But that would make far too much sense! And admitting that a drug doesn't have any performance-enhancing effects would mean all those hours of bluster and scapegoating were for nothing! Really, David, you're not appreciating all the effort that went into righteous indignation here.

Unfortunately, he also tends to ignore objections and alternative interpretations of the studies he cites (especially disappointing from a professor). Looking at the page, there's three studies. (1) says that HGH doesn't help cycling endurance over a 28-day period. (2) says that HGH lowers body fat over a 30-day period. (3) doesn't really explore anything new. How is any of this related to the belief that HGH aids in "recovery" (as in, recovery between starts)? And for what it's worth, 28 days is probably not a long enough time to see endurance gains. I've heard that strength gains take about 3 weeks after the date of strength training to be fully realized by the body; if endurance is the same, it seems reasonable to me that even if there is an effect, the 7 remaining days is not long enough to make that difference statistically significant. I don't think major leaguers take HGH for 28 days, they take it for years. It's tough to take a sample size of 28 days and believe it can be extrapolated by a factor of 25 or more.

Still, if it's against the rules, I think it should be tested for if possible. I have no idea how much money it costs to try to develop these tests, but baseball shouldn't be the only one footing the bill. I'd assume the Olympic committee, cycling associations, NFL, etc, could chip in somehow.

I agree with Mike. How are these studies equivalent to "HGH can't possibly help you play baseball better in any way, shape or form." They aren't. There are plenty of ways that HGH can help you beyond increasing one's endurance within the first 28 days.

So athletes just eat the stuff because it tastes good? Unlikely.