Is it still cheating if it\'s not illegal?
----------------------------------------------
Stanozolol
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Legal status Prescription only
(US)
Routes Oral, Intramuscular
Stanozolol, commonly sold under the name Winstrol (oral) and Winstrol Depot (intra-muscular), was developed by Winthrop Laboratories in 1962. It is a synthetic anabolic steroid derived from testosterone, and has been approved by the FDA for human use.
Unlike most injectable anabolic steroids, Stanozolol is not esterified and is sold as an aqueous suspension, or in oral tablet form. The drug has a large oral bioavailability, due to a C17 α-alkylation which allows the hormone to survive first pass liver metabolism when ingested. It is because of this that Stanozolol is also sold in tablet form.
Stanozolol is usually considered a safer choice for female bodybuilders in that it rewards a great amount of anabolism for a small androgenic effect, however virilization and masculinization are still very common, even at low doses.
Stanozolol has been used on both animal and human patients for a number of conditions. In humans, it has been demonstrated to be successful in treating anaemia and hereditary angioedema. Veterinarians may prescribe the drug to improve muscle growth, red blood cell production, increase bone density and stimulate the appetite of debilitated or weakened animals.
Stanozolol is one of the Anabolic steroids commonly used as an ergogenic aid and is banned from use in sports competition under the auspices of the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) and many other sporting bodies.
Dudley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is it still cheating if it\'s not illegal?
> ----------------------------------------------
One of the definitions of the word \"cheat\" is \"to violate rules dishonestly\".
The use of Winstrol is allowed under the rules of horse racing in most but not all states; however, all of the states in which Big Brown has raced allow the use of Winstrol.
No rules violation, ergo, not cheating.
Just noticed this. RED BLOOD CELL PRODUCTION!?!? We\'re allowing a drug that helps red blood cell production??? Who needs $%*&^ing EPO?
Anybody still want to question whether horses are running faster today, and one of the reasons why?
Just unbelievable that racing would allow this at all, let alone without giving the info out like lasix information. Unbelievable that an industry that has the responsibility of running a parimutuel market would allow this, while non-betting events like the Olympics and Tour D\' France would ban someone for life for doing it-- to themselves, voluntarily. Horses don\'t get a vote.
Hey don\'t get so upset. Don\'t rock the boat. Everything is fine out there.
Lots of progress has been made in the last two weeks. Just look at all the roundtable discussions, the hot topics, the hot air.........
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just noticed this. RED BLOOD CELL PRODUCTION!?!?
> We\'re allowing a drug that helps red blood cell
> production???
Glad you noticed Jerry. That\'s what caught my eye as well- and why I wanted to put this up here. I would have posted it in BOLD in the origninal post had I noticed the feature on this text editor. And what about the bone density- can that make this one less-fragile- or more dangerously lend that supposition?
The \'cheating\' question was tongue-in-cheek. I know technically he\'s merely taking advantage of what the rules allow- and therein part of the problem lies. Loopholes and lawyers make the world go \'round.
This stood out to me \"Veterinarians may prescribe the drug to improve muscle growth, red blood cell production, increase bone density and stimulate the appetite of debilitated or weakened animals.\"
It certainly would make sense how a horse would move up drastically if going from a barn that did not subscribe it to one that gives it out once a month on the 15th.
..and yet there\'s no \"W\" under meds in the PPs... but hey remember all the bruhaha over publishing the use of nasal strips? LOL what a farce. I\'m actually a bit surprised Dutrow came out with his \'secret\'. I\'d imagine more than a few industry titans cringed.
For those unaware, here\'s the article printed Friday 5/16 in the NY Daily News:
==========================================================================
Big Brown\'s legal doping a concern
BY JERRY BOSSERT in Baltimore and CHRISTIAN RED in New York
DAILY NEWS SPORTS WRITERS
Friday, May 16th 2008, 9:39 AM
A week before Big Brown bolted out of the gates at Churchill Downs from the outside post and raced to a thrilling Kentucky Derby victory, the colt's trainer Rick Dutrow Jr. revealed a little secret.
"I give all my horses Winstrol on the 15th of every month," Dutrow told the Daily News. "If (the authorities) say I can't use it anymore, I won't."
