Wow, someone actually gets it...

[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

[Riot]

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?

Dose. There is a difference between use, heavy use and abuse. Both trainers are right.

DeeTee blog posted a shot of Winstrol was given to KNS one time only, the week DeeTee got her in - skinny, fretful, painful from likely gastric ulcers (which CS started treating immediately) - good medicine and obviously helped the horse - treating the ulcers stopped the pain, allowed the weight to stay on, and the Winstrol made her feel better and helped keep her willing to eat during the days it took her GI tract to heal.

That's not cheating - that's good, humane, state-of-the-art medical care.

Giving all the horses in the barn a shot of Winstrol once a month (a'la an infamous Derby trainer we all know) isn't something I'd ever do, but frankly that once-a-month amount - if the usual dose - probably isn't going to do much other than keep them eating, keep them on a good, "going-forward" plane, help the geldings a bit more than the colts.

Giving the legal steroids more frequently, or greater doses, or using the more powerful legal steroids more frequently - bad juju.

The illegal steroids we can all get over the internet - I'd just as soon shoot those guys who inject it into animals (common in pit bull fighting rings, too, btw)

Do I think the legal steroids FDA-approved for use in the horse should be banned totally from the backside? Not at all. I would fight against that until the day I die. Government will not dictate to me what legal drugs I may choose to use in my patients. I practice medicine, the government does not.

Do I think the legal steroids should be used close to raceday? Absolutely not, and we should test for such use to prevent it.

Both situations can co-exist for steroids. We just need to get the allowable levels established, so we know nothing pharmacologically effective is in the horses system on race day.

Then we need to go after the more important big guns - the illegal, more powerful, currently non-detectable steroids and other drugs.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Riot

Dose. There is a difference between use, heavy use and abuse. Both trainers are right.

DeeTee blog posted a shot of Winstrol was given to KNS one time only, the week DeeTee got her in - skinny, fretful, painful from likely gastric ulcers (which CS started treating immediately) - good medicine and obviously helped the horse - treating the ulcers stopped the pain, allowed the weight to stay on, and the Winstrol made her feel better and helped keep her willing to eat during the days it took her GI tract to heal.

That's not cheating - that's good, humane, state-of-the-art medical care.

Giving all the horses in the barn a shot of Winstrol once a month (a'la an infamous Derby trainer we all know) isn't something I'd ever do, but frankly that once-a-month amount - if the usual dose - probably isn't going to do much other than keep them eating, keep them on a good, "going-forward" plane, help the geldings a bit more than the colts.

Giving the legal steroids more frequently, or greater doses, or using the more powerful legal steroids more frequently - bad juju.

The illegal steroids we can all get over the internet - I'd just as soon shoot those guys who inject it into animals (common in pit bull fighting rings, too, btw)

Do I think the legal steroids FDA-approved for use in the horse should be banned totally from the backside? Not at all. I would fight against that until the day I die. Government will not dictate to me what legal drugs I may choose to use in my patients. I practice medicine, the government does not.

Do I think the legal steroids should be used close to raceday? Absolutely not, and we should test for such use to prevent it.

Both situations can co-exist for steroids. We just need to get the allowable levels established, so we know nothing pharmacologically effective is in the horses system on race day.

Then we need to go after the more important big guns - the illegal, more powerful, currently non-detectable steroids and other drugs.

I agree. Like I said to others, excellent points.

Everyone -- trainers, vets, whoever, will have their own regimens, programs, etc. Conceptually, it might not be different than feed, supplements, etc. -- and the legal, approved, and legitimate drugs (whatever turns out to be deemed legitimate) could shake out the same way. Unfortunately, the road to get there has been and will still be long. In addition, I also never believe it's "that simple" and will always be black and white.

I do agree 100% that both can exist, or as you say, co-exist.

Eric

[Riot]

Originally Posted by 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

His wife is the Vice-President of the Humane Society of the United States, which contributed funds to his election campaign.

The HSUS is a pretty strong animal rights group, who wants to dictate who may have animals, how many you may have, and how you may use them, if they may be intact so you may breed them, or if they must be mandatorily spayed or neutered against your wishes in the case of dogs and cats.

The American Kennel Club and dogs breeders have been actively and expensively fighting restrictive, anti-animal ownership laws the HSUS has been trying to introduce across the country for the past several years.

Yes, California is the hotbed of that type of restrictive legislation.

Louisville, KY, btw, has one of the most restrictive animal-ownership laws in the country (thanks to HSUS)

The Congressman is the mouthpiece for his wife's, and the HSUS, very strong animal rights agenda.

After all - everyone wants to "help the poor animals". How can anyone be against that?