Skip to content

Jake Scott calls HGH testing a “witch hunt”

scott-jake_584 Getty Images

The recently finalized CBA reportedly includes authority to conduct HGH testing.  And that’s not sitting well with one of the NFLPA’s player representatives.

Titans guard Jake Scott calls the process a “witch hunt,” according to Terry McCormick of TitanInsider.com.

“[The owners have] wanted that all along, clear back to February or March, to do HGH testing,” Scott said.  “That’s a no-go for us.  If they’re still holding to that, I can see that being a problem.”

Actually, it’s no longer a problem because the CBA has been ratified.  And it reportedly includes authorization to conduct HGH testing.

“There’s only one test, and it’s a hoax,” Scott said.  “We’re not going for that.  We’re not going to turn this into a witch hunt for some independent company to make profits off of.  We’re not gonna do that to our players.”

Scott raises a valid point.  “I would question the motives of any company that is testing for profit, that is operating a for-profit business.  Their incentive is to catch people,” Scott said. “That’s their incentive — is to catch people, and if they don’t catch anybody, nobody thinks their tests works.  There’s a conflict of interest there.”

Apparently, while the authority to conduct HGH testing is contained in the CBA, work still must be done as to the specific of testing.  “It’s still under negotiation,” Scott said, via John Glennon of the Tennessean.  “We have a say as a union.  We have to agree to the test, the testing procedure, the testing company.  We’re willing to do it if they find a test that’s proven accurate and it’s administered in a way we deem acceptable to our players.”

So maybe it’s not as done of a done deal as we’ve been led to believe.

Permalink 55 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Rumor Mill, Sprint Football Live - Rumors, Tennessee Titans, Top Stories, Union
55 Responses to “Jake Scott calls HGH testing a “witch hunt””
  1. vbe2 says: Aug 4, 2011 11:24 PM

    Me thinks thou doth protest too much…

  2. goawayeverybody says: Aug 4, 2011 11:27 PM

    So I guess that means Jake Scott has been using HGH then…

  3. possiblecabbage says: Aug 4, 2011 11:27 PM

    Well, ultimately isn’t the reason to put HGH testing in the CBA two fold:

    1) In case an actually effective HGH test shows up in the next 10 years, you can start using it without having to fight the union about it.

    2) So the NFL can crow about being harder on PEDs than any other American sports league since nobody else tests for HGH.

    As it stands, it’s really unlikely that any NFL players are actually going to fail the test for HGH (at least until we get a new test) since the current tests really only detect HGH usage in the last 36 to 48 hours. So it’s essentially “safe” to take it whenever you’re certain you’re not going to get tested in the next couple of days.

  4. buckbrennan says: Aug 4, 2011 11:30 PM

    is it ever really a smart idea for a player, who could very well be clean, to speak out against testing for banned substances?

  5. superdanlp says: Aug 4, 2011 11:30 PM

    inb4 he gets caught

  6. finsfrontofficeisajoke says: Aug 4, 2011 11:33 PM

    That’s because this was always about the money. Once the payoff had been decided, the rest was inconsequential to these incompetent fools.

  7. plundergrunge says: Aug 4, 2011 11:33 PM

    Brian Cushing: “I am NOT a witch.”

  8. packulak says: Aug 4, 2011 11:34 PM

    There’s always more to an issue that what we see on the surface, but really can we just put that crap behind us no one wants to hear about the pettiness of the past eight months.

  9. bennyd720 says: Aug 4, 2011 11:35 PM

    Sounds like Jake Scott is shaking in his boots…

  10. macdaddyspeed says: Aug 4, 2011 11:38 PM

    Could this be a new approach to getting nabbed for PED use; The Proactive Excuse?

  11. crysisorigins says: Aug 4, 2011 11:41 PM

    I know who’s going to be the first one to test positive now.

  12. highpowered350 says: Aug 4, 2011 11:42 PM

    Test him first

  13. broncotis3000 says: Aug 4, 2011 11:43 PM

    Sounds like Jake’s got something to hide…..

  14. stampnhawk says: Aug 4, 2011 11:46 PM

    Right Scott, pick the first logical guilty party here; blame it on the faceless corporations for the fact that you didnt think it took so long to get all that out of the system.
    Back on your broom, maybe something in your potion book will mask the illegal chemicals in your body.
    Maybe something in there will also help welcome you to August, given your complete cluelessness about the testing as if it was June still.
    Dumb and dumber.

  15. goforthanddie says: Aug 4, 2011 11:47 PM

    Bitching about testing is just stupid. And yeah, test him first, last, and any chance you get.

