Years ago, one of my favorite ballplayers was a slight
and skinny outfielder for the New York Mets named
Lenny Dykstra. If he turned sideways, you could
barely see him. He\'d disappear.
After a few seasons with the Mets, he got traded to the
Phillies and I lost track of him. But then, one day in Spring
training, I saw him again, up close and in person, and
remember being startled at how much his entire body
had changed. Somehow, he had bulked up, put on weight,
and put on muscle. There was a distinctively different
visual presence about him as compared to before.
WHERE DID THOSE POPEYE ARMS COME FROM?
Was it merely from hard work in the gym and Mother Nature?
After having heard baseball star Jose Canseco\'s recent
revelations on 60 Minutes about steroid and growth
hormone intake by players in the 1990\'s, I\'ve come to
a personal conclusion about Dykstra that others may
or may not share. [Just as I\'ve come to a dubious
conclusion about many of our most accomplished
race horses.]
Dykstra went on to play very well for the Phillies and
had career tops in several power categories in 1993,
when he finished second in the voting for league MVP.
JohnTChance
Years ago I remember overhearing a conversation about steroids where one of the participants said, \"People who use steroids can have a lot of trouble with their backs.\"
Actually, I heard this conversation in a coffee shop outside Santa Anita and presumed at the time it was a conversation amongst trainers, but that\'s another story.
Returning to this story, at the time I heard this I started thinking of Lenny Dykstra and Howard Johnson both of whom called it quits early because of bad backs. Both seemingly overnight developed much greater power and had to call it quits because of the strain on their bodies.
I report. You decide
Post Edited (02-17-05 11:35)
Gee I have problems with my back from time to time but I\'m convinced it\'s not from steroids but rather playing a lot of golf. Do you think they could have hurt their backs from swinging a bat ?
I would hope that in this country we do \"convict\" on evidence beyond a reasonable doubt and not just pure speculation and inuendo.
PS I have never taken performance enhancing drugs \"to my knowledge\" but I may have had a \"Milk Shake or two \"
Don\'t you get it?
Every horse that runs a new top for a new trainer must have been drugged. That goes double if he didn\'t have a good pattern. :-)
The steroids put on muscle mass. I\'m not sure the skeleton is going to bulk up. It does naturally to some extent with exercise, thats why they gallop horses. But if a guy is taking steroids and working to build up muscle mass his genetic skeletal system may not be up to the extra bulk and torque. A light backpack can give you back spasms if you carry it all day. Women with large breasts can have back problems as well.
CTC
Physiologically, I think that is exactly the reason steroids may cause back problems.
It\'s not the steroids themselves; it\'s the mass being added onto a structure not ready to handle it. And, of course, this weakness is exacerbated by the unnatural demands put on a body by swinging a bat.
But then I truly have no idea whether Dykstra and/or Johnson used steroids. Nor do I care. It\'s just that it\'s always been very interesting to me (in light of the steroid controversy) that Johnson went from hitting 10 to 36 home runs and Dykstra from 6 to 19. Johnson went on to have five productive years, but played his final game before his 35th birthday, Dykstra never approached his homer total again and within three years had to retire prematurely also.
Look, let\'s get this straight-- the responsible people who are convinced horses are being moved up (which list includes me, Deb, Chris, John T, and lots of others within the industry that I have talked to who are trying to deal with the problem), don\'t draw conclusions about one horse being helped, or about trainers because of one horse. If you work with accurate data that rates performance, and you analyze it by trainer, you are in position to draw those conclusions.
Example-- as I have posted here before (and as, by the way, Chris had noticed independently), in the spring of 2001, almost all Frankel\'s horses moved up about 3 points in the space of 1-2 starts. These were almost all older horses, many of them very solid turf horses, and the way Frankel trains they had established tops-- his horses come out running, and tend not to develop much through campaigns. The chance of any one of them improving that much in a given start was not good. The chance of a large group doing it all at the same time? You tell me. Literally, do the math-- if one of them is 25%, what\'s the chance of ten of them?
So anyway, later I heard that that spring was when Frankel hired Allday. You know, the guy that was Pat Byrne\'s vet when he won 15 straight starts at CD, had the two 2yo champs the same year, etc.
But yeah, we\'re all jumping to conclusions. Just like the conclusions I draw from my boyhood idol Hank Aaron being 185 pounds, and Sosa, McGuire, Bonds et. al. being whatever the hell they play at now.
TGJB,
I never claimed that I think the industry is drug free. I haven\'t disagreed with any of your specific opinions on who might be using drugs. I don\'t know.
I know you are sharp enough to distinguish between the typical form cycle of an older seasoned horse and one of a younger or lightly raced older horse. I also know you are sharp enough to know that not all trainers and vets are of equal competence even when they are totally honest.
I just strongly disagree with the general consensus on this board about the extent of the problem. Not every trainer that moves horses up as soon as they get into his barn or develops them as they mature is using chemical warfare. Competency of connections and trainer style must be considered.
