Comments on: New York Times corrects its description of league’s HGH testing plan

By: twitter:Chapman_Jamie

twitter:Chapman_Jamie — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 12:28:57 +0000

Anyone who gives the NY Times a shred of credibility deserves to be duped.

By: nsevh76

nsevh76 — Sun, 07 Aug 2011 12:32:15 +0000

Mike, you’ve attacked this ariticle pretty harshly for a guy who prints rumors for a living. I don’t think your credibility is any different than the NYT, which is to say 0!

By: jikthree

jikthree — Sun, 07 Aug 2011 02:14:56 +0000

The NFL will jump at any chance to embarass the NYT since the times shamed the NFL to move on the concussion issue

By: abninf

abninf — Sun, 07 Aug 2011 01:41:44 +0000

The NYT has plenty of practice with retractions.

By: buckbrennan

buckbrennan — Sun, 07 Aug 2011 01:32:24 +0000

well even if all HGH did was promote healing that is still shortening recovery time for muscles which would allow for an athlete to train more and get bigger faster and stronger

By: prior0knowledge

prior0knowledge — Sun, 07 Aug 2011 01:09:20 +0000

However, I question why HGH is even on the banned substances list. All it does is promote healing and does not improve performance, per se. Also, I don’t believe HGH use has any long-term dangers. So I don’t think it is in the same category as steroids.

By: prior0knowledge

prior0knowledge — Sun, 07 Aug 2011 01:07:26 +0000

You can’t have an annual random test because that means that after a player was tested during the year, that he knows he will never be tested again that year and can use HGH all he wants.

By: MichaelEdits

MichaelEdits — Sun, 07 Aug 2011 00:32:50 +0000

I often edit papers on topics that I know next to nothing about. I think the writer could be forgiven for getting facts about HGH wrong but should be able to get facts about reading a calendar correct. But what do I know?

By: depotnator

depotnator — Sun, 07 Aug 2011 00:06:28 +0000

“…will include both annual blood testing and random blood testing for human growth hormone, with discipline for positive tests at the same level as for steroids.” does not clearly state that every player will be subject to both annual and random tests…or how many random tests and when. Given that HGH disipates and is undetectible with current testing procedures after 24- 48 hrs in the body, the timing of the tests is critical for them to be effective and accurate. The issue is still vague enough that it is silly to be going after the New York Times, which is probably more impartial in its skepticism than NBC/PFT regarding the effectiveness of NFL testing procedures.

By: Deb

Deb — Sat, 06 Aug 2011 23:38:32 +0000

Instead of debating the NYT’s faux pas, can you please provide some insight on HGH? In reading knowledgeable commenters on the subject (when you can wade through the smacktalkers to find them), there seems to be a debate about whether HGH actually enhances performance. And there’s definitely a debate about the reliability of the test.

Steroids have proven to be dangerous to the long-term health of those taking them. That’s the best reason for banning them. What about HGH? And how can the league rely on tests that aren’t reliable or which are administered by companies that only get paid if they come up with positive findings? Would appreciate your insights.

By: AlanSaysYo

AlanSaysYo — Sat, 06 Aug 2011 23:24:41 +0000

Are you really going after the New York Times over journalistic integrity, Mr. Terry Bradshaw Is Dead?

By: elwaysbrain

elwaysbrain — Sat, 06 Aug 2011 22:56:55 +0000

Does this Aiello guy actually have a job? It seems all he does is answer your questions via email and read the NY Times all day over and over again until it’s time to hit the sheets. And the next day he complains about the stories they write. The sad thing is he’s probably getting paid 7 figures for all that.