Wow, someone actually gets it...

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

OOOOOOOOOO

seriously, at least in baseball you had the thrill of Macguire, Sosa, Bonds, etc duking it out, shredding the record books.
what do we have in racing? where are all the records that should be falling?

same with Jones the Olympian that got caught. at least she gave us an exciting summer.

[Scav]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

seriously, at least in baseball you had the thrill of Macguire, Sosa, Bonds, etc duking it out, shredding the record books.
what do we have in racing? where are all the records that should be falling?

same with Jones the Olympian that got caught. at least she gave us an exciting summer.

You were watching Woman's track and field? whoa!!

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by Scav

You were watching Woman's track and field? whoa!!

of course, in the Olympics, damn right. good stuff there.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

If I had vitamins that helped my horses recover from a race faster than people without those same vitamins would I not have an advantage? If i has special hay that kept weight on nervous fillies and others did not have it, would i not have an advantage? Would performance decline in an individual horse? Possibly. If we took away gastrogard from certain horses I know for a fact that their performances will decline. People dont understand the issue of anabolic steroids and their effects in horses versus humans. If you feel the need to be outraged or mad than turn your anger on the racing commissions which never put in effect regulations concerning them. But now they are overcompensating and casting stones at horseman like we are the bad guys. It is not a black and white, good guys versus bad guys issue yet it will most definitely be portrayed that way during this Federal hearing especially in light of the 'witness' list.

I'm not speaking about how it will be played out in the circus that is likely to take place in Washington this week, and it's neither a question of outrage nor good guy/bad guy (although I do believe that one of the trainers scheduled to testify this week is a "very bad guy.") I'm more focused on the question of whether the proposed restrictions on steroid use - as set forth in the RMTC recommendations (adopted by the Jockey Club's Safety Committee today) - should move forward. Based on your prior posts on this site, I am assuming that you are opposed to adoption of the model rule. That is your prerogative.

However, there are many horsemen that "know" the game that believe the RMTC's restrictions should be adopted. I have had one trainer whose opinion I respect tell me point blank after Bob Baffert made comments last summer bemoaning the possible "loss" of steroids and how that would have a negative impact on field size: "If the guy doesn't know how to train horses without steroids, then he shouldn't be training horses." He believes that steroids are being badly abused and that the game would be much better off without them.

Furthermore, I asked our trainer this weekend his thoughts on the speculation that Big Brown's performance in the Belmont had something to do with him allegedly being off Winstrol. He stated that it would be hard to know if BB was suffering from "withdrawal," but he did state that horses on a steady regimen of steroids do become "addicted" to them and that when they are taken off them, they will "crash." (I've also had a discussion with a prominent NY owner who had a horse claimed away from him [his trainer uses anabolics] by a trainer who doesn't. The horse lost 100 pounds in the new trainer's care, and the owner re-claimed the horse in the subsequent [dismal] start. Back in his trainer's barn and back on steroids, the horse put the weight back on and aired when entered back.) Every once in a while, our horses have been given Winstrol to aid appetite, but our trainer, too, believes that the game would be better off without the steroids.

Some of us have tried to educate ourselves on these issues and may have come to a different conclusion than you. We can agree to disagree. What I don't appreciate is the insinuation that, because I reach a different conclusion, I don't know what I'm talking about.

[ELA]

I am not just seeing the real issues being addressed. IMO, this is more about "agenda" and furthering same, than it is about opening up some Interstate Act so that the Federal Government can "regulate" and run racing, or whatever you want to call it. OTOH, while we don't want a Federal body to do so, I have not seen enough done on a state level and on a "self policing" level.

Personally, I am sick and tired of committees, reports, studies, data and anything that remotely resembles any of these. Enough already.

This game is not about the bettors. It's not about the owners. Not the breeders, trainers, jocks, vets, and so on. People just don't get it -- it's about all of them, everybody, together, as an industry and as a sport.

If we don't see the factions and the fractionalization stop the cannibalism then shame on all of us.

