For those owners that prefer juice

[Cannon Shell]

http://www.thehorse.com/ViewArticle.aspx?ID=9425

Finally something that will make owners think when choosing a trainer...

[ALostTexan]

Just reading about this on DRF. I think this is a great change that is a true show of support for the horseplayers...

ALostTexan

I had suggested this before along with stiff penalties for vets who did not know how the drugs got into the horse and got shot down big time. The vets should know. Even if they have to put out a guard. This silly I dont know how game has got to stop. And it will if the blame falls on owners and vets also. Not fair to the animals.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

http://www.thehorse.com/ViewArticle.aspx?ID=9425

Finally something that will make owners think when choosing a trainer...

Chuck, IMO we may be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I don't race in CA, and I've never had a horse test positive in over 20 years in the horse business. Regardless, I am not so sure this attacks the problem at the right point -- that being the root.

Yes, I agree, and have passionately spoke about massive reform being needed -- universal medication rules, standardized testing and penalties, etc.

This type of approach in my opinion has far reaching ramifications, and not all of them are good. Not at all.

Eric

[Linny]

ELA, I read your post often and usually agree with your points but here I disagree. You, as the owner hire the trainer and you are thus the ultimate insurer. I understand the costs involved and how hard it is to make money. (We had a recent discussion here on the topic and I took the position that the chances for profit should be greater.) Yet, at the same time when there appear to be trainers using illegal substances and owners continue to patronize them, at some point those owners should face some sort of consequence. IMO, it's the only way to get "juicers" out of the game. If they have no owners, they have no business.

I hear so many people on BBs complining about "juicers" and yet new people keep entering the game and hiring the same guys who's names come to mind when we use the term. The numbers some of these guys put up make it very temping, especially if you have been pouring money into moderate success with an honest trainer.

ELA, I have no idea who you are or who your trainer is but I assume that w/20 years in the game, he's probably pretty clean. Good for you. I also understand that acidental contamination happens and that certain circumstances occur that prevent the "clearing" of meds from the system fully before race day. These are NOT the circumstances that I have issue with.

[Cajungator26]

Originally Posted by Linny

ELA, I read your post often and usually agree with your points but here I disagree. You, as the owner hire the trainer and you are thus the ultimate insurer. I understand the costs involved and how hard it is to make money. (We had a recent discussion here on the topic and I took the position that the chances for profit should be greater.) Yet, at the same time when there appear to be trainers using illegal substances and owners continue to patronize them, at some point those owners should face some sort of consequence. IMO, it's the only way to get "juicers" out of the game. If they have no owners, they have no business.

I hear so many people on BBs complining about "juicers" and yet new people keep entering the game and hiring the same guys who's names come to mind when we use the term. The numbers some of these guys put up make it very temping, especially if you have been pouring money into moderate success with an honest trainer.

ELA, I have no idea who you are or who your trainer is but I assume that w/20 years in the game, he's probably pretty clean. Good for you. I also understand that acidental contamination happens and that certain circumstances occur that prevent the "clearing" of meds from the system fully before race day. These are NOT the circumstances that I have issue with.

Linny, I could be wrong, but I thought that ELA (Eric) was a trainer as well.

[ELA]

I understand your points. I've had horses with trainers who haven't had a positive test in 25 years, and I've had horses with trainers who have had a few positive tests (clenbuterol). I don't think that's really the point though.

Don't pass a rule due to frustration. Pass a rule because it is part of a global solution. I don't think this one is clear cut. It is very dangerous to draw a line from the owner to the trainer and simply say that owner has the ultimate and absolute responsibility. That is oversimplifying the situation in a monsterous way.

Let's wait until an owner, or a group of owners, challenges this.

Eric

[Cajungator26]

Never mind, I was wrong...

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by ELA

Chuck, IMO we may be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I don't race in CA, and I've never had a horse test positive in over 20 years in the horse business. Regardless, I am not so sure this attacks the problem at the right point -- that being the root.

Yes, I agree, and have passionately spoke about massive reform being needed -- universal medication rules, standardized testing and penalties, etc.

This type of approach in my opinion has far reaching ramifications, and not all of them are good. Not at all.