I would also have to go further in saying that I am not in total agreement with some figures that have been given out in the past that give the appearance of rapidly improving ability because I believe that it\'s possible there\'s an upward bias in interpretation related to pace, beaten lengths on off tracks and a few other things. That becomes more of a consideration when other competent people have different figures.
Obviously, that doesn\'t mean I am right about any of this. It\'s just my view.
I find it comical that there\'s been a lot of discussion about certain trainers/races almost exclusively in terms of whether \"so and so\" had juice but doesn\'t have it now, who might have new juice etc...
IMO, if you get that paranoid you\'ll never interpret results or probabilities correctly. I can\'t see how you win.
If someone is moving up illogical horses, then bet them if the odds don\'t reflect that possibilty. What could be easier than that?
I may be the only handicapper in the world that believes this, but I don\'t think it impacts my results. It\'s just another factor to me. I know some people that IMO couldn\'t make a dime handicapping if the game was cleaner because their specialty is identifying the move up trainers and their patterns early.
IMO, the issue of cleaning up the game should be more troubling to the honest trainers, vets, and owners etc... because they are at a disadvantage that I really can\'t see a way of overcoming. I\'d rather see a cleaner game and I appreciate the efforts of those who are trying.
It would just be better if the accusations were limited to the type of clear cut situations that can\'t be explained away easily and not every horse that moves up based on a subjective figure that other competent people disagree with.
Post Edited (02-17-05 15:09)
Classhandicapper - Let\'s assume you can simply factor drug use into your handicapping (although I have some serious doubts as to how well any of us can actually do so).
But, as you said yourself that does nothing for the owners and trainers and fans who are trying to compete in or enjoy the sport. The \"clean\" owners and trainers get a double whammy. First, they are at a big disadvantage because the cheaters have an obvious edge. Second, (and you and others have also alluded to this) because the sport has done such a poor job of policing itself (very similar to baseball by the way), every good performance now comes under suspicion even when it is just due to good old-fashioned talent and hard work.
If nothing changes, then the long-term effects are that more will resort to cheating and/or many of those who are \"clean\" will leave the game because they are at such a disadvantage.
Not to mention the effects on the animals and also the way it turns the breeding game into as much of a crapshoot as the betting game since you now no longer know if you are breeding to a super-horse or a horse that was trained by a super-trainer and also nobody really knows the effects of these drugs on future reproduction, etc.
Every week you hear about something new. This week it\'s sneaking horses off track for \"Shock wave\" therapy (yet another non-chemical but artificial way to enhance performance that can only be detected through surveillance rather than testing).
It just goes on and on. Until the industry really gets serious about cracking down, it will only get worse.
The good news is that some \"motion\" seems to be getting started but I hope that people don\'t make the mistake of confusing any type of \"motion\" with actual \"progress.\"
Chris
P.S. I am no expert (maybe an expert can correct or validate) but my understanding is that HGH (Human Growth Hormone) became popular for the very reason that rapid muscle growth due to steroids was over-stressing bones and tendons. HGH builds bones and tendons so that used in conjunction with steroids, they help the body compensate for the increased muscle mass. HGH (rather than steroids) is what has led to all the jokes about baseball players \"hat sizes\" growing almost overnight. I think Lenny probably came along pre-HGH or he might have had a few more MVP-type seasons. My apologies to Lenny if he was drug-free (blame my suspicion on your player\'s union\'s lack of action). I personally always liked his hustling, hard-nosed style of play (which was just as likely the source of his injuries as steroids) and enjoyed watching him even though I was never a Mets or Phillies fan.
I have Dykstra\'s and HoJo\'s autograph on a baseball with a bunch of other guys from thr 86\'Mets, so I may be looking at those two guys with rose colored glasses so to speak. I never thought the origin of this thread would have led us down this path.
Is there a typical profile or STATS that could be shared for the average Non Move Up trainer? and a Profile for the suspected Move Up Trainers?
I guess we all have our list or theories as to who is and who is not doing this. And TGJB is right , wouldn\'t it be great if we didn\'t have to factor in when are they and when are they not? This year Breeders Cup was a good example, were they or were they not? Is Ghostzapper really a super horse or Just another Barry Bonds?
Lenny Dytkstra\'s disregard for his well being reminds me of a story about the old Dodger Pete Reiser. Pete was a speedy outfielder who constantly hurt himself by turning doubles into triples and running full speed into unpadded outfield fences. As a result, he often wound up being ferried to a certain nearby Brooklyn hospital to be put back together. During one rare, brief, healthy period, Pete was dressing in the clubhouse while a sportswriter made the rounds taking an informal poll as to where the Dodgers would finsh that year, relative to the Giants and the rest of the league. Pete hadn\'t reaaly been paying attention, so when the writer asked him \"where are you going to finsh this year, Pete?\", he thought for a second, then answered, \"Peck Memorial Hospital\". Gotta love guys like that.
I never post anymore, but really enjoy reading all of the great stuff on the board. I know I can come here and get a lot of great links and smart commentary, the likes of which can\'t be found in \"traditional\" media, especially when it comes to drugs, supertrainers, racing asociations, etc. It\'s appreciated. Keep at it.
bb