Wow, someone actually gets it...

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The RMTC and its goals have not progressed fast enough for many simply because of the political nature of their mission. They concentrated on the penalty phase first before the research was properly done which is backwards. To think that this Congressional inquiry will not go down that same path is amusing.

Steroids dont enhance performance but you can believe whatever you want.

What you and most others are not getting that this whole thing is NOT about helping horseracing. It is about helping Ed Whitfield and helping further his wife's organizations agenda. Horseracing is not the primary goal here, it is the vehicle to get what this guy wants.

No, I get the politics. My wife worked for a U.S. senator for several years. I get it very well.

The RMTC politics are there because they have no power and are funded by the very groups whose behavior they are are trying to change and those groups do not want change.

And, yes, I do thing steroids enhance performance. Do you really think Lyle Alzado would have been just as good off the gook?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

No, I get the politics. My wife worked for a U.S. senator for several years. I get it very well.

The RMTC politics are there because they have no power and are funded by the very groups whose behavior they are are trying to change and those groups do not want change.

And, yes, I do thing steroids enhance performance. Do you really think Lyle Alzado would have been just as good off the gook?

Lyle Alzado is not a horse. Chocolate kills dogs. Different species, Different uses, different dosages. And if you get the politics than you have no excuse for not seeing this for what it is. It is not about the issues nearly as much as it is about the agenda.

[Kasept]

http://www.kentucky.com/254/v-print/story/435717.html

Piece dealing specifically on Damon...

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Kasept

http://www.kentucky.com/254/v-print/story/435717.html

Piece dealing specifically on Damon...

Thayer also said Connie Whitfield has a conflict of interest because she is also a vice president of the Humane Society of the United States.

Good link, thanks.

The scariest thing for someone that loves, owns, or breeds animals to hear is, "PETA wants to help protect your animals".

And the second scariest is, "The Humane Society of the United States is here to enact legislation to help your animals"

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Lyle Alzado is not a horse. Chocolate kills dogs. Different species, Different uses, different dosages. And if you get the politics than you have no excuse for not seeing this for what it is. It is not about the issues nearly as much as it is about the agenda.

You left out the fact the RMTC and NTRA are run funded by people who will resist change. The Stamps kid. Van Whoopwhoop. On and on.

Bubba's been eating chocolate for years. No problems. Yet.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

You left out the fact the RMTC and NTRA are run funded by people who will resist change. The Stamps kid. Van Whoopwhoop. On and on.

Bubba's been eating chocolate for years. No problems. Yet.

Are you kidding? The RMTC was designed to be the hammer to make changes, hence the penalties phase being handled first.

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Are you kidding? The RMTC was designed to be the hammer to make changes, hence the penalties phase being handled first.

Look, I support them but they are the biting dog with rubber teeth. I have been through that document a couple times and it is indeed complex. Perhaps too much so.

As far as steroids enhancing or not enhancing performance, I have read enough to believe they do.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

As far as steroids enhancing or not enhancing performance, I have read enough to believe they do.

And I have seen enough to know that they they dont.

Not to mention supposed performance enhancers that are legal and available to all dont really give an advantage to anyone do they? Ban the legal ones and the guys willing to use the illegal ones have a big advantage. Wouldnt that be a much greater issue? If Lasix was eliminated then the under the counter meds will give a huge boost to guys willing to use them, no? If you take away all legal tools to deal with horses issues then what are you supposed to do about the issues?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

And I have seen enough to know that they they dont.

Not to mention supposed performance enhancers that are legal and available to all dont really give an advantage to anyone do they? Ban the legal ones and the guys willing to use the illegal ones have a big advantage. Wouldnt that be a much greater issue? If Lasix was eliminated then the under the counter meds will give a huge boost to guys willing to use them, no? If you take away all legal tools to deal with horses issues then what are you supposed to do about the issues?

I was talking to one of our trainers over the weekend about this issue. He pretty much said the same thing as you. He said that if all the legal drugs are banned, then the cheating trainers will have a much bigger advantage because they will still be using illegal, undetectable drugs. He said that if they ban steroids, then the guys that can get synthetic steroids will win all the races.

This trainer strongly disagrees with the notion that steroids are not performance-enhancing. He said, "Steroids build up muscle. Of course they are performance-enhancing."

[ArlJim78]

you'd think with all this performance enhancement going on that we'd see some actual good performances.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

you'd think with all this performance enhancement going on that we'd see some actual good performances.

