As Chairman of the KHBPA the following comments scare the hell out of me if this guy is in a postion of leadership.
\"I don\'t want to give the impression that we are against some sort of regulation of steroids,\" said Marty Maline, the executive director of the horsemen\'s group, when asked whether the organization opposed the model rule. \"It\'s not to say that we\'re against something. We just want to make sure that all the necessary science is in place.\"
So his attitude is until we know that Steroids do something wrong to the horse we think you should be able to still keep giving them to the animal. In his own words he said there really isn\'t any Science for us to make a judgement.
Also where is/was this same argument when Synthetic surfaces are/were being implemented nationally. Show anybody the Science there. There are Trainers all over the place saying this is the future with no Science. Probably the same ones saying Steroids does nothing wrong until proven it does.
Once final note on Hegartys assertion that people will be Under Oath to testify about Steroids. Once they go Under Oath they are fair game to be asked about anything. There is no defense attorney there to say objection your honor on the grounds this is not relvant and judge to say sustained.
I would presume a no answer or taking of the fifth would be an admission of guilt.
Unless someone can show me the Science/Facts first...........
I\'m not sure whether this site is the place for this discussion, but I want to say at least that I think you are being overly harsh towards Maline.
Anyone who\'s followed these blogs knows I am as upset as the next person about the \'drug\' trainers, but I don\'t hold the view that all drugs are bad for a horse. Drugs that enable a horse to reach its potential without masking dangerous physical conditions should be allowed. I don\'t think too many people would argue with this, depending upon which drugs are classified in one or another categories, in this regard.
On the negative side, pain killers of most types will mask a horse\'s problems and encourage him to compete when he should not.
When a horse like Eight Belles suffers a condylar fracture it\'s safe to assume she previously showed soreness, which was relieved with one or more legal painkillers. To hers and our detriment as fans.
Because of the baseball scandals, steroids have a bad, bad reputation at this time, but I don\'t believe they fall into the same category as pain killers. For sure, they enhance performance, but used properly they might not cause catastrophic problems with a horse. In fact, you could argue that a stronger horse is less likely to hurt himself in competition.
Moreover, steroids have been around a lot longer and are much more widespread than most fans realize. IMO, it makes more sense to regulate them as opposed to eliminating them.
Maline\'s attitude has always been to put steroid regulations in place, but not to put withdrawal times with penalties into law, without knowing what those withdrawal times are (as other jurisdictions have already done)
In other words, if I have no idea how long a drug lasts in a horses system, and what drug amounts will be measurable as the drug is metabolized over time (which gives me the ability to tell how much of a drug was initially given, and how long ago - so I can penalize a trainer for not following the rules) - don\'t you agree it\'s foolish for me to rush to ascribe penalties for something I can\'t even measure accurately?
That would be like randomly making a law saying you can\'t blow a low 2 on an alcohol breathlyzer field test, while not having any idea what level of alcohol in the bloodstream makes one measureably impaired, and not having any idea how long ago you\'d have to have taken a drink, or how much alcohol it would take, to blow that 2.
>> When a horse like Eight Belles suffers a condylar fracture it\'s safe to assume she previously showed soreness, which was relieved with one or more legal painkillers. To hers and our detriment as fans.
Absolutely not, completely wrong, and a terribly nasty insinuation you are making about Larry Jones.
Such devastating injuries can happen with zero premontory signs.
And a condylar fracture was highly doubtfully the \"first thing\" that happened in Eight Belles\' injury progression.
I knew I shouldn\'t express any opinion on drug use. There are just too many heroes on this blog.
So let me ask you: Why would you take my comment as a criticism of ANY trainer...I happen to like this fellow....but just about any trainer with an ouchy horse uses one type of pain killer or another. One would be naive to think otherwise.
Oh, and by the way, it\'s likely that Eight Belles had not been checked for pre-conditions related to condylar issues...the investigation of that requires nuclear scintigraphy...absent this very expensive form of diagnosis, there\'s no way to tell the soft tissue below the bone is eroding.
There was a lot of data on this blog to the effect Eight Belles showed signs of distress in her works and her races. Chances are they went on with her because standard procedures (xrays, etc) showed nothing. And...chances are the filly raced on as much medication as was legally permissable in the states she visited.
As for your supposition that her injuries happened in some sequence, I can only say it happened in an instant and any conjecture about what-caused-what is just that...conjecture.
If we find out the levels of steroids being administered now is unhealthy for the animal how far have we damaged the breed looking back and for generations to come?
Does anybody really care?
Or is it strictly just about money and ego as one writer said?
