Wow, someone actually gets it...

[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.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

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.

I agree with you. However, I think Chuck's perspecitve has very valid concerns as well. Is there an "ideal" or "perfect" solution? Well, not a first stab perhaps. Yes, setting the rules is the first step -- but as you point out, enforcing them is the mandatory partner. You cannot have bark without bite.

Be that as it may, I don't see the "everything goes" as the ultimate destination. Even in a "not an ideal" world -- to get to that point, well, as I am sure we would all admit, that would be pathetic. I do agree with your points as far as enforcement, or lack thereof. As I've often said, our harness brethern seem to do a better job "catching them" although they seem to lack the "punish them enough" -- although I think I am starting to see some changes there.

Eric

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

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.

One of the problems racing has is that many of the rules concerning drug testing were written at a time when testing was far less effective. When horseman try to get the rules amended to represent modern testing we get told that they will not give us threshold levels and that we are just trying to get more 'liberal' rules. Horseman have been painted as the bad guys in this deal and the fact is that there are some bad guys. But we have consistently been dealt a bad hand and the RMTC has not exactly been forthcoming with details. Go to the RMTC website, and look up the withdrawl time schedule for 80% of drugs listed. You get no information. They tell you guys one thing yet do another and this whole federal deal is NOT going to make things better, it will create more kneejerk plans that are simply not effective. These things need time to get worked out as shown by the states that have extended the grace period on the steroid testing because they are complex issues. If anything good were to come of the whole hearings is that perhaps money will be found to do some real research into many of the problems that we currently have. But I doubt it.

[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.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pgardn

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.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Steroids do not equal vitamins.

Making rules regulating use is a huge problem.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Steroids do not equal vitamins.

Making rules regulating use is a huge problem.

No kidding...

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

No kidding...

Ok then lets tell it like it is, they are not vitamins.
If you are going to sell an animals it is
suggested by some to give the horse equipose
for the coat even though the horse is fine physically.

The hormone, which is basically a dervatitive of testoterone
(other brands have slightly diff. chemical structure so they
can be marketed under another name) are used on horses
that dont need them.

I attempted very poorly apparently (fat soluble) to explain
one reason why the levels are hard to measure.

Sorry for the interruption.

[Rupert Pupkin]

It is certainly true that certain drugs and medications can have greatly different effects on animals than humans. For example, the drug PCP is a trainquilizer for large animals, yet is has the opposite effect on humans. PCP can make people cazy and it often times will give people super-human strength.

But when it comes to steroids, I have never seen or heard any evidence that would lead me to believe that steroids don't affect horses in much the same way that steroids affect humans. I am very open-minded. If anyone has any information showing that steroids do not affect horses in much the same way as they affect humans, I would love to see this information.