Eric

[ELA]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

I'm not speaking about how it will be played out in the circus that is likely to take place in Washington this week, and it's neither a question of outrage nor good guy/bad guy (although I do believe that one of the trainers scheduled to testify this week is a "very bad guy.") I'm more focused on the question of whether the proposed restrictions on steroid use - as set forth in the RMTC recommendations (adopted by the Jockey Club's Safety Committee today) - should move forward. Based on your prior posts on this site, I am assuming that you are opposed to adoption of the model rule. That is your prerogative.

However, there are many horsemen that "know" the game that believe the RMTC's restrictions should be adopted. I have had one trainer whose opinion I respect tell me point blank after Bob Baffert made comments last summer bemoaning the possible "loss" of steroids and how that would have a negative impact on field size: "If the guy doesn't know how to train horses without steroids, then he shouldn't be training horses." He believes that steroids are being badly abused and that the game would be much better off without them.

Furthermore, I asked our trainer this weekend his thoughts on the speculation that Big Brown's performance in the Belmont had something to do with him allegedly being off Winstrol. He stated that it would be hard to know if BB was suffering from "withdrawal," but he did state that horses on a steady regimen of steroids do become "addicted" to them and that when they are taken off them, they will "crash." (I've also had a discussion with a prominent NY owner who had a horse claimed away from him [his trainer uses anabolics] by a trainer who doesn't. The horse lost 100 pounds in the new trainer's care, and the owner re-claimed the horse in the subsequent [dismal] start. Back in his trainer's barn and back on steroids, the horse put the weight back on and aired when entered back.) Every once in a while, our horses have been given Winstrol to aid appetite, but our trainer, too, believes that the game would be better off without the steroids.

Some of us have tried to educate ourselves on these issues and may have come to a different conclusion than you. We can agree to disagree. What I don't appreciate is the insinuation that, because I reach a different conclusion, I don't know what I'm talking about.

All good points, but is this the same 'ol same 'ol? One trainer says "performance enhancing" another trainer says "not performance enhancing" -- both believe they are right. The former because of weight, appetite, being able to tighten the screws so to speak, etc. The latter because it doesn't make them "go faster" per se and doesn't do anything for the pain, or whatever the arguement is. OK, I got that.

However, and perhaps this is too simplistic -- what's the difference? Who cares already. My point is, either allow it or don't. Clenbuterol . . . some guys use it as "program" and others do not. Same I am sure with other drugs. So, it's either legal or it's not. If the states want to -- well, forget about that -- it is now to the point where they HAVE to -- join together, develop a national guideline and get everyone to follow it.

Sure, I know, easier said than done. So what putting a man on the moon. I think you brought up some excellent points. It's just now time to "do something" about it.

Eric

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by ELA

However, and perhaps this is too simplistic -- what's the difference? Who cares already. My point is, either allow it or don't. Clenbuterol . . . some guys use it as "program" and others do not. Same I am sure with other drugs. So, it's either legal or it's not. If the states want to -- well, forget about that -- it is now to the point where they HAVE to -- join together, develop a national guideline and get everyone to follow it.

Sure, I know, easier said than done. So what putting a man on the moon. I think you brought up some excellent points. It's just now time to "do something" about it.

Eric

My general premise is that we need to adopt a set of uniform rules from which everyone works. Some will like them; others won't. But once we set the rules, we need to enforce them.

I appreciate the concern that Chuck stated in an earlier post. If the RMTC model rule on steroids is adopted, will there be trainers/chemists that employ designer steroids? If human sports are any guide, the answer is probably, "yes." But that's not a reason to fail to adopt the rules. To my way of thinking, the concern over the parade of horribles argument that Chuck is referencing would ultimately lead to the following guiding principles: "Everything goes. Use whatever you want."

