Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CSC
I'm no expert in performance enhancers in horseracing, so I will paraphrase this by saying I am speaking solely from a fans point of view. I agree that all eras new and old probably have had their cheaters. I even remember reading that Tom Smith, Seabiscuit's Trainer was alleged to have been a cheater, though that was a rumour. I'm not convinced though that the drugs of yesterday supercede the more sophistocated drugs of today. Veterinarian's today can easily mask drugs to pass tests, it has happened for atheletes in other sports, that once a drug can be detected the cheaters will find something else that testers cannot detect. Essentially performance enhancers are far more sophisticated than the old milkshakes of years gone by. HGH is the big word for steroids now, and it wasn't just until recently that the public started to become aware of how many atheletes use this drug. One must wonder just how far Trainer's and Owner's will go these days to gain an advantage, but I surmise since it has found its way into Baseball, Football, Track and Field, it has found it's way into horseracing in a big way. Making it a big question mark for me how many Roger Clemons or Barry Bonds we have in horseracing today? I would be far more comfortable calling Secretariat great, rather than Ghostzapper who I regard as 1-2 the fastest horses of this supertrainer era.
|
You claim not to be an expert yet go ahead and make statements like "Veterinarian's today can easily mask drugs to pass tests". You know this because of....? There is virtually no drug that can be "masked". If todays labs test for it, they will find it. The difference between horseracing and human athletics is that there are far more substances considered illegal in horse racing. modern drugs are created in labs and tested for in labs. To think that one side would evolve and the other would not does not make sense to even the uninformed. One of the biggest problems we have in regards to drug testing is that the tests are too strong, picking up at levels far greater than even 10 years ago which leads to positives which are totally inconsequential, especially since the levels are based on outdated testing procedures yet when announced as such, fans howl that we are being too "soft" on "cheaters". The issue which should raise concern is the undetecable or unknown drugs that are supposedly being used. Most of these are in fact known but simply not tested for because of the extraordinary amount of substances that are available. While there most certainly are more and further advanced medications available in current times, there are also much more sophisicated tests available and a much stronger push behind trying to detect illegal meds even if the push is led by questionable tactics and suspect leadership. In the days of past there was neither an ability nor a propensity to look real hard.