CHRB approves new steroid policy

[whodey17]

http://www.drf.com/news/article/90693.html

My question is this, and forgive my ignorance, but why would any anabolic steroid be allowed? Why not simply ban all anabolic steroids and if you get caught using them then you lose your trainers license for life?

[Pedigree Ann]

Originally Posted by whodey17

http://www.drf.com/news/article/90693.html

My question is this, and forgive my ignorance, but why would any anabolic steroid be allowed? Why not simply ban all anabolic steroids and if you get caught using them then you lose your trainers license for life?

Because steroids do have legitimate theraputic uses, same as they do in human beings. And like so many other legitimate theraputic medical substances, they are subject to abuse.

[parsixfarms]

First snake venom, and now this. What's a poor trainer to do?

[Bobby Fischer]

This is a baby step in the right direction.

Not Perfect
The problem with the new regulations is where they set the guidlines for what they call "natural occuring" steroids. - The hormones the animals naturally have , as well as the test being a Race-Day urine sample.

Ungelded Males Exempt?
With the CHRB's current proposal there is no limit to the amount of Testosterone levels in a ungelded male horse. Meaning that a barn can pump their horses with as much injections of Testosterone as they want.

Conflict of Interest - Geldings get the shaft
With ungelded males having no limit on their Testosterone injections, and the Geldings limited to 20 nanograms (35 less than even the fillies), are they at a big disadvantage in the Breeders cup?


Healthy for Fillies
Steroid rules are a much needed change for Fillies. Even with 55nanograms of testosterone allowed in fillies, this will be a neede reduction.

Just a raceday Urine test
How long do steroids appear in urine for a racehorse? It seems that trainers can still cycle any and all steroids on their horses and show a benefit in the time between races and layoffs.

The anabolic steroids that would be affected by the restrictions are Stanozolol (one nanogram per millimeter of urine), Nandrolone (one nanogram for fillies, mares and geldings and 45 nanograms for males), Boldenone (15 nanograms in males other than geldings) and Testosterone (55 nanograms in fillies and mares and 20 nanograms for geldings). The latter would be allowed at any level in non-gelded males.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Bobby Fischer

This is a baby step in the right direction.

Not Perfect
The problem with the new regulations is where they set the guidlines for what they call "natural occuring" steroids. - The hormones the animals naturally have , as well as the test being a Race-Day urine sample.

Ungelded Males Exempt?
With the CHRB's current proposal there is no limit to the amount of Testosterone levels in a ungelded male horse. Meaning that a barn can pump their horses with as much injections of Testosterone as they want.

Conflict of Interest - Geldings get the shaft
With ungelded males having no limit on their Testosterone injections, and the Geldings limited to 20 nanograms (35 less than even the fillies), are they at a big disadvantage in the Breeders cup?


Healthy for Fillies
Steroid rules are a much needed change for Fillies. Even with 55nanograms of testosterone allowed in fillies, this will be a neede reduction.

Just a raceday Urine test
How long do steroids appear in urine for a racehorse? It seems that trainers can still cycle any and all steroids on their horses and show a benefit in the time between races and layoffs.

This a step in the wrong direction as it will lead to more illegal and currently undetectable substances being used to try to fill the gap left by the banning of anabolics. There is zero proof that anabolics are a performance enhancer in horses. But as stated above there are legitimate therapuetic uses for them and the withdrawl times are wildly inconsistent which may lead to lots of bs positives. As is typical in the medication wars, the powers that be make a pr move that will make things more dificult for the non cheaters. Regulation would have been a much better option but it would not make the splash that banning them makes.

[Bobby Fischer]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

There is zero proof that anabolics are a performance enhancer in horses.

I just don't understand how anabolics are not seen by all as performance enhancers? They give the horse more strength, faster recovery, and better appetite. A race horse that is extremely strong and muscled is almost always going to perform better. Horses aren't that much different than men in the way anabolics act.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

But as stated above there are legitimate therapuetic uses for them and the withdrawl times are wildly inconsistent which may lead to lots of bs positives.

What legitimate therapuetic need could a horse that is about to race have?

[Riot]

I just don't understand how anabolics are not seen by all as performance enhancers?

First, not all steroids are anabolic, and then, not all anabolic steroids can give the same results.

Secondly, there is therapeutic use, and then there is overt, ridiculous abuse.