Ain't that the truth.

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

OOOOOOOOOO

seriously, at least in baseball you had the thrill of Macguire, Sosa, Bonds, etc duking it out, shredding the record books.
what do we have in racing? where are all the records that should be falling?

same with Jones the Olympian that got caught. at least she gave us an exciting summer.

[infield_line]

is how someone Congressman from Kentucky is pushing this... does he not understand what racing means to the state and how the racing connected estabishment in Kentucky could squash him like bug.......? Some California nitwit.....sure

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Lyle Alzado is not a horse. Chocolate kills dogs. Different species, Different uses, different dosages. And if you get the politics than you have no excuse for not seeing this for what it is. It is not about the issues nearly as much as it is about the agenda.

Maybe the question should be posed a different way: if you were to take the steroids away, would performance decline?

If the answer is "no," then a lot of trainers who have stated that they use steroids because they would be at a competitive disadvantage if they don't use them (Tagg and Amoss said so publicly the week of the Belmont) are sadly mistaken.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

Maybe the question should be posed a different way: if you were to take the steroids away, would performance decline?

If the answer is "no," then a lot of trainers who have stated that they use steroids because they would be at a competitive disadvantage if they don't use them (Tagg and Amoss said so publicly the week of the Belmont) are sadly mistaken.

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.

[parsixfarms]

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.

[ELA]

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.

All good points, but is this the same 'ol same 'ol? One trainer says "performance enhancing" another trainer says "not performance enhancing" -- both believe they are right. The former because of weight, appetite, being able to tighten the screws so to speak, etc. The latter because it doesn't make them "go faster" per se and doesn't do anything for the pain, or whatever the arguement is. OK, I got that.

However, and perhaps this is too simplistic -- what's the difference? Who cares already. My point is, either allow it or don't. Clenbuterol . . . some guys use it as "program" and others do not. Same I am sure with other drugs. So, it's either legal or it's not. If the states want to -- well, forget about that -- it is now to the point where they HAVE to -- join together, develop a national guideline and get everyone to follow it.

Sure, I know, easier said than done. So what putting a man on the moon. I think you brought up some excellent points. It's just now time to "do something" about it.

Eric

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by ELA

However, and perhaps this is too simplistic -- what's the difference? Who cares already. My point is, either allow it or don't. Clenbuterol . . . some guys use it as "program" and others do not. Same I am sure with other drugs. So, it's either legal or it's not. If the states want to -- well, forget about that -- it is now to the point where they HAVE to -- join together, develop a national guideline and get everyone to follow it.

Sure, I know, easier said than done. So what putting a man on the moon. I think you brought up some excellent points. It's just now time to "do something" about it.

Eric

My general premise is that we need to adopt a set of uniform rules from which everyone works. Some will like them; others won't. But once we set the rules, we need to enforce them.

I appreciate the concern that Chuck stated in an earlier post. If the RMTC model rule on steroids is adopted, will there be trainers/chemists that employ designer steroids? If human sports are any guide, the answer is probably, "yes." But that's not a reason to fail to adopt the rules. To my way of thinking, the concern over the parade of horribles argument that Chuck is referencing would ultimately lead to the following guiding principles: "Everything goes. Use whatever you want."

Racing's problem is not that some unscrupulous individual is going to try to circumvent the rules (or "push the envelope" as some like to call it); rather, the problem is that it doesn't meaningfully enforce the rules that it already has. And if the RMTC rules are adopted, and racing continues its lax enforcement, then the whole exercise is a complete waste of everyone's time and energy. The only difference now, as baseball has learned, is that, if racing doesn't get its house in order, then someone (the Whitfields of the world) may do it for us - and in a manner over which we have no control.

[Cannon Shell]

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

Steroids are a whole diff. class of "medicine".
Nothing like vitamins. The use has to be
regulated closely because they are fat soluble
and spend much more time in cells unlike the vast
majority of vitamins (just urinated out)
and like most of the other chemicals
that are not banned and keep horses healthy.

The of level hormones are very important because they interact
very strongly when compared to the conc. of other hormones produced naturally.
Ask any vet or doc.

But if rules are going to be made they have to be able to tell
if they are violated first (which is a huge problem because guidelines
that are measurable and acceptable by all have to be produced, good luck with that). And then there must be a punishment
that hurts.