
Banning substance, in almost all cases is a good idea. Why? Because for the most part when a substance is banned, it's banned because of the harmful effects that it has. These effects could be mental, it would make you do something that you would never do, like rob a bank or worse. Maybe its physical, like the substance damages your liver, kidneys or increases the chance of illness. This in a nutshell is how the law determines whether or not to ban a substance, and the NFL, NBA, MLB and other major professional sports leagues follow and use the same process to ban certain performance enhancers, like steroids. Steroids mentally cause "roid rage" which led to players abusing women, fighting teammates and sometimes hurting themselves. Physically it led to testosterone and estrogen issues, abnormal growth and many other side effects. It simply was horrible and as a result it got banned, but that set precedence for banning all "performance enhancing" drugs in sports., including HGH. HGH has been basically grouped with steroids, because they both can help players put on muscle, but they're not even close to the same drug. HGH unlike steroids can help players recover faster and come back stronger minimizing the risk of reinjure, and when administered by a trained professional it has almost zero side effects. HGH for recovery purposes should be allowed in major professional sports, because it actually is good for player safety. 

So lets just get the big question out of the way, what are the side effects of HGH? Well there hasn't been a lot of test, so the data isn't the best, and studies have been weak and inconclusive. This stems from HGH being banned, and not having a reason to ban the substance. However, the only definitive negative side effect that has ever been sort of proven, is HGH can spur the growth of cancer or tumors already in your body (Zulani). So basically if you already have cancer or a tumor, it can cause it to develop quicker, but it does not cause cancer. So if HGH was legal, a player, his family and the doctor would decide if HGH was the best option. A team, who wants a player to recover faster, could not try to force a player into taking HGH if they are uncomfortable with it. But most research has actually proven that HGH, isn't harmful or has any of the terrifying side effects as steroids. (Zulani)

One of the arguments made for banning HGH, is players getting an unfair advantage, by using a performance enhancer. Well, first what I'm proposing is only using it for recovery, and second, performance enhancers are already used in sports, all the time, we just don't consider them traditional performance enhancers. Take laser eye surgery for example, it literally enhances your sight, potentially giving you better vison than opposing players which leads to your performance being enhanced. But why isn't that banned? Well simply because it isn't thought of as a "performance enhancer", the only thing performance enhancers are associated with is substance. Like drugs such as HGH and Steroid and outer body performance enhancers like stickum and pinetar. If you think about it pretty much every surgery could be considered performance enhancing. We need to break out of the train of thought, that performance enhancers are only limited to substance. Because then people stop taking performance enhancers on a case by case basis, and start grouping them all together. 

Couldn't you make the argument that laser eye surgery is potentially more of a risk than HGH? Laser eye surgery can cause you to go blind, HGH can only stunt the growth of something already in your body. 

How could HGH be administered? Well the policy I'm proposing isn't any athlete can go buy HGH, and start using it at there leisure to get extremely bulk. That would be cheating, unfair and could be abused and lead to real health problems. What I am suggesting is that if you are injured, and it is deemed that HGH could be helpful in your recovery, by a doctor, you may have it administered while you recover from an injury. Mean while, the rest of the league is tested for HGH and if it is found that you're using HGH illegally, then you'll be punished. This would minimize health risk associated with HGH, allow players to recover from injury faster and come back stronger than they would without the assistance of HGH. Plus it would also not allow players who are only using HGH to bulk up, just to use it at there leisure. 

Why are steroids compared to HGH? Well I've hit on this a few times, but simply because they both are drugs, that can be used to add muscle. But its odd that suddenly the fights, the domestic violence, the fits of rage, the liver damage, kidney damage, heart damage, testosterone problems, estrogen problems and abnormal growth are equated to HGH. Even though those problems can only be linked to steroids. Yet, isn't simple Whey Protein shakes a performance enhancing drug that operates similarly to HGH and steroids? Protein powder, is used to add muscle, after work outs. So if media perception stopped portraying it in such negative light, then maybe real change could occur, that only benefits the athletes. 

You may be thinking, that it's possible sports leagues are just trying to keep their players safe, and would ban any potentially dangerous substance. However that isn't the case. If you look at the substances used in sports and are allowed they include codeine, morphine and a number of other highly addictive pain killers. Why? I really don't have an answer, but it seems that they'd rather prolong a problem than fix it, because it can have a more immediate result. For example, if a player has ligament damage, they can be subscribed powerful painkillers and play through the injury, even though these painkillers have awful side effects, are highly addictive, usually not administered by medical professionals (Simmons). Playing through an injury can lead to further injury. While if you sat the player out, they would recover fully, come back stronger and not risk re-injury. So why do these leagues not just do that? Potentially because when stars miss playing time, teams usually will lose revenue.  I'm not the only one saying sports leagues, prioritize money over player safety. Bill Simmons former ESPN analysis, said on his podcast this was the case. 