Racing's problem is not that some unscrupulous individual is going to try to circumvent the rules (or "push the envelope" as some like to call it); rather, the problem is that it doesn't meaningfully enforce the rules that it already has. And if the RMTC rules are adopted, and racing continues its lax enforcement, then the whole exercise is a complete waste of everyone's time and energy. The only difference now, as baseball has learned, is that, if racing doesn't get its house in order, then someone (the Whitfields of the world) may do it for us - and in a manner over which we have no control.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

My general premise is that we need to adopt a set of uniform rules from which everyone works. Some will like them; others won't. But once we set the rules, we need to enforce them.

I appreciate the concern that Chuck stated in an earlier post. If the RMTC model rule on steroids is adopted, will there be trainers/chemists that employ designer steroids? If human sports are any guide, the answer is probably, "yes." But that's not a reason to fail to adopt the rules. To my way of thinking, the concern over the parade of horribles argument that Chuck is referencing would ultimately lead to the following guiding principles: "Everything goes. Use whatever you want."

Racing's problem is not that some unscrupulous individual is going to try to circumvent the rules (or "push the envelope" as some like to call it); rather, the problem is that it doesn't meaningfully enforce the rules that it already has. And if the RMTC rules are adopted, and racing continues its lax enforcement, then the whole exercise is a complete waste of everyone's time and energy. The only difference now, as baseball has learned, is that, if racing doesn't get its house in order, then someone (the Whitfields of the world) may do it for us - and in a manner over which we have no control.

I agree with you. However, I think Chuck's perspecitve has very valid concerns as well. Is there an "ideal" or "perfect" solution? Well, not a first stab perhaps. Yes, setting the rules is the first step -- but as you point out, enforcing them is the mandatory partner. You cannot have bark without bite.

Be that as it may, I don't see the "everything goes" as the ultimate destination. Even in a "not an ideal" world -- to get to that point, well, as I am sure we would all admit, that would be pathetic. I do agree with your points as far as enforcement, or lack thereof. As I've often said, our harness brethern seem to do a better job "catching them" although they seem to lack the "punish them enough" -- although I think I am starting to see some changes there.

Eric

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

If I had vitamins that helped my horses recover from a race faster than people without those same vitamins would I not have an advantage? If i has special hay that kept weight on nervous fillies and others did not have it, would i not have an advantage? Would performance decline in an individual horse? Possibly. If we took away gastrogard from certain horses I know for a fact that their performances will decline. People dont understand the issue of anabolic steroids and their effects in horses versus humans. If you feel the need to be outraged or mad than turn your anger on the racing commissions which never put in effect regulations concerning them. But now they are overcompensating and casting stones at horseman like we are the bad guys. It is not a black and white, good guys versus bad guys issue yet it will most definitely be portrayed that way during this Federal hearing especially in light of the 'witness' list.

Chuck, while I think you make some excellent points, I don't think the stones are only being thrown at "horsemen" or trainers in general. As it relates to the Federal hearing, yes, this is no doubt political. Do I want to see the Feds get in the game and regulate? No, of course not. IMO, it won't and can't work.

However, be that as it may -- without the Feds "taking over" so to speak, can these hearings possibly bring about change? How about bringing about change quicker and faster? Can this be the catalyst for change? Perhaps it can be. Maybe this is the "threat" that is needed. Personally, I don't know.

But, holding owners accountable -- within reason -- uniform medication rules, enforcement, all of this and more, is all needed to have this sport and industry go through the "cleansing" process that is needed. Perhaps I am being too optomistic. But, being in this business my entire adult life, like many others here including you, perhaps you can see why my attitude is what it is. One thing that is incredibly crucial to note is that -- like you -- I don't rely on this sport or business as my primary livlihood per se.

All excellent points though and thanks.

Eric

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Kasept

http://www.kentucky.com/254/v-print/story/435717.html

Piece dealing specifically on Damon...

Thayer also said Connie Whitfield has a conflict of interest because she is also a vice president of the Humane Society of the United States.

Good link, thanks.

The scariest thing for someone that loves, owns, or breeds animals to hear is, "PETA wants to help protect your animals".

