Article from today's NY Daily News
 

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/mo...age_wit-2.html

Richard Dutrow makes some comments, allow me to highlight:

Trainer Rick Dutrow Jr., who trains Kentucky Derby favorite Big Brown, admits using the steroid stanozolol (Winstrol) on his horses.

"I give all my horses Winstrol on the 15th of every month," Dutrow says. "If they (the authorities) say I can't use it anymore I won't."

Outside of steroids, racing has cleaned up its image thanks to improved testing. In 2006 there were only three positive tests for Class I drugs used solely for performance-enhancing purposes.

Despite that encouraging statistic, Dutrow believes there is doping still going on.

"Without a doubt," says the trainer. "I don't know how but I'm sure it happens every day. Some people just want to make their horses run faster."

hmm, richard dutrow thinks doping is going on. go figure.

I nearly lost my lunch when I read Dutrow's quote.

So there's no confusion, and I'm hardly a Dutrow apologist, Winstrol and the other approved steroids (Equipoise, etc.) remain legal in most racing juristictions and are NOT performance-enhancers. The jargon that "Dutrow admits giving Winstrol" makes it seem like that alone is an indictment of some kind and it isn't and should not be. .

The steroids are not the 'drug problem'. Tubing of horses (lactic acid reducing) and pain-maskers (snail or cobra venom, "caine" family drugs) represent the 'drug problem'.

Chasing steroids out is a seperate issue and has a benefit in certain areas, but currently is being employed as a publicity stunt to give the appearence of progress in ridding the game of 'drugs'.

i doubt anyone is confused at all about dutrow and his comments.
lol he 'doesn't know' how illegal doping happens....too funny.

Steve, I am sure many uneducated -- both fans/bettors and non-fans/bettors -- will rant and rave about this. I am sure the media will play a role as well. It's no different from any trainer -- and there have been several -- who said they use such and such on a regular basis.

I think it's an entirely different issue, but even to those who understand -- it might not be the statement as much as it is the author.

Eric

Zig..

I was addressing the silly way the Winstrol 'admission' was termed by the author of the piece. I guarantee a great number of readers here and everywhere IMMEDIATELY interpretted 'steroid use' as the application of performance-enhancing drugs.

Winstrol is definitely performance-enhancing in humans, but it's not in horses?

I need to be educated here.

I'll let Chuck explain the nuances, but performance-enhancing here in terms of being artificially aided to perform above physical limitations in isolated circumstance.

Humans and horses are different species. One weighs about 200 pounds and has 2 legs. The other weighs about 1000 pounds and has 4 legs. Not to mention after reading the names in the Mitchell report it is questionable exactly how performance enhancing winstrol in humans is. Most are the baseball version of maiden 5000.

I thought it was used for horses that were in bad shape and not eating well. Or for anemia. I know it is a derivative of testosterone in humans. I think this is the hormone Ben Johnson of Canadian sprinting fame used and got his record thrown off the books for. Could be wrong. Might have taken his medals.. anyways I think this was the steroid.

about 200 pounds...

you need to visit China.
Yikes.

those might be Skidmore girls.....:D

The question in my mind is of giving the drug automatically to all his horses on the same date each month. Not in favor of the automatic shot.

hard to argue it's for therapeutic purposes if every horse gets it regardless....

I'm not trying to be a smartass here, I really want to learn....

Let's see if I have it now. "Performance-enhancers" for horses are things given to them the day of the race or in the days leading up to the race that mask pain or in the case of a milkshake, aid stamina. Whereas steriods are a mantenance drug that are not necessarily "performance-enhancing", but do aid in their developemnt and recovery. Correct?

I guess it is semantics.

Yes.. (Or at least it's the way I look at it w/o the semantics.)

I can so no reason to spend the money if they have no effect on performance. If they effect performance, for the better they are by definition "performance enhancing."

So is good hay

5 pies sir