In any sport involving humans, a declaration of the use of a powerful steroid like Winstrol would set off alarms and public outrage, given the fallout from recent doping scandals in sports, and as Dutrow and Big Brown head into tomorrow's Preakness, questions have surfaced about the trainer's use of the drug.
In fact, if Big Brown were racing in one of the 10 states that have adopted the Racing Medication and Testing Consortium's model rule allowing the use of four anabolic steroids, including Stanozolol (Wistrol's formal name), for therapeutic uses only, Big Brown might have run into trouble with the doping police, says Dr. Scot Waterman, the RMTC's executive director.
"If one of (Dutrow's) horses were running in (those 10 states) with a dose on the 15th, he'd probably have a positive," said Waterman. "That type of use is what moved us to begin the process we began a couple years ago. It's not just (Dutrow). There was evidence that these products were being overused or abused."
The RMTC, which was established in 2000 after an American Association of Equine Practitioners summit, has pushed through its model rule in 10 of the 38 states that feature horse racing. Similar to baseball, where players must get a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) in order to use banned substances for medical needs, a veterinarian treating a horse with any one of those four steroids approved by the RMTC must submit a Medication Report Form, if the horse is competing in the 10 states (Arizona, Colorado, Washington, Arkansas, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Virginia, Pennsylvania and Delaware) that have adopted the rule.
"We're pretty confident that all of the states will be done with the rule-making process by the end of this year," Waterman said.
Questions about horse racing's doping culture and overbreeding reverberated through the sport after the filly Eight Belles collapsed from two broken front ankles as she galloped past the finish line in second place in the Derby. Larry Jones, her trainer, has adamantly insisted she was not on steroids.
Among doping experts, allowing any steroid use is problematic.
"The thing we don't know here, is the particular dose of the drug," said Dr. Don Catlin, who created the Olympic testing lab at UCLA and is among the foremost doping experts in the U.S. "Stanozolol is a long-acting drug, so yeah, it can last a month.\"
"I know (RMTC's) policy," Catlin added. "I don't agree with it. Stanozolol, I can't think of any reason to have that. It's a foreign drug, exogenous. If it's there, it's only there, as far as I'm concerned, for doping. But there are people who'll say they need steroids for the general health and benefit of the horse. I just disagree."
For the past four years, Catlin has been using his two decades of experience from the human side of drug testing to provide insight into how horse racing can address its doping problem, something Catlin believes dates back more than 30 years.
He is working in conjunction with David Nash, the executive director of the Lexington, Ky.-based Equine Drug Research Institute, a non-profit organization "dedicated to providing research grants to institutions to conduct medical research that will benefit horses."
While neither Nash nor Catlin would speculate on whether drugs played a role in Eight Belles' death - an autopsy Thursday revealed no pre-existing bone abnormalities - both hope the tragedy will lead to positive steps toward cleaning up horse racing. Nash would like to see more public donations for research and development. Catlin would like to see a reduction in the number of labs used by horse racing for drug testing (there are 18 across the nation) and a universal drug testing program.
Catlin believes he was brought into the equine world because the sport is getting serious about doping.
"That's why they're talking to me. They certainly wouldn't talk to Catlin if they wanted to keep steroids going," he said. "I talk to them all the time and I have some understanding of the problem. They are trying. It's going to take awhile. It takes events like (Eight Belles), unfortunately, that really moves the apple along its way.
"If there's any good that comes out of this, it's going to come."
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anybody still want to question whether horses are
> running faster today, and one of the reasons why?
glad you asked.
other than BB, they are running no faster than Secretariat and Sham, and Sham ran faster than those colts behind Big Brown on Saturday and in Ky.
why? when it comes to Big Red and Sham, the steroids are neutralized by the Princequillo factor when it comes to the longer distances. Secretariat and Sham had larger hearts than most of these animals.
again, with Sham: ran the SA Derby in 1:47 flat, the Ky Derby in 1:59.8 (after a horrible gate incident), and the Preakness in 1:53.9 (DRF clocking).
