Expert: No urine test for HGH anytime soon

In a blow to Major League Baseball's and the National Football League's goal to find a urine test for human growth hormone, the anti-doping expert funded by the leagues to develop it told Newsday Wednesday that it won't be possible through a conventional test.

"Our work has not shown that we are going to be able to detect growth hormone in urine," said Dr. Don Catlin, of the Los Angeles-based Anti-Doping Research Institute. "What we've learned is that the amount present is smaller than what we thought it was going to be."

That discouraging development, combined with the recent news that a British rugby player became the first to test positive for HGH through a blood test, figures to only increase pressure on leagues to turn to blood testing for this anti-aging hormone.

MLB and NFL have long resisted blood tests, citing lack of reliability. In 2006 MLB gave Catlin a $500,000 grant to develop a urine test, but by phone from Vancouver he said he concluded "within the last month" that a traditional urine test for HGH "is not going to happen."

Catlin still believes it's possible to eventually develop a more powerful urine test. He cited his own research and recent published work by Dr. Lance Liotta on his nanoparticle technology that detects even the slightest trace of growth hormone in urine. But although a reliable urine test clearly remains a thing of the future, supporters of the blood test can now say it's producing real results.

David Howman, general director of World Anti-Doping Agency, told Newsday that the rugby player's positive should convince the leagues to accept the blood test as reliable. "I don't think anybody has the excuse to say it doesn't work, therefore I'm not going to even look at it," he said.

Howman said it's the same blood test used in this year's Olympics and at Beijing in 2008, and that "hundreds" have gotten it. That only one person has tested positive should not be seen as a negative, he said, because the test has mostly been used for athletes in a competition.

In other words, the athletes know the test is coming. "You'd have to be pretty dumb to have taken HGH just before you competed," Howman said.

The best use of this blood test, Howman said, is as part of unannounced tests for performance-enhancing drugs, such as those administered during baseball and football seasons. That may happen sooner than you might think. The New York Times reported Wednesday that MLB hopes to begin blood-testing for HGH in the minors this year.

MLB stopped short of confirming that, saying only in a statement, "We are consulting with our experts concerning immediate steps for our minor-league drug program and next steps for our major-league drug program." Because the union does not cover most minor leaguers, MLB can make immediate changes there without collective bargaining.

The NFL is trying to negotiate a new collective-bargaining agreement, and blood testing could become a sticking point. "Our position is that HGH testing has advanced to the point where we are taking steps to incorporate it into our program," league spokesman Greg Aiello said in an e-mail.

But the union remains opposed to blood testing, its stance since when the late Gene Upshaw was its leader. "We're willing to have any test that's accurate," NFLPA spokesman George Atallah said. "Bottom line is blood tests are still unreliable."

Catlin said he recently sent his findings on the obstacles in developing a urine test for HGH to the leagues, and he had not heard back. MLB officials were unavailable for comment last night, and Aiello said, "We are well aware of the state of the testing."

Instead of seeing the leagues turn immediately to blood testing, Catlin is hopeful they will fund more research into developing a more powerful urine test. "From what I learned, in the approach I took, it didn't work," he said. "I'm now pushing to take approach two or approach three. There's different ways to do urine."

With Bob Glauber