And the second scariest is, "The Humane Society of the United States is here to enact legislation to help your animals"

[infield_line]

is how someone Congressman from Kentucky is pushing this... does he not understand what racing means to the state and how the racing connected estabishment in Kentucky could squash him like bug.......? Some California nitwit.....sure

[Riot]

All good points, but is this the same 'ol same 'ol? One trainer says "performance enhancing" another trainer says "not performance enhancing" -- both believe they are right. The former because of weight, appetite, being able to tighten the screws so to speak, etc. The latter because it doesn't make them "go faster" per se and doesn't do anything for the pain, or whatever the arguement is. OK, I got that.

However, and perhaps this is too simplistic -- what's the difference?

Dose. There is a difference between use, heavy use and abuse. Both trainers are right.

DeeTee blog posted a shot of Winstrol was given to KNS one time only, the week DeeTee got her in - skinny, fretful, painful from likely gastric ulcers (which CS started treating immediately) - good medicine and obviously helped the horse - treating the ulcers stopped the pain, allowed the weight to stay on, and the Winstrol made her feel better and helped keep her willing to eat during the days it took her GI tract to heal.

That's not cheating - that's good, humane, state-of-the-art medical care.

Giving all the horses in the barn a shot of Winstrol once a month (a'la an infamous Derby trainer we all know) isn't something I'd ever do, but frankly that once-a-month amount - if the usual dose - probably isn't going to do much other than keep them eating, keep them on a good, "going-forward" plane, help the geldings a bit more than the colts.

Giving the legal steroids more frequently, or greater doses, or using the more powerful legal steroids more frequently - bad juju.

The illegal steroids we can all get over the internet - I'd just as soon shoot those guys who inject it into animals (common in pit bull fighting rings, too, btw)

Do I think the legal steroids FDA-approved for use in the horse should be banned totally from the backside? Not at all. I would fight against that until the day I die. Government will not dictate to me what legal drugs I may choose to use in my patients. I practice medicine, the government does not.

Do I think the legal steroids should be used close to raceday? Absolutely not, and we should test for such use to prevent it.

Both situations can co-exist for steroids. We just need to get the allowable levels established, so we know nothing pharmacologically effective is in the horses system on race day.

Then we need to go after the more important big guns - the illegal, more powerful, currently non-detectable steroids and other drugs.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by infield_line

is how someone Congressman from Kentucky is pushing this... does he not understand what racing means to the state and how the racing connected estabishment in Kentucky could squash him like bug.......? Some California nitwit.....sure

His wife is the Vice-President of the Humane Society of the United States, which contributed funds to his election campaign.

The HSUS is a pretty strong animal rights group, who wants to dictate who may have animals, how many you may have, and how you may use them, if they may be intact so you may breed them, or if they must be mandatorily spayed or neutered against your wishes in the case of dogs and cats.

The American Kennel Club and dogs breeders have been actively and expensively fighting restrictive, anti-animal ownership laws the HSUS has been trying to introduce across the country for the past several years.

Yes, California is the hotbed of that type of restrictive legislation.

Louisville, KY, btw, has one of the most restrictive animal-ownership laws in the country (thanks to HSUS)

The Congressman is the mouthpiece for his wife's, and the HSUS, very strong animal rights agenda.

After all - everyone wants to "help the poor animals". How can anyone be against that?

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Riot

Dose. There is a difference between use, heavy use and abuse. Both trainers are right.

DeeTee blog posted a shot of Winstrol was given to KNS one time only, the week DeeTee got her in - skinny, fretful, painful from likely gastric ulcers (which CS started treating immediately) - good medicine and obviously helped the horse - treating the ulcers stopped the pain, allowed the weight to stay on, and the Winstrol made her feel better and helped keep her willing to eat during the days it took her GI tract to heal.

That's not cheating - that's good, humane, state-of-the-art medical care.

Giving all the horses in the barn a shot of Winstrol once a month (a'la an infamous Derby trainer we all know) isn't something I'd ever do, but frankly that once-a-month amount - if the usual dose - probably isn't going to do much other than keep them eating, keep them on a good, "going-forward" plane, help the geldings a bit more than the colts.