Jerry, seriously, are you going to tell me with a straight face that Macho Again, Racecar Rhapsody, and Icabad f\'in Crane ran faster than Secretariat and Sham? that Pim strip was by no means slow, and the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th place finishers ran around in about 1:56.
and yes, Big Brown, given the wide trip and wind, ran the fastest Derby in history. that doesn\'t make all of these horses fast.
here\'s a stretch of Derby runs 40 or so years ago:
1973 Secretariat (T) R. Turcotte 1:59 2/5
1972 Riva Ridge R. Turcotte 2:01 4/5
1971 Canonero II G. Avila 2:03 1/5
1970 Dust Commander M. Manganello 2:03 2/5
1969 Majestic Prince B. Hartack 2:01 4/5
1968 Forward Pass I. Valenzuela 2:01 4/5
1967 Proud Clarion B. Ussery 2:00 3/5
1966 Kauai King D. Brumfield 2:02
1965 Lucky Debonair W. Shoemaker 2:01 1/5
1964 Northern Dancer B. Hartack 2:00
1963 Chateaugay B. Baeza 2:01 4/5
1962 Decidedly B. Hartack 2:00 2/5
Yea, Dutrow disclosing that took a lot of the \"voodoo\" aspect away for me. Regardless if he\'s using anything else, that\'s enough to connect some if not all of the dots for me.
Can you really blame a trainer for using all the edge he can, especially if the industry allows it.
Michael-- how many times are we going to go through this? As I have said many times, in N.Y.-- where I know it for a fact-- the cushion depth was 2 1/2 inches when Secretariat was running, over 4 last time I checked, and the soil composition has a much higher sand to clay ratio, which makes the track slower when dry (and faster when wet). If you can find accurate records for CD (Porcelli had to look things up for me) I\'m pretty sure you will find the same thing, since the idea behind the change was safety. You can\'t use raw times, any more than you can use them in regular handicapping.
And by the way, every vet and many others who I heard speak publicly about the Eight Belles tragedy said we are breeding faster horses, and that was part of the problem.
Dudley,
This is old news. There are legal steroids in some states(ny included) and many trainers use them occasionally/regularly even the ones \"revered\" on this board as great horsemen.Trainers strictly using hay and oats are hanging by a thread in many cases.Any trainer not using every legal means to help his horse is probably spotting lenghts.
It\'s no secret and Tricky recently mentioned that he had no idea if Winstrol helped but he knows it can\'t hurt.Five years ago his vet(unknown) told him it would help his horses recover from the stress of racing more quickly.
Mike
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Michael-- how many times are we going to go
> through this? As I have said many times, in N.Y.--
> where I know it for a fact-- the cushion depth was
> 2 1/2 inches when Secretariat was running, over 4
> last time I checked, and the soil composition had
> a much higher sand to clay ratio, which makes the
> track slower when dry (and faster when wet). If
> you can find accurate records for CD (Porcelli had
> to look things up for me) I\'m pretty sure you will
> find the same thing, since the idea behind the
> change was safety. You can\'t use raw times, any
> more than you can use them in regular
> handicapping.
Jerry, you have not made the case regarding track speeds. I am more than willing to listen if you have something new. we all know about the NY tracks, but that has nothing to do with what I wrote. I would like to see some evidence on the CD track surface, comparing the \'62 to \'73 period to the \'98 to \'08 period. did the surface slow by 30 lengths? 50?
Jerry, horses are faster than they used to be, I just disagree on the extent to which you have all these runners improving.
check out this list of Diana Handicap runners, and the times going back to 1973. and note, this race is on turf.
http://nyra.com/Saratoga/Stakes/Diana.shtml
And anyway, we\'ve little or no idea of what else trainers in previous generations were giving their horses. There was a story a bit ago about what Seabiscuit\'s trainer gave him, and it wasn\'t just HOW. I\'m sure some trainers, somewhere, gave their horses a stimulant of some sort or another.
Interesting that if this is true, and such steroids are banned universally, it could lead to MORE breakdowns, as horse might have less bone density.
Though, with less muscle mass, perhaps that would be less of a problem (perhaps fewer tendon injuries as well, but I\'m no vet.)
Michael-- there are an awful lot of comments I could make about that list of times (like the differences in dirt and grass surfaces that have been discussed in terms of figures), but I\'ll just ask you a question-- do you think that the fillies got 3 seconds (10 points) faster overnight in the 70s, are that they let the course get hard? That was the same time they were going with a 2 1/2 inch cushion on dirt.
Track superintendents have been trying to make tracks safer for years now, and when dealing with both dirt and grass, that means making them less hard, and slower.
