Quote:
|
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