Third, the general public thinks "steroid", and pictures Barry Bonds or competitive weightlifters, thinking that is always the result of "giving steroids".

That is not what usually happens at all, unless there is incredibly excessive abuse going on.

They give the horse more strength, faster recovery, and better appetite. A race horse that is extremely strong and muscled is almost always going to perform better. Horses aren't that much different than men in the way anabolics act.

Are you basing your last sentence upon personal experience? In men, or in horses?

The "more strength" part of therapeutic doses is minimal to nil. And if you gave a horse the particular illegal steroid drugs, and the amounts, that men abuse (if you had a horse built like Barry Bonds) I doubt he could run more than 4-5 furlongs before tying up or gasping for breath. If he didn't kill the stable help well before getting on the track. There are definite metabolic tradeoffs for excessive steroid misuse of some anabolics. And you don't see long distance runners abusing them, do you?

Speaking about testosterone: it is such an innocuous drug regarding possible performance-enhancement, that it is the legal drug of choice - it is SPECIFICALLY APPROVED - for use in greyhound racing (the other public gambling racing sport), to keep females out of estrous.

It is approved as it has zero affect on performance.

In fact, some greyhound trainers will not use testosterone to supress estrous, as there has been a repeatedly-proven decrease in speed and endurance in female racing greyhounds routinely given testosterone for estrus supression (low dose use). There is little to no muscle enhancement. Female racing greys found with overages of testosterone have no improvement in performance.

By contrast, a drug not approved for use in greyhound racing is milbolerone, a different anabolic steroid, the "Cheque drops" popular and commonly given by show dog owners to keep their girl dogs out of heat.

Milbolerone isn't used in racing as it causes an increase in undesired aggressive tendencies at higher levels of approved dosage regimines (which gets your dog banned from the track). It does not provide much muscle development, and like testosterone causes a measurable decrease in speed and endurance.

As Chuck says - this is a nice PR move, but doesn't mean much or will have much impact.

I also agree that there is little to no proof that giving any of the approved anabolic steroids enhances performance at all.

And, the most dangerous part of this regulation is indeed that metabolism varies wildly among horses, and there are going to be alot of false positives.

Just because some cheating trainers will try anything at all to get a competitive advantage doesn't mean that what they do actually does something.

I'm sure there have probably been more horses killed or seriously negatively affected by things like milkshaking or steroid abuse than have been "helped".

[Cannon Shell]

Theamounts of steroids taken by humans in "cycles" far exceeds what is given in therapuetic doses to horses. Winstrol and Equipoise (trade names for anabolics) are horse drugs so ANY human use is really misuse. Giving an anabolic on or close to raceday would have zero effect on a race day performance.

Why are they banning them then, you ask?
Because most people will make the same assumptions that BF made and think that a big step towards cleaning up the game has been made. However when you examine the details without the outcry then you see that this is a facade that will hurt horseman trying to follow the rules.

I am not saying that steroids can't and are not being abused by some. But with zero regulation that has existed what else would you expect?

[Riot]

Here is the Racing and Medication Consortium classifications of drugs of abuse. Which class do folks think the FDA-approved steroid drugs are in?

Class 1 - drugs that have no generally accepted medical use in the racehorse, and very high potential for altering the performance of a race

Class 2 - drugs that have no accepted therapeutic use in the racehorse, and some that have accepted therapeutic use but have high potential for abuse or affecting the outcome of a race

Class 3 - drugs that have or have not accepted therapeutic use, but have potential for affecting outcome of a race, less than Class 2 drugs

Class 4 - drugs that have therapeutic use and are routinely used in racehorses, drugs that may influence performance, but generally have a more limited ability to do so.

Class 5 - drugs that have therapeutic effects for which concentration limits have been established
------------------------------
Regarding the FDA-approved therapeutic steroids in the horse. Current withdrawal rules are 1 week in CA, 1 day in FL, IL, LA, 2 days in NY, 3 days in KY, TX

These are based upon "best guestimate" - when you examine "pharmacokinetics" for these drugs, there is little there - we simply don't know for sure. All we have is clinical impressions and experience with use.

Some jurisdictions have now changed the above withdrawal times to 30 days. While at the same time admitting to horsemen that they do not know the real withdrawal times, and warn that horses may vary in metabolism of the drug, and tell horsemen that they shouldn't give the drug for 120 days (up to 4 months) before a race to be "sure" not to risk a false positive!