As for CD, do your own research. I did it for NY, and I\'m not going to chase down the records for every track in the country to satisfy you. But what do you think, I happened to get it right when I made figures for NY, but not the others? NY is on the money, all the others are off by many points?
>> And anyway, we\'ve little or no idea of what else trainers in previous generations were giving their horses.
Sure we do. Cocaine, morphine, heroin (that\'s why it\'s called \"horse\"), amphetamines, caffine, arsenic, collodial silver, digitalis ... whatever was
available at the corner pharmacists for humans, horses were given it, too, if the trainer was so inclined.
The concept of athletes - human, equine, dogs, whatever - running drug-free is relatively new.
It\'s interesting to read the Wikipedia (i.e.: any loon can author) entry on stanozolol use in humans, but I\'d not choose Wikipedia as a reliable primary reference for drug education.
I would also point out drugs commonly do not act the same in different species.
And, to reiterate a point that is nearly always completely ignored when lay people talk about pharmacology, there is a vast difference between the pharmacologic effects seen with \"proper use\", and the effects seen with \"abuse\".
A drug can be a miracle when used appropriately, and a killer when abused.
If there is abuse, you stop the abuse - you don\'t eliminate the drug and withhold it from those that need it or from proper use
By the way, Winstrol is no way comparable to EPO regarding red blood cell production, I don\'t care how much of it you give to a horse or dog.
So in the interest of higher accuracy, here\'s part of the veterinary drug insert for stanozolol. Much non-applicable is deleted, and the highlights are mine.
--------------
Stanozolol
Prescriber Highlights
Anabolic steroid
Contraindications: pregnant animals, breeding stallions, food animals. Extreme caution: cats, hepatic dysfunction, hypercalcemia, history of myocardial infarction, pituitary insufficiency, prostate carcinoma, mammary carcinoma, benign prostatic hypertrophy and during the nephrotic stage of nephritis. Caution: cardiac and renal dysfunction with enhanced fluid and electrolyte monitoring.
Adverse Effects: Potentially high incidence of hepatotoxicity in cats. Other possible effects: sodium, calcium, potassium, water, chloride, and phosphate retention; hepatotoxicity, behavioral (androgenic) changes and reproductive abnormalities (oligospermia, estrus suppression)
Category \"X\" for pregnancy; teratogenicity outweighs any possible benefit
Controlled substance in the USA
Drug Interactions; lab interactions
Pharmacology
Stanozolol possess the actions of other anabolic agents. It may be less androgenic than other anabolics that are routinely used in veterinary medicine, however. Refer to the discussion in the boldenone monograph for more information.
Uses/Indications
Labeled indications for the stanozolol product Winstrol®-V (Winthrop/Upjohn) include \"... to improve appetite, promote weight gain, and increase strength and vitality...\" in dogs, cats and horses. The manufacturer also states that: \"Anabolic therapy is intended primarily as an adjunct to other specific and supportive therapy, including nutritional therapy.\"
Like nandrolone, stanozolol has been used to treat anemia of chronic disease. Because stanozolol has been demonstrated to enhance fibrinolysis after parenteral injection, it may be efficacious in the treatment of feline aortic thromboembolism or in the treatment of thrombosis in nephrotic syndrome. However, at present, clinical studies and/or experience are apparently lacking for this indication.
Pharmacokinetics
No specific information was located for this agent. It is generally recommended that the injectable suspension be dosed on a weekly basis in both small animals and horses.
Contraindications/Precautions
Stanozolol is contraindicated in pregnant animals and in breeding stallions and should not be administered to horses intended for food purposes. Because of reported hepatotoxicity associated with this drug in cats, it should be used in this species with extreme caution.
The manufacturer recommends using stanozolol cautiously in patients with cardiac and renal dysfunction and with enhanced fluid and electrolyte monitoring.
In humans, anabolic agents are also contraindicated in patients with hepatic dysfunction, hypercalcemia, patients with a history of myocardial infarction (can cause hypercholesterolemia), pituitary insufficiency, prostate carcinoma, in selected patients with breast carcinoma, benign prostatic hypertrophy and during the nephrotic stage of nephritis.
Adverse Effects/Warnings
The manufacturer (Winthrop/Upjohn) lists as adverse effects in dogs, cats and horses only \"mild androgenic effects\" and then only when used with excessively high doses for a prolonged period of time.
