New poll- best juice
 

In light of the hearings tommorrow I figured this would be timely.

I like Cranberry

Never liked juice. I find coffee keeps me going. Can I count that as a juice?

Beattie and Lake should be revised and placed as a coupled entry. They get my vote

And Dutrow has the "sniffles". He won't be at the hearing after all.:rolleyes:

probably whoever uses it the most, and gets caught the least.

and you forgot the assman and biancobra.

O.J. Simpson

LOL. On a related note, I was intrigued by Gary West's comments today on medication, specifically his portrayal/analogy on clenbuterol -- I didn't take notes, but it sounded like he was saying how it's unfair that certain "owners" can afford it, others cannot, and that makes the game unfair.

Eric

i have an addiction to POM juice.

it's an expensive habit.

v8 still my fave. with a bit of vodka, even better.

I kind of think there is something to this. Do we want to force owners out of the game because they can't afford a chemical edge? We are probably there already.

This is a very microscopic way of looking at just this one aspect. It's also a very dangerous and very slippery slope. First, the so called "chemical edge" -- in this case is a perfectly legal one. That doesn't make it cut and dry, but to what extent can we call this an edge? We have similar elements in other sports, although none are exactly the same. I don't think it's about forcing owners out of the game. How does this play out? Our own version of a "salary cap" or something of the like? I mean, where does this end up.

Some may treat ownership as a business, others may not. So, dismiss from this discussion those who don't. For the remaining, why should this not be like any other "business"? If you can't afford to be competitive -- legally, and that is the key -- then what are your choices? Remain noncompetitive or get competitive. If you want to "improve" your business, often it takes "investment" so to speak.

I have heard plenty of owners and trainers complain about their competition. Sure, it's very valid and something must be done when we are talking about those few who have histories of cheating. But what about those who do not? I've heard plenty of complaints about trainers who are sucessful, high % trainers, win races, produce, step horses up, etc. -- and some of these trainers haven't had a positive test in their entire career. Sometimes, there is a "save face" aspect to this game, and I think many people are quick to "blame" and point fingers as an excuse.

Eric

Isn't it about time for the "Fire'em up Frenchman" to rejoin the ranks of the cheaters. IMO his barn is full in no time at all. How Sad !!!

Me personally; grapefruit....but OSB and the "hot" pink & black silks were awesome "in the day".

didn't they say something about a hearing to extend his suspension? i think he should be barred for life.

You have to remember he is getting his information from guys in Texas for whom a $200 bottle of clembuterol may be considered really expensive. It costs about $4 to $5 per day to use it, hardly expensive. I just think it is funny how indignant guys like West get. He said that "supertrainers" have been created in the last few years due to steroids and clembuterol. That is just laughable. These things have been around for a long time. Clembuterol has been available since the early 90's even though it was not legalized for use in this country until about 8 or 9 years ago. All trainers have access to these things. They are hardly the "designer" drugs.

If an owner cant 'afford' clembuterol and/or steroids then how can they possibly afford horses good enough to compete at a high level anyway? The thought that these are expensive options is 100% wrong. Turning a horse out to let them deal with issues costs far more especially when you consider that the issues may come right back after being put back into training. Regardless of what side of the issue you are on, the costs of these 2 particular items is hardly a reason that they should be "banned".

There may be a bit of truth to this but not in the way West describes. A trainer friend of mine who has a medium sized stable (30 horses) got 3 horses from a owner who had the horses with a big name trainer. He asked the owner to send him the last few vet bills for the horse to see what they had been doing with the horses so he had a little bit of a history. Each horse had between a $1200 and $2000 per month vet bill. This is on horses that were not winning or even running well. There wasnt anything unusual but these horses are getting every possible thing that can be given. A large portion of the bill was gastrogard but they were getting clembuterol, adequan, lubrysn, etc. It obviously wasnt doing much for these three but they werent really any good for my friend either at lower level tracks. I guess the point of the story is that the big trainers are casting a wide net in terms of doing everything possible to keep their horses healthy at a high cost which their owners seem to be willing to pay. In some cases it may be an advantage simply because some of those things may help an individual horse to compete at it's highest level though much may simply be overkill. But there are very few owners that can afford a $2000 a month vet bill especially on horses not earning.

The poll reflects the age of the posters here.

I honestly wish those of you that didn't vote for Oscar were around then. You just wouldn't believe what he used to do.

Excellent points, and I agree.

Eric

Too bad Oscar isnt still alive to be called in front of Congress