UFC Should Follow NFL's Example on HGH Testing

MMA is not legally recognised as a sport in the UK, is basically Shooto in France and not recognised as a sport in Holland. Thus the UFC falls under employer/employee drug testing laws in these countries in france & holland it’s illegal except for Health and Safety workers and prior consent is required here in england.

is not the most intelligent of decisions simply because it should not be considered a performance enhancing drug and the test is likely to be inaccurate. Human growth hormone is produced naturally by the human body and HGH levels can be drastically altered even by a simple change in diet. There are also genetic disorders which can raise or lower a person’s level of HGH.

Bigfoot Silva, for example, has Acromegaly. Acromegaly, which is more commonly known as Giantism, is a disorder in which which a tumor grows on the pituitary gland (responsible for the natural production of HGH) causing an elevated level of growth hormone. Bigfoot’s HGH levels are almost certainly higher than the average person. Should he be banned from competition?

It seems to me that many fighters who have not used HGH as a performance enhancer would still be flagged for elevated levels. This would be unfair to the fighters, a waste of time and money for the promoters and athletic commissions, and possibly could ruin any number of intriguing fights the fans may want in the future. I say no to HGH testing.

I don’t really see the UFC doing much, if anything on this.

It would be great if they did, but the other sports only started drug testing because the real media made it into a big enough story for Congress to get involved, and that’s not going to happen to the UFC.

If congress calls dana and says they want more drug testing he will just say, “the government already runs the drug testing, if you want me to do more, you need to get rid of the commissions and let me do whatever i want,” and that would be very bad, because drug testing UFC level fighters is a very small percentage of the value the commissions bring to the table.

I must say I’m disappointed. Though you have pointed to a vague ‘advancement’ in hGH testing, you should have gone further. hGH testing has historically been extremely unreliable. Though there is a urine test available at the moment, it will not detect hGH beyond a couple of weeks. An athlete will simply stop taking hGH a few weeks out and piss clean. And keep in mind hGH is not like anabolics where the athlete loses a lot of his ‘gains.’

Also, using the NFL as a shinging example of how drug testing should be run is downright hilarious. Sure…no drug issues in the NFL, no doubt. A league where it is not uncommon for a 300 lb+ lineman runing the 40 in less than 5 seconds…no drugs at all! If you have the opportunity, you may want to have a candid conversation with pro- and college athletes to get a handle on how common PEDs are. And if you think the NFL’s policy is a game-changer, you are kidding yourself.

I truly find this type of self-righteous anti-PED talk funny. It generally comes from those you have very little idea of the complexity in testing for PEDs and an unawareness of PEDs themselves. hGH has been around forever—the next generation of drugs like IGF-1, mGF, and prostaglandins are even more effective and are not in the system as long. Beyond that, ‘gene doping’ may already be a reality, though admittedly I am not aware of it outside of the laboratory.

Ultimately, the UFC would simply be pissing their money away for an expensive and ineffectivene PED test—let the commissions deal with it. And in the future, could you please do some research first and get some hard facts and numbers?

I, too, think that the drug testing will continue to be in place to keep up the current facade. And at this point, the ‘allowable’ techniques are dictated by the absence of health consequences, real or perceived. Of course, many PEDs are getting a bad rap b/c of the perceived health effects—that’s the line for many people, IMO. But are PEDs really that dangerous? Abuse…certainly. Cholesterol, organ hypertrophy (for gh), or compromised liver function (for some oral anabolics) may result. But prescribed PED use with a doctor’s supervision (to run cholesterol or organ function tests)…probably not.

Again, an unpopular position that has no chance of happening, but from a purely academic perspective, legalizing and regulating PED use so that an athlete can be monitored by a doctor may be a better policy than banning them outright, IMO. As far as longevity goes, I agree that advances in acute care following an injury, surgical techniques, and rehabilitation techniques have helped longevity. But with the jumps in athletic performance that we’ve seen and athletes staying at the top of their games well into their 30’s? I suspect PED use for both optimizing and maintaining such performance.

I think if I were an athlete in MMA or the NFL I would be all for testing that could make the sport clean (not possible). It would mean less intense training, due to more recovery time needed, and thus less wear and tear on the body. Also, it would mean the athletes would not be quite as strong and fast and lead to less violent damge to their bodies.