take away multiple surgeries, diet and nutrition.
Is it because they did something illegal? Okay, then throw the book at them for getting a speeding ticket.
The problem here is, thousands if not millions of people would have done the same thing. In hindsight they are realizing that probably wouldn't have been the best decision.
I was wrong about the steroid thing at the sabereconomist.com, here is the link I was referring too: http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2007/04/i-dont-worry-about-hgh-in-baseball-and-neither-should-you/
Posted by: Brandon Heikoop | December 21, 2007 at 01:02 AM
Sess, excellent summary. A couple of notes though:
The first, you are dead on with how baseball players and professional athletes treat their bodies. There was a game this season in which Carmona went 7 or 8 strong and then could not be found in the clubhouse for an interview. Why, because he was working out!
Second, steroid use, like HGH use, if prescribed and used correctly is not always life threatening. I know people who are prescribed steroids for certain illnesses and have been on them long term - the side effects, terrible acne.
Great summary otherwise.
Posted by: Brandon Heikoop | December 21, 2007 at 01:10 AM
hGH does NOT make you stronger. Get access to PubMed and read the research yourself! hGH does add muscle but it is malformed and weak tissue. It adds bulk without adding strength. Until you read a significant portion of the real research out there please stop talking about the effects as if you know. Stop propagating the myth! I generally consider most posters on this site to be reasonable folks and yet, even here, people continue to hold onto their myths when challenged to seek the truth.
Posted by: dcstack | December 21, 2007 at 04:43 AM
To access PubMed, you will likely need to go to a University or College library that subscribes to it. It is an extraordinarily expense subscription but most people live close enough to an institution that subscribes. I strongly urge anyone that has a serious interest in this subject to properly educate themselves. One afternoon in a University library and you will be the best informed barstool hGH expert on your block.
Posted by: dcstack | December 21, 2007 at 04:50 AM
"Increased muscle mass = more muscle strength."
Umm, no it doesn't. The only increases in muscle mass ever scientifically shown to be attributable to hGH in healthy adult humans were due to water retention. Andre the Giant had very massive muscles, but not particularly strong muscles. He was a very strong man because of his size. He was not a very strong man for his size.
"All those little tears that you get in muscles from working out heal back stronger and with more mass and therefore, make you stronger and HGH accelerates that process."
Where's the evidence for this? hGH has cellular effects that suggest that it could be anabolic, but it has never been demonstrated to actually have anabolic effects.
"I use two supplements myself that naturally increase HGH in the body..."
In reality, you just think those supplements have any effect on hGH production. You're using expensive placebos; save your money.
"To access PubMed, you will likely need to go to a University or College library that subscribes to it."
Actually, the PubMed database/search engine is a free service provided by the National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health. So you should be able to do searches from any computer anywhere. What you can't do is access the full text of journal articles, unless the specific journal is freely available or you have a subscription. The abstracts are free, and you can learn a lot just reading those.
Posted by: mac_1103 | December 21, 2007 at 06:59 AM