I have previously posted on this topic (with respect to the Mayweather Mosley fight and in general) here.
MMAJunkie reports that Travis Tygart, CEO of the USADA, argued heavily in favor of the use of blood testing, the current Olympic standard, and quoted him as follows:
'If you want to have an effective program, you at least have to have the right to do both (urine and blood testing),' Tygart said. 'The right gives you that deterrent. You can decide later after you have that right how much you're actually going to do and when you're actually going to do it. But I think if you don't have the right to do it, it sends a loud message to dirty athletes: Go do whatever drug will give you a benefit that can only be detected in blood.'
'Everybody with a heartbeat now knows [human growth hormone] is only detected in blood. It will be a free-for-all, if it's not already, for human growth hormone use if you don't have the right to at least collect blood.'The question (and debate that seems to have surfaced at the meeting based on articles I have read) is whether blood testing is really feasible and is adequate.
In this article by Patrick English over at Secondsout.com, the other side of the debate is articulated in fairly compelling fashion.
The article, which relies on experts in the field, including Dr. Don H. Caitlin, head of the UCLA Olympic Analytical Lab, provides that there is only a 24 hour window in which HGH use can be detected. Stated differently, a test will only come up positive for HGH use if the athlete used the hormone within 24 hours of the test.
This, it is argued, makes the tests extremely ineffective as a deterrent.
Dr. Caitlin is quoted as saying that "the method of testing used by WADA 'alone doesn’t work. It’s political. The whole thing is political.'”
The article also discusses the impractical side of testing, including the random and spur-of-the-moment testing and how it will be difficult to implement with professionals as well as the often inconsistent test results that can arise from lab contamination and other outside influences. The article also describes in detail how the test results will likely be challenged in arbitration and the courts and that the results will not hold up given the lack of scientific support.
In short, according to the article, blood testing is not yet warranted in MMA and boxing.
So, who is right?
It remains to be seen, but for now, the NSAC is "investigating its options" according to Keith Kizer, Executive Director of the NSAC.
Fight Lawyer