Really the question revolving around HGH is do you want to listen to other people or do your own research? If you listen to other people than you may think HGH is the same as steroids, leads to awful side effects and can create monsters of men. If you do your own research you'll find out other drugs just as bad are being used currently, performance enhancers are already being used, HGH is safe, is nothing like steroids and should be allowed.  

A good current example of a professional athlete who needed HGH is Peyton Manning. In 2012 Peyton Manning had, what looked to be a career ending neck injury. This injury was so severe he missed the entire season. His team, the Indianapolis Colts, decided to move on from him and released him to free agency. He signed with the Denver Broncos, recovered from his injury, extended his career by 5 years, made millions of dollars, broke a lot of passing yard records and won a Super Bowl. This is all great, and we usually would applaud something like this. The story of tragedy to recovery to redemption, is all something we want to relate to. However, last November, it was reported by Al-Jazeera America, that Peyton Manning had shipments of HGH, sent to his house. Now, obviously Peyton Manning has denied these allegations, but the fact is, whether true or false, these allegations have permanently damaged Peyton Manning's reputation (McCarthy). But should they have? 

I would argue, no, they shouldn't of. Manning potentially taking HGH to recover from a serious injury, is a perfectly ethical use of HGH. By using HGH, he extended his career, made money, better cemented his legacy, broke records and had a healthy recovery from a very serious injury, with no negative side effects. But this doesn't stop people from calling Manning a cheater, despite the fact he made a choice all most of us would have made. 

So is HGH something that should be legal and unregulated? No. HGH is something that can be used to keep our athletes healthier with some simple regulations. The Peyton Manning use of HGH is something that can be very effective. Take it when you're injured to recover from injury, and then when you no longer need it stop. Also, HGH has less side effects than some of the painkillers allowed in sports.

Also, according to a study, when marathon runners ran, while using HGH, there average performance wasn't increased. However, there recovery time from race to race was faster. Which is a good thing. (Banfi)

Jay Williams, a legendary basketball player, wrote a story in the player tribune, called "Double Standard", in this he talked about how after he suffered career ending injuries, the league wasn't there to support him. He lost lots of money, however, if he could've just had all the resources to help him recover. He could of had a different story, if he was able to use every resource and maybe recover from his injures, he could have a better story. (Williams) 

Another issue with HGH, is the testing is extremely flawed. Many time false positives occur and people who are actually using steroids are never caught. However, if we had a list of people that have been approved for HGH, it could allow testing to be more precise. (Bidingmailer)

Performance enhancing drugs in sports is an epidemic. A study found that 26 out of 28 Olympic sprinters said if they knew they wouldn't get caught and would win, they'd take performance enhancing drugs (Tokish). Which obviously means a lot of athletes are taking PEDs. Which is dangerous, and if we provided a safer alternative, we could do some good. I mean look at Lance Armstrong, to just comeback, he used steroids. The pressure on athletes is extremely intense. For someone like Lance Armstrong, it may be pride, for a bench warmer on the Panthers, it may mean whether their kid goes to college. And its almost evil that the leagues would rather give them painkillers to make maybe some more revenue before they get seriously hurt, than something that could help long term.  

Simply, performance enhancers, aren't always a bad thing even if the media portrays them that why. Performance enhancers can include a ton of things, from steroids to surgery and even gloves. HGH is also pretty much side effect free. The only thing it can cause is it could stunt the growth of tumors already in your body. While it could give some players unfair advantages, I'm advocating, for HGH to be allowed in the case of recovery. Plus steroids are always compared to HGH, but they're not even close to the same. However, the link continues. All while extremely addictive pain killers are readily available, and these pain killers only cost the athletes, while organizations and leagues, continue to make money. Also the allegation and the picture the media paints around performance enhancers is unfair. They crucified Peyton Manning for maybe taking HGH (Myers). Which plays into the stereotype that HGH is this awful thing. Most athletes would agree that HGH should be allowed, because it can only benefit the athletes. While players like Jay Williams and journalist Bill Simmons agree. There has been very little vocal support for HGH in the leagues. Recently though, Dallas Maverick owner Mark Cuban came out in favor of HGH. This is the kind of thing that needs to happen to make real change. Because at the end of the day it should come down to player safety. 

