CA steroids

[Cannon Shell]

From the Bloodhorse
Punishment for overages has yet to be finalized. In the meantime, the CHRB intends to send warning letters for any overages.

How those letters will be viewed has some trainers worried about repercussions. "We do favor the regulation of steroids," said Ed Halpern of the California Thoroughbred Trainers. "But we do not yet have accurate withdrawal times. That raises some concern."

Those withdrawal times are close to finalization, Arthur said.

"Trainers are asking how close can we dance to the fire without getting burned," he added. "I'm not totally sympathetic. If you don't use anabolic steroids, you won't get a positive. It's that simple."

This attitude is what really troubles me. How can anyone believe that this guy is going to be fair on this issue? We want to know what the withdrawl times are so that we can be in compliance with the rules yet we are basically insulted when asking for those times. Denying that certain horses especially geldings have a occasional need for testosterone supplementation at the very least shows that the agenda here far outweighs the concern of the well being of horses or the idea that this somehow "levels the playing field". I believe that this will actually once again cause the "playing field" to be slanted towards the cheaters who surely already have research being done to try to find a replacement for the banned items. Of course Arthur and cronies will deem the entire program a huge success, too much money and time will be wasted tsting for known substances and once again the cheaters will hold an even stronger hand because the guys playing by the rules have no recourse.

[parsixfarms]

What percentage of the trainers on the backstretch do you estimate have their horses on a regular regimen of steroids?

[Bobby Fischer]

supposedly oil-based steroids are the way to go

[Riot]

"Trainers are asking how close can we dance to the fire without getting burned," he added. "I'm not totally sympathetic. If you don't use anabolic steroids, you won't get a positive. It's that simple." [/i]

Yes, the "simplistic" solution is to also punish people who use these drugs for legal, legitimate, veterinary-supervised, FDA-approved therapeutic usage in the horse. And to prevent horses that medically need these drugs from receiving them.

These are not illegal drugs, they are LEGAL drugs.

This is such unbelievable nonsense to me.

These jurisdictions are so eager for the perception of good PR, they can't wait a few more months until we have more accurately-documented withdrawal times, and everyone agrees to use the more accurate testing procedures?

Then these drugs could continue to be used as they legitimately and legally should be (and have been used for years), but non-approved misuse could be caught?

Naw, that's too logical! Instead, let's overreact, and use a shotgun blast where a BB gun would do.

Who cares what horses or trainers are gonna get hurt as collateral damage? We as an industry will "look good" in the public eye (even though the public has no idea that we as an industry are really doing absolutely NOTHING about illegal designer steroid abuse in racehorses)

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

What percentage of the trainers on the backstretch do you estimate have their horses on a regular regimen of steroids?

It is hard to guess an accurate number but if given in low doses there is no negative impact or performancing enhancement. I'm talking about 5 cc per month. One of the biggest problems with the whole thing is guys like Van Berg who are out of touch with reality spout off in the press without realizing that their personal opinion (which is severely slanted and if taken at face value seems like a bitter rant) will be used as propoganda by politicians like Whitfield (who is not your friend unless you are a jockey) and Arthur and company. Using hysteria created by baseball and editorials within the industry which are mostly based upon rumor and partial truths, they have pretty much tied the hands of trainers and owners that want to do things within the guidelines of the rules. By effectively setting up and implementing rules BEFORE the research is completed, and casting stones at those who would possibly use LEGAL medications, the true colors of the "powers that be" is shown. It is simply a PR move with zero regard to horses or horseman.

Mind you I am not suggesting that anabolics should not be regulated (as they have not been for over 30 years). But what I am saying is that using them does not make you a bad guy and there are certainly legitimate, fair uses for them. Abuse of steroids should not be tolerated and is an absolutely negative for both the health of horses and the sport in general. But the rules are not being made to deal with abuse, they are simply making this out as a good guys versus bad guys fight which is about the worst way to handle the situaion and can only cause more negative press along the way because horses will still dramatically improve when moved into certain trainers barns and the public will still believe what it chooses to believe.

[Danzig]

i took a six day regimen of steroids a few weeks ago. works wonders on a strained back.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i took a six day regimen of steroids a few weeks ago. works wonders on a strained back.

Did you get them from Brian McNamee or Andy Pettitte's dad?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Did you get them from Brian McNamee or Andy Pettitte's dad?

just the family doctor, sorry. and i doubt i'd be any better at baseball than before.

Yes, the "simplistic" solution is to also punish people who use these drugs for legal, legitimate, veterinary-supervised, FDA-approved therapeutic usage in the horse. And to prevent horses that medically need these drugs from receiving them.

These are not illegal drugs, they are LEGAL drugs.

This is such unbelievable nonsense to me.

In California they go herbal.
Just have the horse go chew on some leaves.

It does look like a complete PR play based on
the hope of appealing to an ignorant public.

[Honu]

I can only say from former years at cheap racetracks I hate Equipoise , it makes horses stupid and addicts and is pretty much just squeezing whatever they have left in them out.
Now , I do feel that steroids when used properly can help some weaker kind horses and when I say weaker I mean one's that dont eat well , horses that are slight and some that just need a lil extra courage.
As a horse person I dont think it is to much to ask for a horse to be under a certain level steroids by the time they run , if you cant get the sucker ready to run at say the end of its last dose 30 days out then you maybe need to consider doing something else with the horse.
I have noticed that Winstrol has a way less affect on a horses mind than Equipose and it will make them eat , but so will arsnic .
We got a group of horses not too long ago from a known Equipose blasting guy , these things were so strung out and spent they never did run right , maybe we should have just blasted them with Equipoise too , but my boss doesnt really subscribe to that .

