Quote:
|
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.