[Note: the above is true in practice, too]
One study in cats, demonstrated a very high incidence of hepatotoxicity associated with stanozolol use and the authors recommended that this drug not be used in cats until further toxicological studies are performed.
Potentially (from human data), adverse reactions of the anabolic agents in dogs and cats could include: sodium, calcium, potassium, water, chloride, and phosphate retention, hepatotoxicity, behavioral (androgenic) changes and reproductive abnormalities (oligospermia, estrus suppression).
Overdosage
No information was located for this specific agent. In humans, sodium and water retention can occur after overdosage of anabolic steroids. It is suggested to treat supportively and monitor liver function should an inadvertent overdose be administered.
Drug Interactions
Anabolic agents as a class may potentiate the effects of anticoagulants. Monitoring of PT\'s and dosage adjustment, if necessary of the anticoagulant are recommended.
Diabetic patients receiving insulin may need dosage adjustments if anabolic therapy is added or discontinued. Anabolics may decrease blood glucose and decrease insulin requirements.
Anabolics may enhance the edema that can be associated with ACTH or adrenal steroid therapy.
Drug/Laboratory Interactions
Concentrations of protein bound iodine (PBI) can be decreased in patients receiving androgen/anabolic therapy, but the clinical significance of this is probably not important. Androgen/anabolic agents can decrease amounts of thyroxine-binding globulin and decrease total T4 concentrations and increase resin uptake of T3 and T4. Free thyroid hormones are unaltered and, clinically, there is no evidence of dysfunction.
Both creatinine and creatine excretion can be decreased by anabolic steroids. Anabolic steroids can increase the urinary excretion of 17-ketosteroids.
Androgenic/anabolic steroids may alter blood glucose levels. Androgenic/anabolic steroids may suppress clotting factors II, V, VII, and X. Anabolic agents can affect liver function tests (BSP retention, SGOT, SGPT, bilirubin, and alkaline phosphatase).
Doses
Dogs
For anemia secondary to chronic renal failure:
2. For anemias secondary to uremia:
As an anabolic/appetite stimulant:
For canine cognitive dysfunction:
Cats: Note: See Warnings Above
As an anabolic agent per labeled indications:
Treatment should continue for several weeks, depending on response and condition of animal. (Package Insert; Winstrol®-V --Winthrop/Upjohn)
Ferrets
Rabbits/Rodents/Pocket Pets
1. Rabbits: As an appetite stimulant: (Ivey and Morrisey 2000)
Horses
As an anabolic agent per labeled indications:
May repeat weekly for up to and including 4 weeks. (Package Insert; Winstrol®-V --Winthrop/Upjohn)
Sheep, Goats
For acute or subacute aflatoxicosis in ruminants:
Do not combine with oxytetracycline therapy. (Hatch 1988)
Birds
As an anabolic agent to promote weight gain and recovery from disease:
Reptiles
1. For most species post-surgically and in very debilitated animals:
Monitoring Parameters
----------------
1) Androgenic side effects; 2) Fluid and electrolyte status, if indicated; 3) Liver function tests if indicated; 4) RBC count, indices, if indicated; 5) Weight, appetite
If you intend to imply that it is a non-issue, I refer you to these additional recent articles relevant to racing:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=waldrop+%2B+winstrol
Doubtful, because an injection of Winstrol once a month doesn\'t do anything other than make the horse eat well for the week afterwards.
Oh - and increase the cost of the owners vet bill.
I\'m sure the drug has many therapeutic uses for cats, dogs, and horses. My question is, is it a performance enhancer? Does it cause horses to run faster and/or run fast longer than they would without it? I\'m contrasting \"performance enhancer\" to something like Lasix, which (theoretically) just causes the horse not to bleed, and therefore allows the horse to run to its natural ability? There are probably a million drugs which can make a horse healthier without making him run faster (antibiotics, for example)-- is this one of them? Because in this context, the health of the other participants in the game (horseplayers) is a primary issue, and if they are (at the very least) not informed when a horse is given a performance enhancer, they are getting screwed. This is why we publish lasix data-- whether or not it is a performance enhancer, it affects horses ability to run, and therefore bettors wellbeing.