Eric

Eric
This forces owners to be accountable in their choice of trainers. I can think of no other way to do this. I was originally against the rule which is a RMTC 'suggestion'. However after it was explained to me by a official who helped design the way it was set up I came to see the other side of the story. If you as an owner dont turn up the heat on your trainer to be more careful and stop pushing the limits, then you pay the consequences. As I have heard so many times, "we pay the bills". Well if you pay the bills then it is your responsibility to make sure your trainers either stop having so many 'mistakes' or find another trainer.
New owners coming into the game must understand that if they choose to go to a trainer who has a shaky reputation to go along with his gaudy win percentage then they will be held accountable.

[Danzig]

well, as long as owners continue to hire shady trainers, they have a backer for their less than wholesome activities. but of course there will be owners who care only about the win percentage, not how they get the wins-they should find a new game to play as well!

[AeWingnut]

I understand 3 strikes and you're out but what is the time limit on the 3 strikes? 3 strikes in a year or a lifetime? 1 positive from A you move to B and he gets tapped then you move again.. Then you just leave.

I wonder what the definition of owner is? Would a stable like Dee Tee get the fine divided up 40 ways.

Just curious - what is the drug of choice for the juicers?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by AeWingnut

I understand 3 strikes and you're out but what is the time limit on the 3 strikes? 3 strikes in a year or a lifetime? 1 positive from A you move to B and he gets tapped then you move again.. Then you just leave.

I wonder what the definition of owner is? Would a stable like Dee Tee get the fine divided up 40 ways.

Just curious - what is the drug of choice for the juicers?

i perfer vodka with v-8 juice.

[SCUDSBROTHER]

I am surprised that they think less people will want to own here.I would think more people would want to own here.I mean if you knew certain owners were gunna be punished for hiring the known cheats (that they now use) then I would be more interested in trying to compete with them.Under this system that was announced,wouldn't Bob Bone have to get out? He uses Sherman,Mullins etc. This would sure be good for the owners of a few horses,and bad for the guys who regurlarly have been using high percentage cheats.Maybe the owner trainer cheat combos will leave the state,and go to Kentucky etc.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Eric
This forces owners to be accountable in their choice of trainers. I can think of no other way to do this. I was originally against the rule which is a RMTC 'suggestion'. However after it was explained to me by a official who helped design the way it was set up I came to see the other side of the story. If you as an owner dont turn up the heat on your trainer to be more careful and stop pushing the limits, then you pay the consequences. As I have heard so many times, "we pay the bills". Well if you pay the bills then it is your responsibility to make sure your trainers either stop having so many 'mistakes' or find another trainer.
New owners coming into the game must understand that if they choose to go to a trainer who has a shaky reputation to go along with his gaudy win percentage then they will be held accountable.

Chuck, I get it. I really do. I just question the means to reach this supposed goal. I am all for accountability and being responsible, however, I just don't know if this is going to be enforcable and get the job done. I think this may open the door to other issues. Does clenbuterol count? If a horse of mine comes up positive with one trainer and for that and other reasons I decide to move my horses, how can I hold my trainer -- the new one -- accountable? I warn him? I threaten him. Being that I play the game aggressively, what prevents another "barn" from contaminating feed in my horse. You may think I am reaching here, and perhaps I am.

I am not a practicing attorney, however, I tend to look at these issues with much more of a big picture in mind. The owner can get suspended and fined on a quicker schedule than the trainer? That does not make sense to me. I don't want to get into names, but you have many high profile owners who will not want to even consider flirting with such liability -- and because of that you want them to pick what? A safer trainer? A lower % trainer.

How many horses are stepping onto the track and racing on hay and water? And Chuck, if we are going to have this discussion over a couple of beers when we get up to the Spa, let's not talk about hypotheticals and what the image is, or what distant fans may think. Let's talk about what people who are in the game know.

I agree a rule like this, similar, is needed -- but this to me, as a first swing, is too vague and ambiguous. I say thing because I already spoke with several people who claimed they were familiar with the new rule.

Like I said, I am just questioning the means here. I don't think it will force owners to be more responsible. It may force them to find ways to play more games as well.

Anyway, we will soon see.

