How do you know that it is based upon a false premise if you haven't read what is based upon?
I maintain that there is nothing ethically wrong with the use - regardless of purpose - of HGH by athletes.
One of my buddies argues that HGH allows an athlete to grow bigger and stronger, thereby giving him an unfair advantage over his competition.
Doesn't protein do the same thing? Should we prohibit athletes from eating red meat?
I've never used HGH, but if I had done so in order to extend my athletic career, I would not have lost a wink of sleep over it.
I understand that not everyone will want to use it or believe that using it is proper (in the context of athletic training and competition), but until someone provides a legitimate ethical argument against its use, my position stands.