New method of finding HGH could hurt urine test

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. — A new test that provides a breakthrough in detecting human growth hormone in blood is expected to become available soon and make it more difficult for athletes to use HGH without getting caught. It's a test some experts consider so good, however, it could blunt the push for the urine-based test sought by some in baseball and football, possibly stalling promising research that has already cost many thousands of dollars. The new test, called a biomarkers test, scans the blood for chemicals the body produces after HGH use, which are detectable for up to two weeks. The test, expected to be available in the coming weeks or months, is a complement to — or maybe an improvement over — the current test, called an isoform test, which scans blood for synthetic HGH. The isoform test detects synthetic HGH in the blood for only about 48 hours after use, making it easier for users to avoid detection. "Anytime we have more tools, it's a good thing," said Larry Bowers, the lead scientist for the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency. "We view the two tests as working together. One doesn't replace the other, but it certainly gives us a wider window and a greater opportunity for catching people." Following these developments anxiously are scientists from a Virginia lab called Ceres Nanosciences, where a $65,000 grant from USADA has been used to fund research that could someday lead to a urine test for HGH — the only HGH test Major League Baseball players would have to submit to under the current "Joint Drug Agreement" between baseball and the union. Buoyed by success from the early phases of their testing, which the Ceres scientists say has debunked long-held claims that HGH particles can't be effectively captured in urine, Ceres is now applying for a grant to take the experiments to the next step. "To move forward after this, we desperately need money," said Lance Liotta, lead scientist on the Ceres HGH project. "Funding is critical for us. If all the money goes toward the blood test that other people are working on, then they're missing a fantastic opportunity in urine that they shouldn't dismiss offhand." Ceres' best chance for funding is from the Partnership for Clean Competition (PCC), a collaborative founded in 2008 by the NFL, Major League Baseball, USADA and the U.S. Olympic Committee that has provided $1.3 million in grants for promising anti-doping research over the last two years. The founders of the PCC, which delivers grants after receiving advice from a scientific advisory board chaired by Bowers of USADA, have different agendas when it comes to finding the perfect HGH test. "We're optimistic but realistic" about the possibility of a urine test, USADA CEO Travis Tygart said. "Right now, and for the foreseeable future, you have to collect blood to detect and deter HGH." Baseball and football have long held out against blood tests, with leaders of their respective unions questioning the validity and effectiveness of the original isoforms test, which has been available since 2004 — and on a wider basis since 2008. Earlier this year, a British rugby player became the first athlete suspended for using HGH — a development that proved the isoforms test could, indeed, catch cheaters. Encouraged by that development and others, the NFL has come around on blood testing over the past several months, saying it would like to implement HGH blood testing if it can come to terms with the players' union. That debate figures to be part of next collective-bargaining agreement. "In a perfect world, a urine test would be far easier for us to deal with and administer than a blood test," said Adolpho Birch, who oversees the NFL's drug policy. "The problem is, we thought there was some chance a urine test could be developed. That's increasingly looking less likely. The practical reality is, we need to focus on a test that works, and the test that works is blood." Representatives from the NFL Players Association did not respond to messages left by The Associated Press. Baseball, meanwhile, has remained more skeptical about blood testing, and while HGH is officially listed as a prohibited substance, the only requirement it be tested for in the Major Leagues is if a validated urine test is found. "Blood testing is just more complicated than urine testing, from a number of perspectives — player health, collector qualifications, potential for interference with play, among others," union executive director Michael Weiner said in an email to AP. "Given this, both the Commissioner's Office and the MLBPA have agreed ... to restrict our collections to urine testing." Commissioner Bud Selig has said his science adviser is studying the isoform test to determine if it is valid, something USADA has long insisted it is. MLB, the NFL and the NFL players union have also funded scientist Don Catlin's research for an effective urine test, though Catlin released a report in April stating that current methods don't capture enough HGH from urine to apply the isoforms test. He suggested new methods be developed, one of which is the technology already patented by the Ceres lab. Subsequent to giving Catlin the money, the NFL has turned to the PCC as its sole outlet for funding anti-doping research. Catlin did not immediately respond to messages left at his office by The AP. Stamping out HGH use is viewed as one of the most important fronts in the anti-doping movement, because it remains hard to detect and athletes use it for a variety of benefits, real or perceived — everything from increasing speed to strengthening muscles around the eyeballs to improve vision. Bowers, whose opinion carries weight in the grant process, has said in the past that it will be a 10-year process or longer to find a urine test. In an interview earlier this month with The AP, he wondered about the efficacy of continuing that research when a new blood test is close to market. "It's a multistep process to get there if we're going to continue," he said. "There are some potential advantages for people who don't want to have blood drawn, but it's going to be a long and difficult path to get there." Liotta insists an effective urine test doesn't have to be several years off, as many experts say it is. He said urine has long been considered an easier medium to test from, and more broadly accepted. But, he concedes, cost is an issue, and his research will eventually stall without grant money that will be divvied up in January. "Developing a test, it will cost many hundreds of thousands of dollars," Liotta said. Tygart, who along with Birch, Rob Manfred of Major League Baseball and Norm Bellingham of the USOC, receives information from the PCC advisory board and decides who gets the grants, said the need for a urine test "has been lessened at this stage." But he knows USADA isn't the only voice at the table when it comes to giving the money. "Our analysis has nothing to do with theirs," he said of the NFL and baseball. "The main goal is to get together and do what makes the most sense for clean athletes." – AP