Eric

[packerbacker7964]

I say just put the horse in Jail for 6 months. Plain and simple don't let the thing on the grounds. Make the trainer and owner move the horse off the grounds and not to return to race in the state for 6 months. I know it would hurt the track by lowering the number of horses but I'd be more inclined to bet a honest track with less horses than a shady one full of suspect drug trained ones.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by ELA

Chuck, I get it. I really do. I just question the means to reach this supposed goal. I am all for accountability and being responsible, however, I just don't know if this is going to be enforcable and get the job done. I think this may open the door to other issues. Does clenbuterol count? If a horse of mine comes up positive with one trainer and for that and other reasons I decide to move my horses, how can I hold my trainer -- the new one -- accountable? I warn him? I threaten him. Being that I play the game aggressively, what prevents another "barn" from contaminating feed in my horse. You may think I am reaching here, and perhaps I am.

I am not a practicing attorney, however, I tend to look at these issues with much more of a big picture in mind. The owner can get suspended and fined on a quicker schedule than the trainer? That does not make sense to me. I don't want to get into names, but you have many high profile owners who will not want to even consider flirting with such liability -- and because of that you want them to pick what? A safer trainer? A lower % trainer.

How many horses are stepping onto the track and racing on hay and water? And Chuck, if we are going to have this discussion over a couple of beers when we get up to the Spa, let's not talk about hypotheticals and what the image is, or what distant fans may think. Let's talk about what people who are in the game know.

I agree a rule like this, similar, is needed -- but this to me, as a first swing, is too vague and ambiguous. I say thing because I already spoke with several people who claimed they were familiar with the new rule.

Like I said, I am just questioning the means here. I don't think it will force owners to be more responsible. It may force them to find ways to play more games as well.

Anyway, we will soon see.

Eric

Eric
Owners only see severe penalties if there are multiple class A violations, not for clembuterol. I think we know who the multiple offenders are without pointing out names. I think they are vague and ambiguous on purpose in order to see what effect this has and if it needs to be tightened up or modified as time goes by.

What kind of rule do you think would work?
CS

[Phalaris1913]

Originally Posted by Linny

ELA, I read your post often and usually agree with your points but here I disagree. You, as the owner hire the trainer and you are thus the ultimate insurer. I understand the costs involved and how hard it is to make money. (We had a recent discussion here on the topic and I took the position that the chances for profit should be greater.) Yet, at the same time when there appear to be trainers using illegal substances and owners continue to patronize them, at some point those owners should face some sort of consequence. IMO, it's the only way to get "juicers" out of the game. If they have no owners, they have no business.

I hear so many people on BBs complining about "juicers" and yet new people keep entering the game and hiring the same guys who's names come to mind when we use the term. The numbers some of these guys put up make it very temping, especially if you have been pouring money into moderate success with an honest trainer.

ELA, I have no idea who you are or who your trainer is but I assume that w/20 years in the game, he's probably pretty clean. Good for you. I also understand that acidental contamination happens and that certain circumstances occur that prevent the "clearing" of meds from the system fully before race day. These are NOT the circumstances that I have issue with.

The rules are broken. They need to be fixed before they are misapplied to a whole new group of people.

Racing needs to have consistent, nationwide rules; needs to institute realistic thresholds for legal therapeutic medication as well as for substances that are more likely to show up in trace amounts due to contamination; and do what it can, given the inherent experimental difficulty in doing so, reliable information to horsemen about cutoffs for legal medication.

So often I see in forums like this people bashing away at trainers who are not in trouble for giving illegal medication with performance-enhancing potential in a time frame where it might actually affect the outcome of the race, but rather trivial overages of permitted medication, oftentimes such vanishingly small amounts that they wouldn't even be positives in states with thresholds.

Racing - everyone from the regulators to the racing fans - needs to quit grandstanding about triviality and get tough with real abuses.