Giving the legal steroids more frequently, or greater doses, or using the more powerful legal steroids more frequently - bad juju.

The illegal steroids we can all get over the internet - I'd just as soon shoot those guys who inject it into animals (common in pit bull fighting rings, too, btw)

Do I think the legal steroids FDA-approved for use in the horse should be banned totally from the backside? Not at all. I would fight against that until the day I die. Government will not dictate to me what legal drugs I may choose to use in my patients. I practice medicine, the government does not.

Do I think the legal steroids should be used close to raceday? Absolutely not, and we should test for such use to prevent it.

Both situations can co-exist for steroids. We just need to get the allowable levels established, so we know nothing pharmacologically effective is in the horses system on race day.

Then we need to go after the more important big guns - the illegal, more powerful, currently non-detectable steroids and other drugs.

I agree. Like I said to others, excellent points.

Everyone -- trainers, vets, whoever, will have their own regimens, programs, etc. Conceptually, it might not be different than feed, supplements, etc. -- and the legal, approved, and legitimate drugs (whatever turns out to be deemed legitimate) could shake out the same way. Unfortunately, the road to get there has been and will still be long. In addition, I also never believe it's "that simple" and will always be black and white.

I do agree 100% that both can exist, or as you say, co-exist.

Eric

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

I'm not speaking about how it will be played out in the circus that is likely to take place in Washington this week, and it's neither a question of outrage nor good guy/bad guy (although I do believe that one of the trainers scheduled to testify this week is a "very bad guy.") I'm more focused on the question of whether the proposed restrictions on steroid use - as set forth in the RMTC recommendations (adopted by the Jockey Club's Safety Committee today) - should move forward. Based on your prior posts on this site, I am assuming that you are opposed to adoption of the model rule. That is your prerogative.

However, there are many horsemen that "know" the game that believe the RMTC's restrictions should be adopted. I have had one trainer whose opinion I respect tell me point blank after Bob Baffert made comments last summer bemoaning the possible "loss" of steroids and how that would have a negative impact on field size: "If the guy doesn't know how to train horses without steroids, then he shouldn't be training horses." He believes that steroids are being badly abused and that the game would be much better off without them.

Furthermore, I asked our trainer this weekend his thoughts on the speculation that Big Brown's performance in the Belmont had something to do with him allegedly being off Winstrol. He stated that it would be hard to know if BB was suffering from "withdrawal," but he did state that horses on a steady regimen of steroids do become "addicted" to them and that when they are taken off them, they will "crash." (I've also had a discussion with a prominent NY owner who had a horse claimed away from him [his trainer uses anabolics] by a trainer who doesn't. The horse lost 100 pounds in the new trainer's care, and the owner re-claimed the horse in the subsequent [dismal] start. Back in his trainer's barn and back on steroids, the horse put the weight back on and aired when entered back.) Every once in a while, our horses have been given Winstrol to aid appetite, but our trainer, too, believes that the game would be better off without the steroids.

Some of us have tried to educate ourselves on these issues and may have come to a different conclusion than you. We can agree to disagree. What I don't appreciate is the insinuation that, because I reach a different conclusion, I don't know what I'm talking about.

I fail to see where I said that you dont know what you are talking about? I dont like the model rule as it is currently exists because there is not a solid withdrawl time available. if it is 30 days fine, 45 days fine, 120 days fine. But to say it is 30 days but you may be positive up 120 days seems to be a bad rule especially when you are talking about anabolic steroids. I want steroids to be regulated like every other medication. I think a ban is counterproductive because there are legit uses. A ban makes a horse which is treated 4 months before a potential positive test. Do you think that is a good thing?