  16. polishkingski says: Aug 4, 2011 11:55 PM

    hey this ain`t baseball folks. juiced old pitchers finding a “second” life or guys hitting home runs. i think it may be that alot of the players who were already very very strong from diet and modern training methods are getting tired of guys taking ped`s to give them that one last over the top advantage. i hope they test, the game will still be awesome. football does not need any spicing up with guys going yard just to get people to watch.

  17. flagstaffphotos says: Aug 4, 2011 11:56 PM

    Interesting that Haynesworth lost ALL athletic ability the moment he left the friendly Juice, I mean the friendly confines, of Nashville

  18. trbowman says: Aug 5, 2011 12:08 AM

    I bet you so many guys in the league juice. They’re worried. Like Cromartie said, you got something to hide or you don’t.

  19. devrocks247 says: Aug 5, 2011 12:09 AM

    So, what exactly is the incentive for the owners, outside of the obvious public relations angle?

    I’ve heard players complain for years about drug testing, and how the owners are pushing for it. Why would the owners push for something that could ultimately result in a valued player getting suspended and missing games?

  20. patpatriotagain says: Aug 5, 2011 12:21 AM

    who knows if it’s a done deal? yes, it’s been ratified, but perhaps hgh testing was an item that carried a ‘future negotiating’ rider

  21. kom2k10 says: Aug 5, 2011 12:23 AM

    Im going to try using those same arguments next time my job wants to drug test me… I wonder if Id still have a job the next day…

  22. joyjoy69 says: Aug 5, 2011 12:24 AM

    Here’s the thing with HGH – there is no medical evidence that taking it is harmful, indeed there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that taking it helps heal. Right now, it is prohibitively expensive for anyone who doesn’t make millions. Demand from athletes with that kind of money could lead to it costing less, which would be a boon for most people (especially as they age!). So, we should be happy they can’t test for it right now.

    Of course, using it for other reasons than to treat specific diseases is currently illegal. So, players found to use it should be arrested, prosecuted and jailed.

    Anyone feel differently? Talk to your congressman…

  23. johnnyb216 says: Aug 5, 2011 12:41 AM

    Why would anybody protest this? Unless they were guilty.

  24. ravensfan4life52 says: Aug 5, 2011 12:47 AM

    if you aren’t using it what’s the problem? the only reason anyone would protest this is if they’re guilty of something.

  25. coolzog says: Aug 5, 2011 12:58 AM

    Maybe he’s just worried that all those players using HGH for dwarfism will be unjustly persecuted the way Brian Cushing was for possibly, but not really, having prostate cancer yet still having unnatural levels of hCG in his blood.

  26. t16rich says: Aug 5, 2011 1:05 AM

    Suspicious. HE’S A WITCH!!!

  27. coreydemoss says: Aug 5, 2011 1:15 AM

    If he weighs the same as a duck, he’s made of wood. And therefore…

  28. thetooloftools says: Aug 5, 2011 1:15 AM

    I say don’t test for any drugs. Let these guys catch on fire running down the field for all I care.
    I KNEW baseball players were using steroids for years and my circle of sports friends laughed at me. Bigger, stronger, faster… I’m all for it. Hell if they flame out, they flame out. I want to see dudes crushing each other and blowing each other up. Like they say “it’s business”. Well if it’s business then I won’t make it personal like I give a rip if they die young or their brains melt.
    Google “Steelers and steroids” sometime.
    Rocky Blier nailed it.
    Nothing personal.
    It’s business.

  29. bullcharger says: Aug 5, 2011 1:20 AM

    If 10 more reps of bench press and a faster 40 time is the difference between not making the NFL and millions of dollars of guaranteed money, players will do what ever they have to do.

    Testing won’t fix the problem unless the results are truly reliable and the punishment is such that it is no longer worth it for players to take the risk.

    A multi million dollar contract vs a 3 game suspension if you actually get caught is a no brainer.

    What happend to Manny Ramirez is more like it. Miss a season… make players ineligable for the HOF, etc.

    Players will surely stop if they are risking their career.

    Prevention also needs to start much earlier in their sporting lives. High school players are already doing this stuff… hard for them to stop later.

    If a kid gains 20lbs of muscle in a summer the coach should be questioning him, not congratulating him.

    HGH testing will just remove the biggest offenders and give the illusion that the league is responsible, but it won’t fix the problem.

  30. getreal3128 says: Aug 5, 2011 1:27 AM

    cabbage … since the NFL has never tested for HGH, this would be a new test.