Thanks Sight,
Far too many racing fans read some nonsense(like the stuff written after 8 belles was euthenized) and think that every horse is racing on illegal drugs.NYSWB(oversees drug testing for NYRA)is just perfecting a test to detect cobra venom,I believe it\'s a first.
Mike
No, it\'s certainly not a non-issue.
I think the legal steroids, that are approved and necessary for use in the racehorse, must be allowable; and that allowable levels be established for race day.
The wholesale banning of them without waiting for the RMTC to establish levels was nonsensical, reactionary, and stupid.
And I notice it was done by those with no knowledge or training in pharmacology or experience with how the drugs actually act in horses.
To eliminate this class of drugs from any use at all on the backstretch is beyond ridiculous, and bad for the health of horses.
To control levels allowable on raceday is smart.
You\'re correct of course. My point was simply that, in particular cases, it may not be known what was given to a horse. As such, pointing to a time a horse ran in a race 40 years ago as evidence that horses are (or aren\'t) getting faster just doesn\'t count for much.
RMTC established a TUE- Therapeutic Use Exemption- in states that have adopted the wholesale ban. Horses (vets) that can show cause are allowed them. Dutrow gives them to all his horses on the 15th of each month- so he says.
As to Jerry\'s point- if it\'s even a POTENTIAL performance-enhancer, it should be published.
>>I\'m sure the drug has many therapeutic uses for cats, dogs, and horses. My >>question is, is it a performance enhancer?
Exactly. It is performance-enhancing when I give one dose to a light filly the day after a hard race, so she dives into her food and feels good that next week, and continues training? When it makes her able to race back in 4-5 weeks rather than 6-8?
Frankly, like Dutrow said, if steroids are not allowable at all, and none of his horses can suddenly continue with his once-a-month Winstrol dose (no I do not agree with doing that, btw) - you probably are not going to see that much difference in performance from that barn (except maybe from geldings).
But what about the guys that are giving it - or one of the more powerful steroids - once a week or two to all their horses, all the time?
That\'s abuse in my book, potentially dangerous, and certainly probably performance-enabling or even enhancing for many of those horses.
The first needs to be allowed (not near race-day of course), the second should be eliminated, the third aggressively prevented for the safety of the horses.
And the illegal designer power-\'roids have to be detectable and eliminated.
Yeah, given to all horses on the 15th isn\'t \"valid therapeutic use\" in my book.
And that is the type of testing we need.
Testing is so sophisticated nowadays - we can detect nanograms, picograms (lasix as a diluent of illegal stuff in urine isn\'t applicable any more, we can find it) - we can establish allowable levels, and illegal levels, so that no medications are permitted on raceday at levels that would be pharmacologically active.
sighthound Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But what about the guys that are giving it - or
> one of the more powerful steroids - once a week or
> two to all their horses, all the time?
I doubt Dutrow\'s revelation is the whole story of his barn. Just imo.
> And the illegal designer power-\'roids have to be
> detectable and eliminated.
Now you\'re talking!
Sight-- we\'re basically on the same page on this. From my understanding, this is similar to the issue of Clenbuterol-- and only Califonia is testing to distinguish between therapuetic and raceday use.
But aside from the issue of whether these drugs should be legal, there is the issue of the betting public being informed, both about who is running on what, and TCO2 test levels. This kind of crap would never be accepted in the stock market. It\'s outrageous.
Sighthound -
I\'m asking the following questions for the sake of understanding, not argument.
What is the purpose of the race-day limit? To prevent abuse between race days? To protect the animal from race-day effects? To eliminate short-term performance enhancement?
I\'m reading that withdrawal times (while still being studied) are probably in the 15-30 day range. Assuming that to be correct and that the RMTC rules are implemented, would you think that stakes-quality animals might routinely be injected shortly after a race (to aid in recovery) in anticipation of racing again 5 weeks later? Would you think that would be appropriate, or should the animal be treated only if it shows a loss of appetite or other ill effects after the race?
>> What is the purpose of the race-day limit? To prevent abuse between race >>days? To protect the animal from race-day effects? To eliminate short-term >>performance enhancement?
To eliminate levels that could be considered performance-enhancing.
For example, Pletcher\'s mepivicaine positive. That was a positive - but it was for a level of the drug that was so miniscule, that there was zero chance of a horse being numbed or not in pain from that amount of mepivicaine in the system (and, in fact, the level at which Pletcher pulled the positive was soon changed to be an \"allowable\" level).
