Finally...something informative

Daniel Engber writing for Slate's science page actually gives some hard facts about HGH. There's also a bunch of other related articles linked at the bottom.

I was aware that HGH was not a steroid, hence my frequent use of the terms "performance enhancers" and "stuff." I think we should all agree to call performance enhancers "stuff" and know what we're talking about. It's just easier.

As for the Engber article, one of the points it makes is not a new one. Jose Canseco, of course, claimed that he took steroids safely, without ill-effect. Engber claims that HGH is even safer than steroids. He also believes it's much less effective, though he doesn't dismiss the idea that it could help pro athletes.

Which brings us right back to Fyall's question over what should or should not be legal. If HGH is not dangerous and only helps a little, then what's the difference between it and a better pair of baseball spikes? Culturally, HGH is frowned upon, just like cannabis is frowned upon more than tobacco even though it's less dangerous.

So I say... ban steroids definitely. Testing is pretty reliable, though it's still hard to catch careful users. Ban HGH for now. If further tests prove that it really, really doesn't do that much, let it go. There's tons of legal drugs out there that athletes use anyway.