    Third party testers are not out to bust anyone. There are many variables involved in the NFL’s drug testing program. Any attempt at a “witch hunt” … quota system, etc is not going to happen.

  31. olsonm4 says: Aug 5, 2011 1:34 AM

    While i’m not a big fan of jake scott, do your research on this. There aren’t any”trully”accurate HGH testing methods. Too many false positives. I’m really surprised it made it in the CBA. That’s why other sports aren’t testing…

  32. buzzbissinger says: Aug 5, 2011 1:40 AM

    This stuff just cracks me up. MLB, NBA, NFL have a laughable testing system and catch no one, therefore are considered “clean” sports. Meanwhile, Olympic sports (cycling, track) actively persue dopers and weed them out, yet are considered “dirty” sports.

  33. pfank11 says: Aug 5, 2011 1:56 AM

    There is a real simple way to solve BOTH parties issues. I can see Scott’s point about the HGH testing not being full proof. Here’s how they should handle it. First if a test comes back positive. Before they go public, they bring the player in and take a blood test. Both tests come up positive the player is suspended.

    Since the owners are paying for their health insurance, I thin they have a right to know they aren’t harming themselves. The blood test becomes less intrusive, because it will only be used if the urine tests is positive, so it would only happen about 10 times a year.

    Asking trhe membership to take around 10 blood tests out of 1899 member to show the public that their sport is clean. Protects the integrity of the league and protects the players from being penalized because of a false positive.

  34. timegambit says: Aug 5, 2011 2:04 AM

    Start testing in New England!

    There are alot of very pissed off witches in that area.

  35. tigerphins says: Aug 5, 2011 2:16 AM

    Witch hunt?

    This is preposterous!!! Everyone knows women don’t play in the NFL.

    On a real note— It’s only a witch hunt if innocent people are being punished.

  36. jcdavey2011 says: Aug 5, 2011 2:43 AM

    memo to nfl testing dept.

    test that guy first

    follow up memo, test all players who have ever failed a drug test, 2nd.

    i don’t see the problem with testing, and i don’t understand how any player can ‘openly’ disagree with it.

  37. CKL says: Aug 5, 2011 3:09 AM

    Devrocks-could also be public opinion related. Look at the mess basebore has had with PEDS. Not good publicity for the league or the game. Poor public opinion=less ad & tv $$$.

  38. savannahrose44 says: Aug 5, 2011 4:49 AM

    A witch hunt? I think not. Maybe you should familiarize yourself with what exactly constitutes a witch hunt. Last I checked they are not burning witches in the NFL, they are simply wanting to test players to make sure they are not using DANGEROUS steroids. You have nothing to fear…IF you have nothing to hide. I can’t imagine any player protesting this who is not guilty of using. If you are stupid enough to use steroids I hope you enjoy the nice after effects for the rest of your life…however long that ends up being. Pull your head outta your butt Jake Scott that is unless you really do have something to hide.

  39. scudbot says: Aug 5, 2011 5:24 AM

    The incentive for the owners is contained in the title of the next post, “Conduct policy more about P.R. than fairness.” That, and their lawyers want it for CYA purposes.

  40. jagmania65 says: Aug 5, 2011 5:26 AM

    @devrocks247:

    What’s in it for the owners is that Congress’ givng the NFL exemption from Anti-Trust Law is the most important thing to the operation of the league.

    Congress didn’t hold hearings on PED use in football because the league could tell Congress that they test for steroids. Baseball couldn’t say the same thing, and so a bunch of juicers got hauled before Congress to testify. That created a PR nightmare that still hasn’t gone away. The NFL doesn’t want that headache, or a Congress inclined to re-examine the NFL’s Anti-Trust Law exemption…

  41. sdelmonte says: Aug 5, 2011 5:53 AM

    I would have to be offered something in exchange to allow anyone to routinely take blood samples from me for any reason. I don’t know why the union agreed to this without a real fight.

  42. liltifer says: Aug 5, 2011 6:01 AM

    It’s not a witch-hunt. It’s a hunt for people using illegal means to gain an unfair advantage.

    Or did you think people are built like that naturally? I’m sure at some point, Takeo Spikes actually had a neck…

  43. hscorpio says: Aug 5, 2011 6:17 AM

    Once the testing is in place, it will be interesting to see which player’s performance dramatically declines. It won’t be proof positive they were using HGH but it will sure be suspicious.