For the legal steroids, as they should be given to horses that need them (and if horses need them, they are not ready to race) it would be so that there was an interval from the dosing of the drug to achieving a non-therapeutic trace level.
Again, a level which may show the drug had been given 30 or 45 or 60 days ago, but now is at a level that could have no effect whatsoever anymore on the horse.
>> I\'m reading that withdrawal times (while still being studied) are probably >> in the 15-30 day range. Assuming that to be correct and that the RMTC rules are implemented, would you think that stakes-quality animals might routinely be injected shortly after a race (to aid in recovery) in anticipation of racing again 5 weeks later?
I personally think the levels for the legal steroids will be longer than that, but sure, I can see what you are saying.
I expect most drug abuse to be cheaper horses, not stakes quality horses. Horses that \"have\" to run to make money, or someone doesn\'t eat. Feeding the ego is powerful motivation, feeding the belly more so.
>>Would you think that would be appropriate, or should the animal be treated only if it shows a loss of appetite or other ill effects after the race?
I use the drug only in the second instance. Others do not.
Random thoughts .... Churchill Downs, Keeneland, Arlington to name three - all these tracks are in urban areas (heavy with car exhaust) and next to airports and under plane landing pathways.
The air quality is absolutely disgusting and filthy at these tracks, for both the humans and the horses.
And at most tracks in the US, as most are no longer on the outskirts of an non-industrial city with little traffic, but are within the confines of filthy and ever-more-congested urban areas.
There are no turnout paddocks at most tracks. No grass to graze. No clean air. (why do horses from other areas \"bloom\" at Keeneland in the spring? It\'s rural compared to most areas - quiet, few traffic sounds ...)
Horses are meant to graze fresh soft grass with their heads down, constantly walking and blowing accumulating snot out their nose while their nose is down at the ground in ever freshening areas as they walk and eat.
We cram them in barns of 10 x 12 foot stalls, 20 horses in a physically small area to share respiratory diseases, filled with dried straw (molds, small particulate matter, microscopic mites, etc), ammonia from urine, feces in their hay (even if stalls cleaned constantly), and we feed their dried hay up out of nets, and have to add oats (not natural) to meet energy needs.
No wonder so many horses are on clenbuterol to dilate their airways and make it easier for mucus and crap to drain from the lower airways.
No wonder 90% of horses have stress ulcers from their diet and husbandry practices.
We need more drugs to help our horses, as look how we ask them to live and work.
In Europe and Australia, horses are often kept, not in cities, but run out of trainers yards (farms) - they get time off, paddock/grazing time, etc. Because the trainers there often have their own yards so the horses can get time off, no so in the US. And racing isn\'t year-round in many other locations in the world.
Unless you are one of the trainers that seriously attempt to do that (train at a Fair Hill and ship in to races, etc)
Other countries don\'t allow raceday lasix. Yet horses bleed (EIPH) just as much over there. But when they do bleed, they bleed much worse, with more lung scarring, and less return to function, than our horses over here who are allowed lasix.
There\'s alot more to medications than just meds - it\'s all the less-than-optimal husbandry issues we have with professional racehorses in the US, too.
Owner-breeders-hobbiests who bred, raced, then retired and bred on their own stock cared about soundness when the horse got back to their farm after a career.
And the horse made it\'s money - declared it\'s value as potential breeding stock - on the racetrack. Not in the breeding shed.
Name an owner nowadays that can afford to allow a valuable horse to have 4 months off for vacation once a year during it\'s career. Having a racing stable is expensive as heck. It is something that has to support itself for most owners. That means horses have to run and win big. Or be worth alot in the shed.
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
This kind of crap
would never be accepted in the stock market. It\'s
outrageous.
Jerry:
Some alphabet soup:
The stock market has the SEC, NASD, SIPC, etc.
Racing has the NTRA.
I know it is not a pari-mutuel issue,and maybe Sighthound can help me here, but it
seems like the new and nerfarious abuse might be the use of performance enhancing
techniques on young horses being run through auctions.
You want to be in the horse-breeding business? And have your young stock sell for the best dollar?
Start looking at the legs on your young horses once a week, so you can intervene with corrective orthopaedics if crooked.
