Reports that researchers have found a process that could capture “a reliable detectable concentration” of human growth hormone in urine don’t mean much for the NCAA drug-testing program, at least not yet.

USA Today reported Wednesday that two George Mason scientists developed nanoparticles – matter much smaller than a red blood cell – to help identify HGH in urine.

Frank Uraysz, executive director of the National Center for Drug Free Sport, the agency that administers the NCAA drug-testing program, said that any reliable, commercially available urine test that would accurately detect HGH use is years away.

“The urine-based test, if it happens, is well down the road,” he said. “It’s difficult to say how many years, but it’s clearly years. It’s already taken years to validate the blood-based test (currently used to test Olympic athletes).”

The topic of HGH testing, both blood- and urine-based tests, will be discussed at the NCAA Committee on Competitive Safeguards and Medical Aspects of Sports meeting next week. The committee oversees the NCAA drug-testing program. No decision on HGH testing is expected.

“There is a lot for us to look at, but there also are many questions that won’t be answered for a while,” said Mary Wilfert, the NCAA associate director of health and safety who works with the committee.

The committee will begin discussing whether to use a blood test or wait for the urine test, if it wants to test for HGH in college athletes at all. Wilfert said conventional wisdom connects the use of steroids with the use of HGH. Thus, steroid testing – which the NCAA already does – should pick up most HGH users.

Uryasz acknowledged that some collegiate athletes are likely using the performance-enhancing drug, but no one knows how widespread it is. In fact, blood testing of Olympic athletes has not found a single positive result, he said.

Part of the problem with testing for HGH, Uryasz said, is the limited detection time (48 hours). Additionally, some people regard blood tests as more invasive (though less potentially embarrassing) and certainly more expensive than a urine test.

Other issues Wilfert identified with HGH testing include more extensive training and certification procedures for collectors and the possibility of legal challenges. Because no one has tested positive for the substance, no one has launched a legal challenge as precedent.

“Usually, you don’t see widespread testing (for a particular substance) until there’s been a positive test result and it’s gone through the legal processes,” Uryasz said.