MLB to begin testing minor leaguers for HGH

Leave a comment

One day after I pondered whether baseball would react in an ignorant, knee-jerk fashion to that positive HGH test by that British rugby player,  the New York Times reports that baseball plans react in an ignorant, knee-jerk fashion to that positive HGH test by that British rugby player:

Major League Baseball, which had long been skeptical about a viable
test for human growth hormone, now plans to implement blood testing for
the substance in the minor leagues later this year, according to an
official in baseball with direct knowledge of the matter . . .

. . . The decision to move ahead with blood testing comes one day after a British rugby player was suspended for testing positive for H.G.H. It was the first time
that an athlete had been publicly identified for testing positive for
the substance and was seen as overdue proof that the blood test, which
has been in limited use for six years, actually works.  In a statement in response to questions from The New York Times, Major
League Baseball said it was “well aware of the important news with
respect to” the positive drug test of the British athlete.

As the professor quoted at the end of the article notes, this test has been around for several years, and they’ve caught one dude with it. Does that not suggest to baseball — and anyone else with half a brain — that the test is prone to giving false negatives? I mean, it’s not like it’s reasonable to think that one random British prop is the only guy on the stuff. But hey, if the Daily News is pumping up a single positive, why shouldn’t Major League Baseball and everyone else go all-in?  Sheesh.

But hey, every other thing baseball has done with respect to PED testing has been PR, as opposed to science-driven, so why change now?

(thanks to reader Jeffrey S. for the heads up)

Donald Trump wants Curt Schilling in the Hall of Fame

Getty Images
34 Comments

We’ve talked a lot about Curt Schilling’s Hall of Fame candidacy over the years.

Bill has argued that, if voters are going to use the character clause to keep certain players out, they should keep Curt Schilling out. I’ve differed on that, not because I think Schilling is a good person — he’s loathsome, actually — but because I find the character clause to be illegitimate and would never, if I had a vote, use it to impact my vote. So, yes, I’d put Schilling on my ballot if I had one.

I’m not alone in this, of course. At the moment Schilling has support on about 72% of ballots which have been made public. My guess is that he’ll fall a tad short when results are announced tomorrow — non-public ballots tend to include fewer players on them — but we’ll see.

I am not the only non-BBWAA member who would vote for Schilling. He’s got some top level support too. From the President of the United States:

Ballots had to be submitted by December 31, so it’s not like this is gonna have any impact on the vote totals. If it came earlier, though, one wonders if it would. And one wonders if that’d help Schilling or hurt him.