Top 25 3yo's 1987-2007

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by CSC

Does the thought that some of the greatest horses on this list may have raced on performance enhancing drugs tarish their reputations? We've seen it in baseball, how does one compare Roger Clemons to Bob Gibson, or for that matter Ghostzapper to Secretariat?

I think there is a greater chance that horses in the 70's were using something far more performance enhancing than horses in our era. While I wasnt around to see 1st hand in the 70's I have some pretty good sources.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I think there is a greater chance that horses in the 70's were using something far more performance enhancing than horses in our era. While I wasnt around to see 1st hand in the 70's I have some pretty good sources.

That is the problem of comparing horses from different eras, we will never know for certain if horse A could beat horse B. I'm not sure whether a horse runs faster today or not means anything, all we know for certain is that they can only beat whomever they line up against. The rest is speculation. I raised the question when I think of horses trained by alleged substance users as in Frankel or Pletcher. Without that advantage would their horses run as fast? Not likely from this standpoint and just as in the case of Clemons the mere thought has tarnished his legacy forever.

[kentuckyrosesinmay]

I really liked Knight's Templar. I knew that she had died, but I assumed that she had broken down in a race or of some other kind of injury.

I find this very hard to believe as a coincidence because of the rarity of cancer in horses, but there are carcinogenic substances in almost everything....the food you eat even...it depends on your genetic susceptibility to whether you develop cancer or not most of the time unless you are exposed to something incredibly bad.

There was most likely something at Belmont around those two stalls that caused the cancer, but I seriously doubt that management had much to do with it.

Oh well, we'll never really know....

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by kentuckyrosesinmay

I really liked Knight's Templar. I knew that she had died, but I assumed that she had broken down in a race or of some other kind of injury.

When I was a little girl in Poland, I had a pony. He was beautiful.

And I loved him.

I find this very hard to believe as a coincidence because of the rarity of cancer in horses, but there are carcinogenic substances in almost everything

I'm not gonna sit in a tepid pool of my own filth. Millions of microbes having sex all around me...

....the food you eat even...

I prepared this whole meal as I bathed...

it depends on your genetic susceptibility to whether you develop cancer or not most of the time unless you are exposed to something incredibly bad.

...and laughter is the best medicine...

There was most likely something at Belmont around those two stalls that caused the cancer, but I seriously doubt that management had much to do with it.

Something happened in that shedrow...it was almost as if it were something...from above...

Junior mint?

Oh well, we'll never really know....

How far to the left of the E are we now?

The best thing thing to do is just...'pop'...put it outta your mind...

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by CSC

That is the problem of comparing horses from different eras, we will never know for certain if horse A could beat horse B. I'm not sure whether a horse runs faster today or not means anything, all we know for certain is that they can only beat whomever they line up against. The rest is speculation. I raised the question when I think of horses trained by alleged substance users as in Frankel or Pletcher. Without that advantage would their horses run as fast? Not likely from this standpoint and just as in the case of Clemons the mere thought has tarnished his legacy forever.

The problem that I have is that the testing is so much better now that almost no positive now would be caught under the same test of earlier eras. There is a perception that all our horses now are under the influence of medications of some kind but the truth is that there were far more powerful substances being used in the 70's in particular than there are now. That is not to say that every trainer was using something but drugs like sublimaze and etorphine were used and they are far greater performance enhancers than any steroids or minute clembuterol traces found. Also there were many horses being treated with Lasix except for a long time it was not even published. The thought that horse racing is a dirtier game now simply ignores the reality of earlier eras.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The problem that I have is that the testing is so much better now that almost no positive now would be caught under the same test of earlier eras. There is a perception that all our horses now are under the influence of medications of some kind but the truth is that there were far more powerful substances being used in the 70's in particular than there are now. That is not to say that every trainer was using something but drugs like sublimaze and etorphine were used and they are far greater performance enhancers than any steroids or minute clembuterol traces found. Also there were many horses being treated with Lasix except for a long time it was not even published. The thought that horse racing is a dirtier game now simply ignores the reality of earlier eras.

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.

[Cannon Shell]

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.

[CSC]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

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.

