McLaughlin with 3 positives; Gets 30 day ban..

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

So now you're drawing the following distinction: (1) if they can't test for it but it would endanger a horse's welfare, it's not OK; versus (2) if they can't test for it but it would not endanger a horse's welfare, it's OK.

Isn't the question of whether something would endanger a horse way too subjective a standard? After all, there are plenty of legal therapeutic medications that, if abused, could endanger a horse's welfare.

BTW I posted that if the meds endangered the horse they shouldnt be used and the state is obligated to test for them.

To answer your question you cant endanger a horse with meds legal or "Not Tested/illegal" But the stuff that could be illegal maybe just stuff that doesnt endanger a horse it could be stuff that truly makes them feel better not feel nothing at all.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by freddymo

BTW I posted that if the meds endangered the horse they shouldnt be used and the state is obligated to test for them.

The issue, in the terms that you previously framed it, isn't whether the state should be testing for them. Rather, the issue is whether it's OK to use something simply because they are not testing for it.

Ten years ago, they didn't have a test for EPO. Now they do, and evidence suggests that EPO's use is harmful to the horse. That there was not a test for it ten years shouldn't mean that the trainers that used it back then were doing something that was OK.

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

The issue, in the terms that you previously framed it, isn't whether the state should be testing for them. Rather, the issue is whether it's OK to use something simply because they are not testing for it.

Ten years ago, they didn't have a test for EPO. Now they do, and evidence suggests that EPO's use is harmful to the horse. That there was not a test for it ten years shouldn't mean that the trainers that used it back then were doing something that was OK.

Those glorious EPO days when horses rebroke during the race....And Lance Armstrong won at will. Those were the days.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

The issue, in the terms that you previously framed it, isn't whether the state should be testing for them. Rather, the issue is whether it's OK to use something simply because they are not testing for it.

Ten years ago, they didn't have a test for EPO. Now they do, and evidence suggests that EPO's use is harmful to the horse. That there was not a test for it ten years shouldn't mean that the trainers that used it back then were doing something that was OK.

how many horses died or were hurt from EPO? How many horse die or hurt from a Hyperbaric Chamber? Running a horse at 35mph is way more dangerous to them then EPO. Its a brutal game.. Any med improperly used is harmful jjust noy necessarily dangerous. You can have your liver fail from too much Tylenol.. the point is always to not overdue any meds

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Cardus

Oh really, Freddy?

Well I guess its ok if I do it to myself just not ok if someone does it to a horse..lol

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by freddymo

Well I guess its ok if I do it to myself just not ok if someone does it to a horse..lol

LOL