In the cloudy issue of performance-enhancing drugs in sports, Human Growth Hormone (HGH) has proven to be the most inscrutable. Most sports fans probably don't know the difference between HGH and steroids and why HGH seems to have become the "drug of choice" for athletes looking for an edge.

We touched on the nature and effectiveness of HGH in our previous column, and now let's take a look at why none of the top sports leagues currently test their athletes for the substance.

The simple answer to the question is that a scientifically-proven, commercially-available test for detecting HGH does not currently exist. The World Anti-Doping Association (WADA) tried testing athletes for HGH at the 2004 Athens and 2006 Turin Olympics, but no positive results were revealed. It's hard to say whether this was due to the ineffectiveness of the test or the fact that HGH is believed to clear the system of users within 48 hours.

Another barrier to HGH testing is that it's undetectable in urine, and only Olympic sports currently mandate blood testing. In his statement to the House Energy and Commerce Committee on Feb. 27, Major League Baseball Players Association Executive Director Donald Fehr said, "We have agreed to test for it as soon as a scientifically valid urine test exists." The subtext seems to be that Major League Baseball isn't crazy about forcing their players to take blood tests, although Fehr did say that "if and when a scientifically valid blood test becomes available, the players will consider it in good faith at that time based on the facts then known."

In a nutshell: Nobody else gives blood tests so why should we? And how do we know the test is accurate anyway? Like it or not, Fehr's got a point. Of course, the more cynical among us also suspect that the powers that be in pro sports would rather not address this issue at all. When it comes down to it, they don't see this as a scientific or moral issue at all – it's a public relations problem.

Look at how Major League Baseball and the NFL have pointed fingers at each other recently. NFL Players Union President Troy Vincent insists that HGH use is more common in baseball than in football, saying, "We feel it's something that's not common in our space." Sure, Troy, because why would NFL players consider using a drug that could help them recover from injury and return to the field faster?

Meanwhile, New York Yankees' Senior Vice President Hank Steinbrenner isn't afraid to point out the juiced-up elephant in the corner of the room. "Everybody that knows sports knows football is tailor-made for performance-enhancing drugs," said Steinbrenner. "I don't know how they managed to skate by. It irritates me. Don't tell me it's not more prevalent. The number in football is at least twice as many. Look at the speed and size of those players."

None of this finger-pointing brings us closer to actually addressing the problem. In a poll currently running in Sympatico / MSN's baseball section, 79 percent of you feel that Major League Baseball should test for Human Growth Hormone. That's a pretty high number, but I'm actually more intrigued by the other 21 percent.

Some of these people might just be sick of hearing about drugs in sports, but others simply don't have a problem with it. Comedian Daniel Tosh is one of them. "I think pro athletes should be forced to use steroids. I think we as fans deserve the greatest athletes science can create.  Anything that will make you run faster or jump higher. I have high-definition TV. I want my athletes like my video games. Let's go!"

So, to sum up, none of the pro sports really want to admit that HGH is a problem in their sport – and even if it is, they don't trust the tests that purport to detect it. More and more, I'm beginning to believe that the end result of The Mitchell Report will likely be best described by the famous passage from Macbeth: Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Feedback or column suggestions? Send them to the-5-hole@hotmail.com