Deep Impact Tests Positive in the Arc

paisjpq · #1 10-19-2006, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oracle80

Beth the recommended wear off times vary from horse to horse based on a number of factors, come on you know that.
I'm not defending illegal drugs, but I'm extremelt tired of certain national columnists painting everyone with the same brush who gets a positive regardless of its nature. Of course the same guy has written a lot of pump articles for a buddy of his who he claims tobe so great, who has had more postives than a planned parenthood clinic in a college town.
Ths is irrepsonsible journalism thats causing the public to believe that a trace amount of therapeutic medicine is the same as monkeying one up on raceday with high test go go juice.
Its just not so.

but would you not agree that some of what is wrong with racing is the reliance on, and the acceptance of, theraputic medications? It is what has allowed many horsemen to get away with running horses that simply need TIME OFF. If this horse had a lung infection...great. treat him and give him some days...instead they obviously came too close to the withdrawl window and it caught up with them...I do not feel sorry for them.

randallscott35 · #2 10-19-2006, 10:10 AM

Until every track tests for EPO it doesn't matter.

#3 10-20-2006, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by randallscott35

Until every track tests for EPO it doesn't matter.

Eeeeeeeggzactly.

Sightseek · #4 10-19-2006, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paisjpq

but would you not agree that some of what is wrong with racing is the reliance on, and the acceptance of, theraputic medications? It is what has allowed many horsemen to get away with running horses that simply need TIME OFF. If this horse had a lung infection...great. treat him and give him some days...instead they obviously came too close to the withdrawl window and it caught up with them...I do not feel sorry for them.

Do you realize what the size of fields would be if trainers weren't allowed to treat the tinest of things and were instead told to ship them off to the farm?

#5 10-19-2006, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sightseek

Do you realize what the size of fields would be if trainers weren't allowed to treat the tinest of things and were instead told to ship them off to the farm?

I do, and we'd have 3 race cards with 4 horses apiece in them, two days a week.
Its like saying no NFL player should play with any injury, he should sit out the week.

blackthroatedwind · #6 10-19-2006, 10:15 AM

I wonder what field size would be like if there were no performance enhancing drugs whatsoever. I also wonder what the results would look like.

Believe it or not, there were people who didn't believe steroids were a problem in baseball ten years ago.

Sightseek · #7 10-19-2006, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I wonder what field size would be like if there were no performance enhancing drugs whatsoever. I also wonder what the results would look like.

Believe it or not, there were people who didn't believe steroids were a problem in baseball ten years ago.

You can't compare steroids with something that is 'questionable' to enhance performance, but I agree, steroids should be controlled. (Especially in the Auction Ring!)

blackthroatedwind · #8 10-19-2006, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sightseek

You can't compare steroids with something that is 'questionable' to enhance performance, but I agree, steroids should be controlled. (Especially in the Auction Ring!)

It was an allusion to people's amazing ignorance about an obvious problem and not an argument relevent to specific drugs.

#9 10-19-2006, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I wonder what field size would be like if there were no performance enhancing drugs whatsoever. I also wonder what the results would look like.

Believe it or not, there were people who didn't believe steroids were a problem in baseball ten years ago.

BTW,
My biggest problem is with how this is portrayed by irresponsible journalists.
I can pull the articles written by one who loves to rail out and crash out against those who he deems villains or supertrainers. I can also pull atleast two articles the same guy has written about a friend of his who trains who has a list of postives who he gushes over.
And you know who the writer and trainer I'm talking about are.
Its not being covered responsibly, this problem that we have. And convincing people that a therapy drug for a cracked foot is the same as a shot of high test on race day is only hurting the problem.

blackthroatedwind · #10 10-19-2006, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oracle80

BTW,
My biggest problem is with how this is portrayed by irresponsible journalists.
I can pull the articles written by one who loves to rail out and crash out against those who he deems villains or supertrainers. I can also pull atleast two articles the same guy has written about a friend of his who trains who has a list of postives who he gushes over.
And you know who the writer and trainer I'm talking about are.
Its not being covered responsibly, this problem that we have. And convincing people that a therapy drug for a cracked foot is the same as a shot of high test on race day is only hurting the problem.

I don't find the issue to be specific.

The biggest problem is not irresponsible journalism. it is trainers using illegal performance enhancing medication and an industry that turns more than a blind eye to it. What you, or I or anyone, perceive as some journalistic bias does not change what is happening out there.

#11 10-19-2006, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I don't find the issue to be specific.

The biggest problem is not irresponsible journalism. it is trainers using illegal performance enhancing medication and an industry that turns more than a blind eye to it. What you, or I or anyone, perceive as some journalistic bias does not change what is happening out there.

Perceive? I think we perceive pretty well. And that guy is someone I respect greatly but who has ZERO credibility on that topic after that bs.

And yes the problem is drugs, no question. I agree 100%. But I really think that tracks are reacting to the journalistic frenzy by grabbing guys on small traces of therapy drugs instead of grabbing the real cheaters in order to mak a sacrifice to the journalists and people as if to say "See we got one!!"" yeah great, go grab a guy with a trace of a bronchiodilater, that will really clean this up. Can't you see whats going on? Do you really think that they grabbed 4 guys the last two years all on the same positive by cooincidence? Or was it because those 4 guys get blasted by journalists(who don't bash their buddies who have a list of positives already) and they felt like they had to nail them on something to calm the masses?

#12 10-19-2006, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I don't find the issue to be specific.

The biggest problem is not irresponsible journalism. it is trainers using illegal performance enhancing medication and an industry that turns more than a blind eye to it. What you, or I or anyone, perceive as some journalistic bias does not change what is happening out there.

P.S.
I want them to catch guys for cheating who ARE cheating and for what they are CHEATING WITH!!! Not some trace amount of a therapeutic drug. Can't anyone see this doesn't solve the problem?

Sightseek · #13 10-19-2006, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oracle80

I do, and we'd have 3 race cards with 4 horses apiece in them, two days a week.
Its like saying no NFL player should play with any injury, he should sit out the week.

And you thought Poly was bad!

paisjpq · #14 10-19-2006, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sightseek

Do you realize what the size of fields would be if trainers weren't allowed to treat the tinest of things and were instead told to ship them off to the farm?

I am hardly suggesting that they be shipped off to the farm...but running them with banned medications (whatever they may be) is not a positive for the game IMO.