[TheSpyder]

Yea, that's it...switch them to legal medicinal weed. I hear you can now get it in vending machines.

Originally Posted by pgardn

In California they go herbal.
Just have the horse go chew on some leaves.

It does look like a complete PR play based on
the hope of appealing to an ignorant public.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

It is hard to guess an accurate number but if given in low doses there is no negative impact or performancing enhancement. I'm talking about 5 cc per month. One of the biggest problems with the whole thing is guys like Van Berg who are out of touch with reality spout off in the press without realizing that their personal opinion (which is severely slanted and if taken at face value seems like a bitter rant) will be used as propoganda by politicians like Whitfield (who is not your friend unless you are a jockey) and Arthur and company. Using hysteria created by baseball and editorials within the industry which are mostly based upon rumor and partial truths, they have pretty much tied the hands of trainers and owners that want to do things within the guidelines of the rules. By effectively setting up and implementing rules BEFORE the research is completed, and casting stones at those who would possibly use LEGAL medications, the true colors of the "powers that be" is shown. It is simply a PR move with zero regard to horses or horseman.

Mind you I am not suggesting that anabolics should not be regulated (as they have not been for over 30 years). But what I am saying is that using them does not make you a bad guy and there are certainly legitimate, fair uses for them. Abuse of steroids should not be tolerated and is an absolutely negative for both the health of horses and the sport in general. But the rules are not being made to deal with abuse, they are simply making this out as a good guys versus bad guys fight which is about the worst way to handle the situaion and can only cause more negative press along the way because horses will still dramatically improve when moved into certain trainers barns and the public will still believe what it chooses to believe.

All drugs have valid indications for humans or animals nobody with half a brain questions that. When valid gets replaced with greed the shat hits the fan.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Honu

I can only say from former years at cheap racetracks I hate Equipoise , it makes horses stupid and addicts and is pretty much just squeezing whatever they have left in them out.
Now , I do feel that steroids when used properly can help some weaker kind horses and when I say weaker I mean one's that dont eat well , horses that are slight and some that just need a lil extra courage.
As a horse person I dont think it is to much to ask for a horse to be under a certain level steroids by the time they run , if you cant get the sucker ready to run at say the end of its last dose 30 days out then you maybe need to consider doing something else with the horse.I have noticed that Winstrol has a way less affect on a horses mind than Equipose and it will make them eat , but so will arsnic .
We got a group of horses not too long ago from a known Equipose blasting guy , these things were so strung out and spent they never did run right , maybe we should have just blasted them with Equipoise too , but my boss doesnt really subscribe to that .

Which is the whole point of my initial argument. According to Arthur you are wrong to have given the drugs at all and if you test positive even if you withdrew far before the 30 days it is your fault for using them in the first place.

The way it is set up now, if you guys ran one of the horses from Mr. Equipoise 30 to 120 days from the time you got it, you could still come back positive. Even if you gave the horse nothing for 4 months. There are still questions about the testing yet Arthur and company choose to cast stones.

[Honu]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Which is the whole point of my initial argument. According to Arthur you are wrong to have given the drugs at all and if you test positive even if you withdrew far before the 30 days it is your fault for using them in the first place.

The way it is set up now, if you guys ran one of the horses from Mr. Equipoise 30 to 120 days from the time you got it, you could still come back positive. Even if you gave the horse nothing for 4 months. There are still questions about the testing yet Arthur and company choose to cast stones.

I see your point and understand where you are coming from , but Ive worked with Rick and I know he is a pompouse prick , and Im sure when he was asked the question it was prolly not at the greatest moment .
He has been asked to do what no one else has been asked to do and that is regulate meds on the behalf of the state to the extreme , he is very compitent and smart and has owned, bred and raced his own horses so its not like he is out of touch with reality as far as steroids are concerned.
I just dont see the need to blast horses with Equipoise every ten days like people do , and they dont care if they do it to studs who def dont need it and geldings alike. People think that by giving their horses steroids that they are just rising up to the level of competition.
I dont agree with banning them outright but I do agree with regulating them .

[Theatrical]

Originally Posted by Honu

I can only say from former years at cheap racetracks I hate Equipoise , it makes horses stupid and addicts and is pretty much just squeezing whatever they have left in them out.
Now , I do feel that steroids when used properly can help some weaker kind horses and when I say weaker I mean one's that dont eat well , horses that are slight and some that just need a lil extra courage.
As a horse person I dont think it is to much to ask for a horse to be under a certain level steroids by the time they run , if you cant get the sucker ready to run at say the end of its last dose 30 days out then you maybe need to consider doing something else with the horse.
I have noticed that Winstrol has a way less affect on a horses mind than Equipose and it will make them eat , but so will arsnic .
We got a group of horses not too long ago from a known Equipose blasting guy , these things were so strung out and spent they never did run right , maybe we should have just blasted them with Equipoise too , but my boss doesnt really subscribe to that .

I hate it, too. We gave it to our old horse to help boost his appetite. My vet really didn't want to give it to him because of the side effects, which turned this sweet horse into a raving lunatic. Took about 5 months for this guy to get back to normal. It was difficult to get Winstrol at the time because people were taking it and it was taken off the market. I can't imagine being around young horses on Equipoise. This horse was 28 and we had to keep him separated from the other horses that he'd been running with for years. Nasty stuff.