Quick question: do they test hair for any performance enhancing drugs (PEDs)?
I was talking to my kids about Britney Spears and her meltdown phase. I mentioned my speculation that she shaved her head because her husband (now ex) threatened to have Child Protective Services test her hair for drug abuse. That led to explaining to my kids how hair can be tested for chronic drug use.
My son asked if they test hair for PEDs, and I confessed that I have no idea. A quick check with Mr. Google says that it’s possible especially for steroids. I just don’t know if it’s a thing, if it’s limited only to certain drugs, or if it’s something that could be explored. I told my son I’d check with the ST hive mind to see if anyone knew more about it.
I just met with a client who underwent hair strand testing (I’m a lawyer working in family law) and hair testing is much more expensive than urine testing for drugs. I live in NZ and the hair strands are sent to the USA for the analysis - so perhaps that is where much of the expense comes in. It’s a 5 panel test and is done for drugs which are commonly abused (THC, amphetamines, methamphetamines, cocaine, opiates, phencyclidine) and it can help detect drug use going back for as a long a period as you have grown your hair for. Apparently bleaching can sometimes affect the accuracy. No idea if it can be used for PEDs.
A lot of the PEDs are versions of naturally occurring substances in the human body (testosterone, epo, insulin, etc.). Detection for these may be quite different than for a foreign substance (ex. cocaine, THC, etc.)
X - Pro cyclists and endurance runners suggest that this is the case. I have heard jokes of guys suddenly bleaching their hair as a sure fire way to know who was on the juice. I have no idea which PED drugs can be tested in hair though but the stories go back a long time so maybe in the days when steroids were most prominent, prior to blood doping etc.
I’ve done a tiny amount of digging and it looks like testing for steroids exists already. The rest of it is theoretically possible based on the research, but the controls don’t exist so they don’t have the values to compare to for an adverse finding.
I hadn’t considered the cost, as the other poster mentioned. That could be a big part of it too: blood and urine testing is commonplace so it would cost less. But when it comes to an adverse finding as a result of a contained protein serving at dinner last night ahem the hair analysis could determine if it’s actually a chronic issue.
Unless everyone starts shaving, which many do already.