Getty ImagesLast week, NFLPA spokesman George Atallah explained to PFT the union?s ongoing concerns regarding the proposed HGH testing procedure, and he acknowledged that the NFLPA surely will be experiencing renewed pressure from Congress based on the union?s position that no agreement was reached on October 14 to commence the collection of blood samples.
The pressure from Congress has been renewed.
Three members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce have requested that public hearings be held on the issue.? Per Mark Maske of the Washington Post, the request came from Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Cal.), Rep. Bobby L. Rush (D-Ill.), and Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.) in a letter sent to the committee?s chairman, Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.).
It?s the second House committee to show interest in the HGH testing issue.? The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform arranged the October 14 meeting, via Representatives Darrell Issa (D-Cal.) and Elijah Cummings (D-Md.).
?Committee hearings will allow us to learn about these issues, hearing from top scientists about the validity of HGH testing and from the NFL and the NFLPA about the extent of HGH use in the league and their plans for testing to eliminate such use,? Waxman, Butterfield, and Rush write.? ?We urge you to hold a hearing on this issue as soon as possible.?
The letter, the full text of which has been posted on the committee?s website, also questions the NFLPA?s stated reasons for refusing to proceed, citing former NFL quarterback and CBS analyst Boomer Esiason, who has said that the NFLPA is ducking the deal ??because they have players guilty of using this substance . . . [a]nd there are many who believe it is at least 20 percent in the league.??
The NFL thinks that a hearing isn?t necessary, because in the league?s opinion the NFLPA already has agreed to proceed.? ?We appreciate the committee?s commitment to this issue, but there should be no need for this hearing if the union would simply live up to its agreements,? NFL spokesman Greg Aiello told PFT via email.? ?One was made in August as part of the new CBA to begin testing for HGH and another was reached with Congressmen Issa and Cummings on October 14.? The October 14 agreement was to begin collections immediately and then work out the remaining details of the HGH testing program promptly.? We stand ready to move forward.?
As we?ve explained several times in the past, the NFLPA?s primary concern is that the World Anti-Doping Agency developed the permissible threshold for naturally occurring HGH based on the testing of Olympics athletes, who may have a lower amount than football players.? This would result in players potentially generating false positives.
Then again, if players already are using HGH on a widespread basis (Bucs running back Earnest Graham once pegged the number at 30 percent of the league, and there are whispers that the number could be much higher than that, even though Browns linebacker Scott Fujita told NBC SportsTalk last month that the number is in the range of one percent), a population study including HGH users would potentially give NFL players a buffer zone, thanks to the inclusion in the group to be tested of men who are already using the substance.
?I applaud the members in their request for a hearing and look forward to fully discussing all of these issues as soon as possible,? NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith, pictured with Commissioner Roger Goodell on the day the new CBA was signed, said in an email to the Associated Press.? ?We are sending letters to the teams immediately in order to assist Congress in its fact finding mission.?
Though it?s inevitable that HGH testing will be implemented, with each passing day the likelihood of testing during the 2011 season decreases.? And that meshes with the still-lingering theory that the strong resistance among the players to the idea of being stuck with a needle and tested for HGH will result in the players choosing not to re-hire Smith as their leader when his contract expires in March, if HGH testing is implemented before then.
melanie iglesias catherine tate clemson theo epstein theo epstein darknet james ray
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.