Steroids ban

[Spiggle24]

Random thoughts of KY Vet:

I think drug regulation is a great thing. I would like to see the
USA have the same drug regs (no drugs allowed race day) as other countries.
Although I don't know where Europe will then send talented bleeders
- those horses will be out of the racing game (horseburgers, perhaps).
The more well-regulated international scene still has cheaters,
there will always be cheaters (note some Olympic jumpers came up positive)
I'm sorry the KY regs (can't use steroids for 60 days before a race)
are not consistent with, for example, the CA regs (can't use
steroids for 30 days before a race)
That's due solely to the quick desire of racing commissions to jump
on the feel-good publicity bandwagon.
Nationwide inconsistencies will probably be worked out and corrected
a year or so from now.
It is going to be a bit ugly before that is done - differences
between laboratories are documented, we have a more accurate idea of
withdrawal times, trainers can safely ship interstate to run, etc.
There are going to be good people, honest trainers, unfairly accused
of "steroid abuse" during the first months if they get a positive.
Who is going to ship into Keeneland or Churchill or Turfway, etc.
this fall? Willing to take the hit and bad PR for a postive test on
any horse they've acquired in the past 30-60 days as a claim or from
a client moving from another trainer?
Ideally, if you were in Kentucky and didn't give any more anabolics
starting today, you wouldn't test at the Keeneland meet.
But you might.
Trainers/clients that can afford to do a drug test before running
will come, those that can't, won't risk it. We'll see.
I think there will be some initial handicapping chaos (performances
not to expectations) especially at the lower and claiming levels and
smaller tracks.
Some horses will run less frequently, as trainer won't want to give
a steroid to help recovery (valid use of legal drugs will be impacted)
More trainers will be restricted (fearful) of where they can run
until they can work out ensuring they won't test positive.
The situation in the midwest/east coast will be worse than CA, as CA
generally has a "closed" population of horses, while the east coast
guys go to various states frequently.
Trainers will lose money this first year, especially at the bread
and butter lower claiming levels, as horses will run less frequently.
The claiming game will change this first year. KY puts the initial
onus on the claiming trainer for a previous trainers abuse and a
drug positive - ridiculous!
Somebody has to pay for a test before the claimed horse runs back,
and I think it should be the state during implementation - not the
guy that claimed a horse.
How many in the lower level claiming game, with a few horses, will
be put out of business? As they either can't use what they used to
keep horses running (which is good), or if they didn't use it,
finding horses that won't test and can run back for them?
Any jurisdiction implementing a program should do as CA is, pay for
tests and warn trainers privately at the start so trainers that want
to comply can comply.
You can't expect trainers to carry this cost, as they were using
legal, permitted drugs.
If you are a trainer of overuse or abuse, you are going to have a
hard time of it, relearning your craft.
I note that "steroid abuse" (at the sales testing, during this
implementation) doesn't seem to be the widespread problem people
thought it was based upon the lack of positives.
What are folks going to blame breakdowns on next year, as steroid
restrictions will hardly impact it?
In a drug-free world, the veterinarian-trainer relationship on the
backstretch will change (I hope).
Historically, for many and especially at lower levels (not all), a
trainer would call a vet as the trainer wanted the knees injected,
wanted a shot of this or that, etc.
The trainer dictated the medical treatment of the horse, and there
was little diagnosis done (saves money).
A vet could comply, or if he didn't do as the trainer demanded,
wouldn't earn money to feed his kids. The trainer would just call
another vet that would say, "yassir" and do as he wished.
Many trainers think vets are useless necessities that don't know
crap, and many times they are correct. The backstretch environment
encouraged that in many cases.
That's not good medicine, nor is it best for the horse.
The trainers that are in the 21st century, that have always paid
attention to "sports medicine" - innovations and information
regarding optimal training techniques, nutrition, ancillary aids,
etc - will do fine.
Trainers that believed in diagnosis of problems before appropriate
treatment (rather than shotgunning it and guessing) won't have to change.
That's expensive and not all trainers and clients can afford that.
Their vets - who know about innovations in sports medicine and can
advise the trainer - will do fine.
The guys who, if a horse didn't do well, just guessed and ordered a
vet to give a shot of this or that - won't do well.
Either will vets that don't know how to maintain an athlete, or
diagnose and treat, that only know how to automatically inject
knees, give shots, etc. A good thing in my eyes.

Anonymous

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Spiggle24

Random thoughts of KY Vet:

I think drug regulation is a great thing. I would like to see the
USA have the same drug regs (no drugs allowed race day) as other countries.
Although I don't know where Europe will then send talented bleeders
- those horses will be out of the racing game (horseburgers, perhaps).

I love these guys. "I don't know where they go, horseburgers perhaps?"

How about absolutely that is where they go in Europe! I wonder if he is prepared to eat 80% of the race horses in the country because they need meds (including Lasix) to run. I highly doubt it.

You can't have it both ways; we either enact responsible medication policies that are uniform across the country, or we start eatin' 'em. Period.