Sally Jenkins Not everything's clear when it comes to HGH, PRP

[Sarge]

Pretty good article. I remember a few years ago when Stallone got busted going into Thailand with this stuff enroute to filming the last Rambo movie. He said it had so many positive benefits everyone should do it

Anyway

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/19/AR2010051904705.html

The bottle-boyish doctor Anthony Galea has been charged with peddling syringe cocktails to some of our most prominent American athletes. His trial will be a good thing -- not for a certain Washington Redskin, or for Tiger Woods and Alex Rodriguez, whose reputations are bound to take further hits for being mixed up with him, but for the rest of us, who will be forced to ask ourselves a difficult question: What's the difference between doping and therapy?

 

[servumtuum]

Excellent point, Sarge. You know I tend to follow the state-of-the-art research in medicine, among other things, and this brings to mind questions such as, what happens when currently-in-trial, or, in the lab, treatments for re-growth of tendons, bone, muscle, or skin as part of the healing process are utilized in a sports environment?

Some procedures in testing or clinical trials right now will cause the injured area, such as bone or muscle tissue, or ligament to become stronger than it was prior to the injury. Will we then ban such treatments for professional athletes because it's considered an "unfair advantage" even if it is shown to both speed up healing as well as leave the injured part stronger than before? The question has even arisen of the possibility of a deliberately induced bone-breakage, for example, in order to utilize a treatment that will result in stronger bone structure. These may not be very comfortable scenarios for various reasons, but these things are in the med-science pipeline and these types of questions are coming. It would seem that it isn't too early to start thinking about coming up with some answers and or guidelines, otherwise situations like we have with Dr. Galea and the patients in question will be popping up every time we turn around.

 

[kirbster]

This is a debate that needs to happen now and hopefully come to some resolution.

Sally has another good article today that follows up on this issue:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/21/AR2010052104286.html

While NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell is considering whether to suspend players for seeking cures from the syringe-wielding physician Anthony Galea, he should ask why so many of them distrust their team physicians and seek alternative ways to heal. Medical care in the league is not a simple issue. Anyone who says otherwise should read up on O.J. McDuffie's case.


Two weeks ago former Miami Dolphins wide receiver McDuffie was awarded $11.5 million by a jury because his team physician turned a toe injury into a career-ender. Let's be honest: NFL players suffer extremes of pain, and it's considered perfectly okay for league doctors to mask it. Yet Santana Moss faces a penalty for seeking an injection that was not numbing but potentially restorative to the bum knee he has been playing on for three years. What sense does that make?

 

[Billfishead]

Yeah the NFL may just be on the wrong side of this one. Hard for me to see the justification of the injection of pain killers to mask injury and yet injections to actually help heal the injury is wrong. Havin' a little trouble with that.

 

[romberjo]

I'm stunned. Sally Jenkins has always struck me as someone unfamiliar with nuance; she generally grabs some plausible but obvious thesis, then trots out some formulaic tripe. This, however, seems thoughtful and appropriately equivocal.

 

[servumtuum]

I'm stunned. Sally Jenkins has always struck me as someone unfamiliar with nuance; she generally grabs some plausible but obvious thesis, then trots out some formulaic tripe. This, however, seems thoughtful and appropriately equivocal.

Somewhere hereabouts I did a post one time stating my distaste for the concept of "consider the source"; that is, automatically rejecting-or accepting-something simply because of who said it, because it can potentially cause the omission of relevant and accurate information. This may serve as a case in point.

 

[romberjo]

Somewhere hereabouts I did a post one time stating my distaste for the concept of "consider the source"; that is, automatically rejecting-or accepting-something simply because of who said it, because it can potentially cause the omission of relevant and accurate information. This may serve as a case in point.

I agree; willingness to consider ideas, independent of their source, is an excellent benchmark for thoughtfulness.

I do note, though, that there's a difference b/w "all of Cerrato's personnel moves were bad and stupid" or "everything Gibbs [or whoever] did was brilliant," as opposed to "Jenkins is consistently not nuanced or insightful." Few (if any) of us really knows enough to be able to assess the wisdom of Gibbs' (or even Cerrato's) moves with great confidence, whereas I think many of us are able to assess the wisdom of various columnists' ruminations and pontifications.

And Jenkins' consistent "consider the source" unabashed bashing of everything Snyder did was a big part of what led me (presumptively, but not closed-mindedly) not to think very highly of her work.