On the other hand, if it doesn't make a difference and the only thing a player risks is his own health, why do anything about it?

Or who knows, it doesn't enhance performance but HGH helps Tommy John patients' UCLs recover faster? Has this stuff been studied for the health benefits it actually could provide?

Has this stuff been studied for the health benefits it actually could provide?

Based on wiki, it sounds like it does have noticeable effects on people with HGH deficiencies, but not on "healthy" (assumed to be non-deficient) individuals. Given the general physical state of the majority of players, they probably qualify under the "healthy" category and should (in theory) not see any noticeable effects.

There was also a study done a while ago, using the data gleaned from the Mitchell report. The results indicated that those who used (substances lumped under) steroids saw about a 7% increase in their runs created (as a rate, with Bonds excluded). For HGH, the difference was something like 1%, although it's hard to say if that number is right or too low, since the timing of HGH use frequently corresponded to periods where the players were recovering from injury.

Really, based on the current data, there's no indication that HGH does anything to improve or decrease performance in normal, non-deficient individuals.

I like having economists and lawyers doing the FDA's work. Biology is an easy subject anyway. Let's have them design nuclear power plants as well. I'm sure they can get all the neutrons and gamma rays to work out a compromise.

I like having economists and lawyers doing the FDA's work. Biology is an easy subject anyway. Let's have them design nuclear power plants as well. I'm sure they can get all the neutrons and gamma rays to work out a compromise.

I represent said gamma rays, and if you think we're settling you have another thing coming. Those neutrons may underestimate our resolve, but we will go to the mat over this fission business if need be. You know where we can be reached.

Seriously: if we had good data from the FDA or CDC or whoever it would obviously trump. But the point with HGH is that we don't. There's no evidence supporting athletic performance by HGH use alone, but nor is there anything disproving it either. While it would be ideal to wait until there are definitive answers to these questions, MLB and NFL and the other leagues are seeking to craft policies right now. Absent the science, they need to at least try to get the incentives and disincentives as close to right as their uncertainty will allow. For better or for worse economists and (sometimes) lawyers are pretty good at that.

Thanks for having a sense of humor w.r.t my snide remark, Craig. I am under the impression that HGH is a prescription drug and is legal when prescribed by a doctor. So the article here refers to baseball legality, not United States legality? I think that MLB owners have a stake in the players not screwing around with illegally obtained drugs that can hurt their bodies. I think basketball tournaments, skiing, motorcycle riding and HGH should not be done by ball players while under contract.

if we had good data from the FDA or CDC or whoever it would obviously trump.

What is the FDA's stance on HgH? Can I obtain it legally without a doctor's prescription?

Right: it's legal with a prescription in the U.S., just against baseball rules. That suggests that the onus is really on baseball (and the other sports) to figure out what to do with it. And I tend to agree that you don't want players doing HGH if not medically indicated. The question is the best way to do that. That's what J.C.'s article addresses: if you can't test for it reliably, would HGH-use decrease if it were simply "legalized" by the league?

I'm skeptical, as the above blockquote indicates, but I think it's something worth considering.

What to do about HGH drugs? How about legalizing it them?

I’m a big fan of legalization of all manner of things that currently aren’t, and I agree with Bradbury that prohibition may have a glamorizing effect on what would otherwise be a drug that athletes bypass. But I also worry that these are ballplayers we’re talking about, and that they may not respond to prohibition/legalization incentives the way most people do. Ballplayers don’t change their underwear if they go on a hitting streak. They fear stepping on chalk lines. Might they not simply go crazy on HGH if it were legalized the same way Wade Boggs went crazy on pre-game chicken dinners?

I don't buy this argument at all. Yes, they're a superstitious bunch. But, as far as I know, there was not widespread use of pre-game chicken dinners in the hopes of hitting like Wade Boggs. Sure, some player might start HGH and go on a hitting streak and become superstitious about it but that's just one player. Mark Grace's "slumpbuster theory" is a greater threat to players' health than the "MLB legalization" of HGH. (Note, that's not to say that HGH doesn't have health consequences.)

The argument in the paragraph following that is based on something that I think is true but I still find it unconvincing. "There's lots of media hype and scuttlebutt about HGH's effectiveness so, even though it appears to not be effective, let's consider banning it anyway?" How does that help? I share the apparent concern about the "full-blown libertarian" approach to drugs -- I don't want to see ads for cocaine featuring one bikini-clad girl snorting it off of another bikini-clad girl's stomach ... well, OK, part of me wants to see that ad. But "the silly ninnies are all a-tizzy about HGH, we better do something" is how the US ended up with many of its moronic drug laws to begin with.

The "middle ground" approach seems reasonable: (a) we have no evidence it's effective but we do have evidence it's bad for you so we recommend not using it; (b) it's a prescription drug with legit uses so if your doc prescribes it, we'll let you use it, just like with adderall; (c) good luck to you if you're caught possessing it without a prescription or your doctor gets busted for prescribing stuff when they shouldn't; (d) if there's a piss-test developed, we might decide to test for it there and treat it in the same way we treat adderall; (e) all of this subject to change if later evidence suggests it is a PED or Congress gets all a-tizzy about it.

The "middle ground" approach seems reasonable: (a) we have no evidence it's effective but we do have evidence it's bad for you so we recommend not using it; (b) it's a prescription drug with legit uses so if your doc prescribes it, we'll let you use it, just like with adderall; (c) good luck to you if you're caught possessing it without a prescription or your doctor gets busted for prescribing stuff when they shouldn't; (d) if there's a piss-test developed, we might decide to test for it there and treat it in the same way we treat adderall; (e) all of this subject to change if later evidence suggests it is a PED or Congress gets all a-tizzy about it.

This.

What is HgH prescribed for? Is it possible that someone with a legitimate prescription for HgH would be healthy enough to play professional baseball?

(d) if you legalize HGH it will send the message to players that it really doesn’t do anything for them, and they will thus be more inclined to steer clear of it and, consequently, its negative side effects.

Or they will get the message that there is no longer a downside for using it, so why not try it and decide for themselves whether it works for them.

saw bradburys book on remainder for two bucks, and when i check in here, there he is again...

Drugs are all poison to some extent, drug abuse destructive. People do some evil #### when they are on #### like alcohol and cocaine, and potheads are often numbed out. Heroin users are the living dead.

But drug prohibition does far more harm than good,

Drugs are all poison to some extent, drug abuse destructive. People do some evil #### when they are on #### like alcohol and cocaine, and potheads are often numbed out. Heroin users are the living dead.

But drug prohibition does far more harm than good,

Yep.

What is HgH prescribed for? Is it possible that someone with a legitimate prescription for HgH would be healthy enough to play professional baseball?

The qualifications for entry into a HgH study that was to be submitted to the FDA when I was working on the clinical trials was, for a male, someone who was projected to be shorter than about 5'0' (ranging depending on the study group). The top reasons for the subjects wanting to be on HgH were usually self confidence and being picked on, these are usually very small individuals that are short because of a deficiency in natural HgH. As an side note the drug was considered a success if the subject grew 1-3 inches more than expected.