That's beyond silly.

[RolloTomasi]

The irony of CA being among the first to ban or limit anabolic steroid use is that, whether intentional or not, the widespread use of these drugs has allowed the racehorse population to continue to perform year-round without the need of an off-season.

For a state that routinely has trouble filling races and drawing more than 90 horses per card, the CHRB is taking a bit of a risk that this will be beneficial to the racing industry (though its hard to argue that it won't be beneficial to the horses in the long run).

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

The irony of CA being among the first to ban or limit anabolic steroid use is that, whether intentional or not, the widespread use of these drugs has allowed the racehorse population to continue to perform year-round without the need of an off-season.

For a state that routinely has trouble filling races and drawing more than 90 horses per card, the CHRB is taking a bit of a risk that this will be beneficial to the racing industry (though its hard to argue that it won't be beneficial to the horses in the long run).

Blaming the medications that horses need due to the human created issues that they face is ironic in itself.

[Bobby Fischer]

Some very good replies from Cannon Shell and Riot. I don't want to go into a continued debate, or a list of personal experiences because I don't think it is constructive. This is certainly an interesting issue.

[AeWingnut]

as for greyhounds

I have noticed that the lighter female greyhounds beat the boys with regularity. Maybe the boys see no advantage to being in front of the girls

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Bobby Fischer

Some very good replies from Cannon Shell and Riot. I don't want to go into a continued debate, or a list of personal experiences because I don't think it is constructive. This is certainly an interesting issue.

If there was ever a need for national consensus and oversight, I would think it's regarding drug use. That sectors of the racing community are going proactive and public is always a good thing.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by AeWingnut

as for greyhounds

I have noticed that the lighter female greyhounds beat the boys with regularity. Maybe the boys see no advantage to being in front of the girls

Good observation. On those tight greyhound tracks, they are generally more agile, lower center of gravity, can hold their speed around turns more readily, and have quicker acceleration out of the box. They break less frequently, too.

Racing greyhounds are the orthopaedic equivalent of 18-wheelers on Toyota tires.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

If there was ever a need for national consensus and oversight, I would think it's regarding drug use. That sectors of the racing community are going proactive and public is always a good thing.

Not exactly. Some things are too complicated and unnecessary to be fought in the publics view. It is the sausage theory. They taste good but if you knew what they were made of you wouldn't touch them. And this move is not proactive, it is reactive. Big difference.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Not exactly. Some things are too complicated and unnecessary to be fought in the publics view. It is the sausage theory. They taste good but if you knew what they were made of you wouldn't touch them. And this move is not proactive, it is reactive. Big difference.

I am against sausage.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

I am against sausage.

There are so many ways this could go...

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

And this move is not proactive, it is reactive. Big difference.

They have taken a position that is indefensible in court, and doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny, so I hope their legal budget is hefty. Blood samples are more accurate than urine tests, yet they have chosen not to do that?

Even Dr. Rick Arthur admits that withdrawal times for steroids haven't been established, and says, "two months would be a conservative estimate."

Then they make the official withdrawal time only 30 days? And recommend to trainers off the cuff, "but you'd better wait 4 months to be safe"?

I suppose they are trying to eliminate steroids entirely by this action. Including valid therapeutic uses. Because a trainer that has Equipoise given to a skinny, underweight filly on January 1 (once upon the recommendation of, and documented by a veterinarian) may have a positive to the drug March 15 when she races the first time.

And the trainer gets time, a fine, and the rep as a "steroid abusing cheater". Nice.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

They have taken a position that is indefensible in court, and doesn't stand up to scientific scrutiny, so I hope their legal budget is hefty. Blood samples are more accurate than urine tests, yet they have chosen not to do that?

Even Dr. Rick Arthur admits that withdrawal times for steroids haven't been established, and says, "two months would be a conservative estimate."

Then they make the official withdrawal time only 30 days? And recommend to trainers off the cuff, "but you'd better wait 4 months to be safe"?

I suppose they are trying to eliminate steroids entirely by this action. Including valid therapeutic uses. Because a trainer that has Equipoise given to a skinny, underweight filly on January 1 (once upon the recommendation of, and documented by a veterinarian) may have a positive to the drug March 15 when she races the first time.

And the trainer gets time, a fine, and the rep as a "steroid abusing cheater". Nice.

Exactly