Horses receiving anabolic steroids in low doses on a monthly basis have as much chance of becoming "addicted" to steroids as you do to smoking if you smoke one cigarette a month. There are always cases of abuse and extreme cases but that is due more to lack of regulation as opposed to the evils of drugs themselves. I cant understand why people are surprised that steroids are abused when there are no rules regarding them. But very few trainers actually use them to the extreme where they suffer withdrawl.

As for the story about the horse who lost 100 pounds, the trainer who claimed the horse who didnt take advantage of a legal medication is not doing his job. Period. If we were talking about EPO or something like that different story. But if you claim horses off of guys who use steroids and you wont use them then you are shortchanging your clients.

I think you are misreading my take on steroids in general. I am not opposed to regulation at all. I am opposed to a ban on them because that is just overkill especially considering that there are 70 known types of anabolics and they are talking about 4 of them. Believe me I am for far stricter regulation of everything. But until the research is done to get the testing to match the rules I am skeptical about the entire process

Steroids are a whole diff. class of "medicine".
Nothing like vitamins. The use has to be
regulated closely because they are fat soluble
and spend much more time in cells unlike the vast
majority of vitamins (just urinated out)
and like most of the other chemicals
that are not banned and keep horses healthy.

The of level hormones are very important because they interact
very strongly when compared to the conc. of other hormones produced naturally.
Ask any vet or doc.

But if rules are going to be made they have to be able to tell
if they are violated first (which is a huge problem because guidelines
that are measurable and acceptable by all have to be produced, good luck with that). And then there must be a punishment
that hurts.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

My general premise is that we need to adopt a set of uniform rules from which everyone works. Some will like them; others won't. But once we set the rules, we need to enforce them.

I appreciate the concern that Chuck stated in an earlier post. If the RMTC model rule on steroids is adopted, will there be trainers/chemists that employ designer steroids? If human sports are any guide, the answer is probably, "yes." But that's not a reason to fail to adopt the rules. To my way of thinking, the concern over the parade of horribles argument that Chuck is referencing would ultimately lead to the following guiding principles: "Everything goes. Use whatever you want."

Racing's problem is not that some unscrupulous individual is going to try to circumvent the rules (or "push the envelope" as some like to call it); rather, the problem is that it doesn't meaningfully enforce the rules that it already has. And if the RMTC rules are adopted, and racing continues its lax enforcement, then the whole exercise is a complete waste of everyone's time and energy. The only difference now, as baseball has learned, is that, if racing doesn't get its house in order, then someone (the Whitfields of the world) may do it for us - and in a manner over which we have no control.

One of the problems racing has is that many of the rules concerning drug testing were written at a time when testing was far less effective. When horseman try to get the rules amended to represent modern testing we get told that they will not give us threshold levels and that we are just trying to get more 'liberal' rules. Horseman have been painted as the bad guys in this deal and the fact is that there are some bad guys. But we have consistently been dealt a bad hand and the RMTC has not exactly been forthcoming with details. Go to the RMTC website, and look up the withdrawl time schedule for 80% of drugs listed. You get no information. They tell you guys one thing yet do another and this whole federal deal is NOT going to make things better, it will create more kneejerk plans that are simply not effective. These things need time to get worked out as shown by the states that have extended the grace period on the steroid testing because they are complex issues. If anything good were to come of the whole hearings is that perhaps money will be found to do some real research into many of the problems that we currently have. But I doubt it.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Steroids are a whole diff. class of "medicine".
Nothing like vitamins. The use has to be
regulated closely because they are fat soluble
and spend much more time in cells unlike the vast
majority of vitamins (just urinated out)
and like most of the other chemicals
that are not banned and keep horses healthy.

The of level hormones are very important because they interact
very strongly when compared to the conc. of other hormones produced naturally.
Ask any vet or doc.

But if rules are going to be made they have to be able to tell
if they are violated first (which is a huge problem because guidelines
that are measurable and acceptable by all have to be produced, good luck with that). And then there must be a punishment
that hurts.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Steroids do not equal vitamins.

Making rules regulating use is a huge problem.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Steroids do not equal vitamins.

Making rules regulating use is a huge problem.

No kidding...