I didn\'t take your comment as anything other than exactly what it was - specific to one horse and trainer, incorrect, false, and accusatory without any basis in fact whatsoever.
QuoteWhen a horse like Eight Belles suffers a condylar fracture it\'s safe to assume she previously showed soreness, which was relieved with one or more legal painkillers. To hers and our detriment as fans.
I suppose you realize that according to Eight Belle\'s published necropsy report, there was zero sign of pre-existing condylar deficiency. And that report describes in detail the extent of the injuries, and the obvious way they must have occured.
And certainly you have read the trainers comments on the history of drug use in the filly.
Or maybe not.
I see your standard of truth is: \"it seems likely\" and \"there\'s alot of data on this blog\" and \"chances are\".
I have this fantasy that people that make statements in public to hundreds of people feel a moral responsibility for the accuracy of what they say.
Or maybe not.
I\'m done with it. Have at it.
Four anabolic steroids have been FDA-approved for legal use in the horse for some time now. We know what doses do what to horses. That is not the question.
The question is how we can control not legitimate use, but abuse, and to do that we have to finish up the basic metabolism studies on urine/blood levels for each of those drugs.
So when a horse comes back testing out at xx level, we know what dose of the drug it was given, and when.
OK my friend, I am sitting here reading the necropsy report and it is clear you\'ve embellished it quite a bit.
I wouldn\'t bother doing this except for the fact that you\'ve taken liberties with the truth. You said \"there was zero sign of pre-existing condylar deficiency.\" There is NO language to this effect in the report whatsoever.
It says only there was no observation of pre-existing bone pathology. One phrase, one observation at the very end of the report.
Chances are with the damage to the soft tissue, which was gross and extensive, there was no way to evaluate the most damaging effect of a condylar condition...namely the wearing down of the soft tissue at the base of the bone, at the joint.
If you\'re wondering what I\'m talking about, buy a horse or two and have a nuclear scintigraphy done to analyze the problem when it occurs. I\'m speaking from experience my friend...I had two breakdown from the problem and spent an awful lot of time learning.
There is a distinct possibility that Larry Jones had no idea whether or not this filly was going to have a condylar issue. Based on the necropsy report, there is very little liklihood the examiner could reach any conclusion either. And he did NOT mention it at all.
The report...by NM Williams...also does not speculate on \"the obvious way they (the injuries) must have occured\" according to you...not a sentence. It merely details extensively what they were. Any conclusion about their sequencing is excluded.
Got any more expertise to bring to the issue?
QuoteOK my friend, I am sitting here reading the necropsy report and it is clear you\'ve embellished it quite a bit.
I wouldn\'t bother doing this except for the fact that you\'ve taken liberties with the truth. You said \"there was zero sign of pre-existing condylar deficiency.\" There is NO language to this effect in the report whatsoever.
It says only there was no observation of pre-existing bone pathology. One phrase, one observation at the very end of the report.
Yes, exactly. Pretty important phrase.
Quotef you\'re wondering what I\'m talking about, buy a horse or two and have a nuclear scintigraphy done to analyze the problem when it occurs. I\'m speaking from experience my friend...I had two breakdown from the problem and spent an awful lot of time learning.
If you\'re wondering what I\'m talking about, I have nuclear scintigraphy done on some of my equine patients, and then I analyze the findings.
I\'m speaking from experience, my friend.
Then how come you had to overstate the autopsy to support your point of view?
Please take a rest.
Nothing is overstated. I said there was zero sign of pre-existing condylar deficiency, and that is stated in the necropsy as, \"no observation of pre-existing bone pathology.\"
I just saw this elsewhere: NY Times on Congressional race industry hearings:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/15/sports/othersports/15racing.html?_r=1&ref=sports&oref=slogin
QuoteOf the approximately 15,000 licensed horse trainers in the United States, 1,335, or 8.9 percent, have been cited for medication violations, Martin said. Of 1,897 individual medication violations during the past five years, slightly more than two-thirds — 67.6 percent — were violations for surpassing allowable levels for therapeutic medications.
"There were 167 — or 1.1 percent — of what we consider more severe violations where drugs were used clearly to enhance performance," Martin said.
Sight-- so again, if I read you right, you\'re saying the small number of positives for performance enhancers means we don\'t have a problem.
You know what? That\'s so ridiculous given the discussions here about a) the TCO2 rules being set up so they WON\'T come up with a positive, and b) the industry not doing things like freezing blood and having universal testing for EPO, etc., that I have to believe at this point it is not an accident. So I\'m going back to what I said to you before-- if we follow your line of reasoning, we shouldn\'t test anyone, that way we would never have a positive.