According to the Mitchell Report, there’s no test for H.G.H., some, if not many, players will think that they can get away with continuing to use it, or starting to use it. Not all drugs are detectable.

Yes I am no expert in masking agents, but what does that have to do with this discussion? As this is just that... a discussion. It doesn't take much these days to do a little research over the internet. Look horseracing didn't truly start testing until 2006 when Rick Arthur headed a committee in Southern California. Basically horseracing had turned had buried their heads in the sand until a select few starting winning everything in sight. I included below the Feb. 27 congressional hearing on the use of steroids on horseracing's drug policy.

[CSC]

Congressman Criticizes Racehorse Drug Policy
by: Ryan Conley
February 27 2008, Article # 11412
U.S. Rep. Ed Whitfield of Kentucky opened a Feb. 27 congressional hearing on the use of steroids in sports by claiming leaders of horse racing have repeatedly failed on promises to self-regulate medication issues.

Whitfield, a Republican from Hopkinsville, spoke during a televised hearing entitled, "Drugs in Sports: Compromising the Health of Athletes and Undermining the Integrity of Competition," which was held during a meeting of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection.

National Thoroughbred Racing Association president and chief executive officer Alex Waldrop was scheduled to testify later Feb. 27 in the second of two panels comprised of major sports commissioners and executives. The first panel heard in the morning included commissioners Bud Selig of Major League Baseball, David Stern of the National Basketball Association, and Roger Goodell of the National Football League, among others.

In his opening remarks, Whitfield chastised United States racing leaders for failing to adopt a uniform policy of banning steroid use, noting most major international racing jurisdictions have already done so.

"Trainers and vets make the decisions, and the horse cannot say no," he told the panel. "England, France, all of Europe, Japan, South Africa, Dubai, Australia: All of the major racing jurisdictions have banned the use of drugs still commonplace in America. England, for instance, banned steroids in racing over 30 years ago.

"Through the years ... horsemen's groups, who claim that they represent every trainer and every horse owner, have been in the forefront to stop the adoption of more stringent drug rules," he continued. "And they have been, and continue to be successful, to the detriment of the sport."

Whitfield cited the recent inflammatory remarks made by Hall of Fame trainer Jack Van Berg, which were published last month in the New York Post.

"Last month in an interview, Hall of Fame trainer Jack Van Berg, who has won more races than any living trainer, said he had seen enough," Whitfield said. "He said drugs ranging from medications like steroids and clenbuterol to prohibited substances like EPO (erythropoietin) are slowly destroying horse racing in America."

Whitfield also shared an anti-drugging presentation made by former U.S. Sen. Charles "Mac" Mathias Jr. at The Jockey Club Roundtable in 1981. The Maryland Republican was backing proposed legislation called "The Corrupt Practices in Horseracing Act," Whitfield said, an act he said would have banned the use of all drugs in horses, as well as other practices such as nerving, numbing and freezing.

"State racing commissioners descended on Sen. Mathias's office after that speech, and they assured him, (27) years ago, that they were going to address the problems, that they were going to crack down on the use of these drugs in racing," Whitfield said. "Here we are 27 years later, and not much has changed."

While citing statistics that claim between 2,500 to 3,000 horses die on the racetrack each year, Whitfield closed his remarks by asking a rhetorical question he attributed to Mathias.

"Is it time to call in the federal cavalry and send it chasing into your stables with guns blazing to clean up the sport of horse racing?," he asked.

Whitfield later asked for unanimous consent to enter into record a "multitude of e-mails" he received from owners and breeders "from around the country" that ask for federal action to ban steroids in racing. The motion was approved without objection.

Among other scheduled to testify in the afternoon panel that includes Waldrop were Jim Scherr, CEO of the U.S. Olympic Committee; and Myles Brand, president of the National Collegiate Athletics Association.

(Originally published at BloodHorse.com.)

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by CSC

Look horseracing didn't truly start testing until 2006 when Rick Arthur headed a committee in Southern California.

Are you serious?

[Riot]

Something happened in that shedrow...it was almost as if it were something...from above...

Junior mint?

LOL - I just got that reference ...