  44. mempusa says: Aug 5, 2011 6:33 AM

    I agree with Jake

  45. 1ravensfan says: Aug 5, 2011 6:33 AM

    During the lockout the players push and push to get what they feel like they deserve. Now that the lockout is over it seems to me that the players are testing every limit with Goodell, HGH, and every other thing they feel is unfair. It is time these players start acting like million dollar adults and shut he hell up!

  46. hoosierdude says: Aug 5, 2011 6:34 AM

    Hey Jake – If you don’t use, Goodell won’t burn you at the stake.

  47. billsfan1 says: Aug 5, 2011 7:04 AM

    “That’s their incentive — is to catch people, and if they don’t catch anybody, nobody thinks their tests works. There’s a conflict of interest there.”

    and the problem is…….? if u catch somebody, say Brian Cushing, then u help take competitive advantage away, and if you cant catch anybody, then no harm, no foul.
    it just seems like the players keep needing to complain about something…. its the tough guy metality. Give it up, you make more money and have more opportunity then u would ever have without football. well deserved for sure, but give it up. you got a nice deal as did the owners… be glad football is back

  48. Mr. Super-Cool Awesome says: Aug 5, 2011 7:11 AM

    I understand his argument. Its the same one that people use against red-light cameras. That company makes a profit by catching people. So they will do whatever they can to catch people.

    Unfortunately, 95% of the followers of this site are colossal ‘tards. So of course you’ll get the thoughtless comments like “derp, test him first.” Or, “derp what does he have to hide?”

  49. conseannery says: Aug 5, 2011 7:37 AM

    “I would question the motives of any offensive lineman who is blocking for profit, that is playing as a for-profit player.  Their incentive is to block people,” Scott said. “That’s their incentive — is to block people, and if they don’t block anybody, nobody thinks they can block.  There’s a conflict of interest there.”

  50. tdk24 says: Aug 5, 2011 8:05 AM

    Says the guy who probably takes HGH.

  51. realitypolice says: Aug 5, 2011 8:34 AM

    HGH has no value as a performance enhancing drug in people in the age range of NFL players whose bodies are already producing all of the hormone naturally that their body can assimilate.

    HGH is only effective in people who have a natural hormone deficiency, people who have aged to the point where hormone production in their body has slowed down (there is no one in the NFL at that age), or possibly in speeding injury recovery.

    HGH is not in any way related to steriods. There is no credible evidence that HGH has any side effects or long term health consequences.

    HGH “testing” is extremely expensive and it’s accuracy highly questionable.

    Given the amount of people on here who rail against the league trying take player safety more seriously, I am astounded by the amount of people who seem to care so much about what a player is putting into his body.

    If anything, HGH only give players an advantage in getting jobs over other players ( just about all current research would say it doesn’t) , and why do you care about that?

    And don’t give me any nonsense about your kids. If you’re still using NFL players as role models for your children, they should be taken away from you.

    And to all of you jackwagons who assume a player is doing drugs because he resists testing, maybe he is against it on general principles.

    I never do illegal drugs of any type, but I will never, ever, work for a company that requires me to take a drug test.

    It’s a choice I have the freedom to make and NFL players (and lots of other people) don’t.

  52. tomosbornesretirementcostjoepaatitle says: Aug 5, 2011 8:44 AM

    If only Mr Scott would look outside his entitled NFL life.

    The fact that we have for profit, private run prisons is a problem. For profit drug companies and health insurance is not doing our countries citizens any favors either.

  53. NFLJunkie says: Aug 5, 2011 8:47 AM

    There is a real simple way to solve BOTH parties issues. I can see Scott’s point about the HGH testing not being full proof. Here’s how they should handle it. First if a test comes back positive. Before they go public, they bring the player in and take a blood test. Both tests come up positive the player is suspended.

    Except I think Scott’s point was if there’s only one company performing the only approved test, then that retesting process — either automatically to confirm a positive result or as part of a player appeal — is still suspect.

    Scott never said he was against testing. Just that he questions the motives and neutrality of that sole test provider in proving the test is accurate.

  54. ejmat2 says: Aug 5, 2011 9:06 AM

    A witch hunt, huh Jake? Try working in the real world. A lot of different companies have random drug testing. Most of which don’t make the money you do.

    How about asking yourself this? If you weren’t doing anything wrong then why should you have to worry? By the way, the incentive is not to catch people as you say. It is to DETER people. Big difference. My suggestion is if you don’t like it then find another job that doesn’t do drug testing.

  55. vikesfansteve says: Aug 5, 2011 2:54 PM

    We know 1 guy is on HGH for sure.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!