[Honu]

I wish The Bloodhorse article would have also included the rest of the rulings that the board voted on and approved that day such as , trainers who are given suspensions will have their stalls taken away , they must remove all their signs, stall webbings, saddle towels and anything with their names or logos on it . So it will be much more difficult to just hand over the reins to the Asst. when the asst. will have to apply for their own stalls come up with their own insurance money and equipment , also they cant turn their stable over to a family member period.
So who are the real culprits in racing ? Who are the real villians Phalaris ? Its not the guys pushing the envelope with clenbuteral so instead of withdrawing 72 hours out they wait till 65 hours out ? Is that not trying to cheat in a sense when they know what the time frame is. Or is it the trainer who blocks his horses legs for the races and never gets found out ? Is it the guy that is " just treating his horses stomach ulcers " who's C02 level is thru the roof on most of his runners ?
All trainers know what the rules are , they know what the withdrawl times are also , and if they dont they should be fined for being stupid. If a trainer is on the up and up , they and their owners have nothing to worry about with the new rules in place and its that simple , the people pushing the limits are the one's who should be taking a long look at changing the way they do things.

[Phalaris1913]

Originally Posted by Honu

I wish The Bloodhorse article would have also included the rest of the rulings that the board voted on and approved that day such as , trainers who are given suspensions will have their stalls taken away , they must remove all their signs, stall webbings, saddle towels and anything with their names or logos on it . So it will be much more difficult to just hand over the reins to the Asst. when the asst. will have to apply for their own stalls come up with their own insurance money and equipment , also they cant turn their stable over to a family member period.
So who are the real culprits in racing ? Who are the real villians Phalaris ? Its not the guys pushing the envelope with clenbuteral so instead of withdrawing 72 hours out they wait till 65 hours out ? Is that not trying to cheat in a sense when they know what the time frame is. Or is it the trainer who blocks his horses legs for the races and never gets found out ? Is it the guy that is " just treating his horses stomach ulcers " who's C02 level is thru the roof on most of his runners ?
All trainers know what the rules are , they know what the withdrawl times are also , and if they dont they should be fined for being stupid. If a trainer is on the up and up , they and their owners have nothing to worry about with the new rules in place and its that simple , the people pushing the limits are the one's who should be taking a long look at changing the way they do things.

Clenbuterol reportedly has an effective duration of six to eight hours. Withdrawal times are about elimination of traces of the drug, not that if you give a drug to a horse nearer the race you are going to get some kind of post-time "edge," just because its effects wore off some 57 hours prior to post time rather than 64 hours.

I suspect - though this is strictly IMHO - that this is a function of an industry which loves 21st century techonology but clings onto mid-20th century "a positive is a positive" mentality. They'd rather see clean tests than admit that there are a few detectable molecules of a drug given days before, and for that reason, thresholds have been strongly resisted, even for legal medication.

I found at least one abstract online dated 2001 that noted that newer, more sensitive, tests for clenbuterol could detect it at the 1 ng/ml level 11 days after administration. I've read other sources that note that it can be detected for even longer than that.

The idea of punishing people for using medications which we tell them they can use, just because our gee-whiz technology allows the detection of it days after it had any possible clinical effect on the horse, is so patently ridiculous I'm not even sure why it's in debate.

Horsemen are given lists of withdrawal times with a footnote that there is no guarantee. Researchers can work out averages and ranges in terms of how quickly horses will eliminate drugs, but because horses are living creatures and not perfect mathematical equations on paper, there are occasions when someone can follow the rules to the letter and get a positive. The fact that they followed the rules won't help them.

Cheating is using a substance which is not allowed at all. Cheating is administering a substance not allowed on race day within a period of time in which it could remotely still have some sort of pharmacologic effect on the horse at post time.

Those are the people we should be going after.

[Honu]

There are threshold limits for every drug that can be legally administered , like here in cali your horse can have a C02 level of 35 millomoles which is considered even higher than what a horse would normally have in their sysytem.
I have been an Asst. Trainer and with all the horses that have came thru our barn we have never had even a close call as far as withdrawl times when following the recomended stoppage time and believe me we have had a lot of horses in our barn.
To me its not all about performance enhancing its about following the rules whatever they might be and alltho you might think its no big deal to have a lil clenbuteral overage or a bute overage , the people who are coming up with these positives are pushing the envelope.
If you thought your horse wasnt able to metabloize a certain drug within the withdrawl time wouldnt the smart and safe thing to do would be pull your horse off the meds even further in advance or get the vet to draw a blood?
Mandella has trained horses for over 30 years and do you know how many positive tests for overages he has had , 2 for bute in 30 years , I dont subscribe to that baloney that "my horse metabolizes slower" its just a bunch of horseshit IMO.