Feed to the maximum supplemental nutrition you safely can, without causing orthopaedic defects, to encourage the physically biggest young horse possible.
Then bring that young horse indoors 90 days before the sale, as you can\'t risk running in a pasture and getting scarred from a kick or a fence, let alone breaking a leg.
Keep the horse confined to a stall, instead of walking, trotting, running around a pasture developing agility.
Force supervised exercise to lose that hay belly (hand-walk, on a walker). A couple of steroid shots here will give some muscle outline and help the young horse through the stress from pasture to restricted stall life.
Sight,
You gotta have that-10.0 sec furlong to get the horse sold............
Damn, you\'re right - I forgot how predictively valuable the ability to run a 9.9 second furlong is, compared to the ability to run a 10.5 second furlong.
If I ever buy a horse at a public 2-year-old-in-training sale, somebody shoot me.
There are indeed sellers that refuse to do anything ultra-special to their young stock, and guarantee their stock free of steroid or orthopaedic leg straightening. These horses are usually less physically impressive than other seller\'s stock. It takes a gutsy owner to go that route.
He seemed too forthcoming with this information. Seems like how Mark McGuire planted a bottle of Andro (in full view of the media) in his locker to throw everyone off the \'scent\' of what he was REALLY using.
Richi,
Sometime the NASD & SEC do shut down the cheaters. Isn\'t the SPIC the one that allows cheating and lets me and you pay ?
Good eye, Sir.
I think he was forthcoming with that info, as it\'s such a common practice on the backstretch.
>This kind of crap would never be accepted in the stock market. It\'s outrageous.<
JB,
Don\'t even go there. Wall St has a license to rape and pillage entire countries in ways that not one in a million people even understand. ;-)
Fkack,
To show how little I understand: I\'m still trying to figure out who bought all those Bear Sterns puts for $30 on Friday before they opened @ $8 on Monday?
rosewood,
LOL. It wasn\'t me. That\'s for sure. ;-)
TGJB:
Points well taken, particularly as regards to the pari-mutual wagerer. Corporate CEO\'s would find themselves in jail (Enron??) if they followed the same \'non-rules\' as racing does. I wonder if the racing \'powers that be\' even factor in the betting public\'s perception of \'Performance Enhancing Drugs\' as it relates to the shrinking betting handle. Speaking for myself, 10 years ago I wagered on the average $1-2k per day, depending if there were multi-day pick-six carryovers. Now I RARELY wager $1k per week specifically due to my perceptions of \'move-up trainers\', unexplained \'tops\', suspicious \'trainer patterns\', etc...I wonder how many more of \'me\' are doing the same thing...Comments???
Trackjohn,
Very good post.
Although I am a much smaller player and owner; than you other guys on this board, I have always wondered If I was that dumb or if some of you\'ll had the same questions/concerns I did.
Thanks for your views....
Rosewood:
Thanks...FYI, I\'ve been a fan of racing (and wagerer!!) since my senior year in high school (\'73), have been an owner since 1991 (although I have not owned any since 2003), live 15 minutes from Belmont, essentially live the entire month of August in Saratoga for the past 18 years, etc... I have absolutely LOVED this game...until the past couple of years, for the reasons that I\'ve previously mentioned And I\'m sure that there are many like me out there who are passionate about this game and are being driven away by racing\'s mis-management. That is the problem with a \'fractured business model\' (all of the racing jurisdictions are out for themselves etc..). I never thought I would say this, but it might finally be time for some sort of Federal oversight and/or regulation. It is clear that racing is unable or, more likely, unwilling to make the necessary changes.
Trackjohn
Interesting.
Has it been under our noses like this all along?
The red blood cell production blurb took my breath away.
TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just noticed this. RED BLOOD CELL PRODUCTION!?!?
> We\'re allowing a drug that helps red blood cell
> production??? Who needs $%*&^ing EPO?
>
> Anybody still want to question whether horses are
> running faster today, and one of the reasons why?
>
> Just unbelievable that racing would allow this at
> all, let alone without giving the info out like
> lasix information. Unbelievable that an industry
> that has the responsibility of running a
> parimutuel market would allow this, while
> non-betting events like the Olympics and Tour D\'
> France would ban someone for life for doing it--
> to themselves, voluntarily. Horses don\'t get a
> vote.