As any serious handicapper or honest trainer can tell you, the small number of positives and the light penalties given out for the use of performance enhancers ARE the problem.
I\'m going to strongly suggest you back off this. As I have told you, there is a lot going on right now, and you are going to end up with egg on your face. You have kept pushing this \"what-me-worry\" non-position, and the only reason I\'m not coming at you a lot harder is that I\'m not allowed to talk about what is taking place.
Sighthound -
I\'m not sure I fully comprehend your position, but I\'ll make the following points in response (assuming that you\'ll correct me if I misunderstand).
I can only think of two methods of regulating steroid use. One would require catching catching the cheater in the act. It would be naive to think such an approach would be effective. The other is race-day testing, with thresholds, which is the approach I believe the RMTC has recommended.
Assuming that the trend toward adoption of the RMTC model rule on steroids continues, horsemen and vets in many jurisdictions will have learned to live with the RMTC thresholds. Further, Kentucky horsemen who ship into those jurisdictions will have learned to abide by those thresholds. Why would Kentucky horsemen racing in Kentucky need a separate set of thresholds?
I think you may be overstating the level of veterinary ignorance regarding withdrawal times. In any event, the RMTC is currently conducting a study to determine recommended withdrawal times, to be completed in August, which should go a long way toward alleviating that concern. There are also other ways of dealing with the withdrawal-time issue. One is to have a period of testing with minimal penalties (e.g., small fines, purse redistribution), before full-scale penalties (i.e., suspension) become effective, so that horsemen and vets can have some experience with the thresholds Another is pre-entry testing.
The bottom line for me is that a lot of people seem to think that the RMTC approach is workable. In that context, and in the context of Kentucky\'s less-than-stellar reputation in this area, I think that agendas other than scientific concerns are behind the go-slow approach being pushed in Kentucky.
Jerry- I HOPE things actually ARE happening. Came across this interesting piece.
Read it first- then look at the date of this Blood-Horse article, which I intentionally moved to the bottom of this post. That\'s been the problem to date, imo; lots of talk, little effective action.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drug Testing Report: It\'s Just the Beginning
The National Thoroughbred Racing Association\'s Racing Integrity and Drug Testing Task Force report, to be released Sunday, may be the tip of the iceberg, officials said Saturday during a teleconference that originated in Saratoga Springs, N.Y.
Jim Gallagher, executive director of the task force, said the report, the main topic of discussion during Sunday\'s Jockey Club Round Table, could lead to greater research in the area of equine drug testing. Of the 1,272 blind samples tested under Association of Racing Commissioners International guidelines, 98.3% contained no Class 1, 2, or 3 drugs.
The \"positives\" called through the Supertest program were for buspirone (Class 2, one positive), caffeine (Class 2, one positive), clenbuterol (Class 3, nine positives), clonidine (Class 3, three positives), cocaine (Class 1, one positive), dextromoramide (Class 1, one positive), guanabenz (Class 3, four positives), and triplelenamine (Class 3, two positives). Dextromoramide, a narcotic, isn\'t approved by the Federal Drug Administration.
Officials said the presence of a drug not approved by the FDA indicates a need for vigilance. Gallagher said one of the primary things the report showed is the lack of uniformity when it comes to threshold levels in various jurisdictions. For instance, there could have been more clenbuterol positives had the same threshold levels been used for each test..
Paul Oreffice, a member of the task force, said the number of positives called through the test was positive, but that much work remains to be done in light of rapidly changing technology. One of the recommendations of the report is that a national organization be formed to implement improvements in drug testing.
Here are the task force recommendations:
1. Jurisdictions should use more rigorous screening processes.
Key Actions:
Transition away from TLC while relying more on ELISA and instrumental testing methods;
Rotate and develop more ELISA tests; and
Pursue strategies, including cooperative alliances for the purchase of drug testing kits, to reduce overall testing costs.
2. Jurisdictions should re-assess medication rules and enforcement policies in light of new and more sophisticated testing technologies.
Key Actions:
Reassess medication rules and enforcement policies-largely formulated on the basis of outmoded TLC methodologies-in light of ELISA and instrumental testing methods, which can detect substances in very low concentrations;
Evaluate a medication\'s pharmacology (i.e., its ability to affect a horse\'s performance) in light of new and more sophisticated testing methods to determine whether, and to what extent, administrative action is appropriate; and
Research the role that permitted medications may play in interfering with the detection of prohibited substances.
3. The racing industry should support the development of withdrawal guidelines for commonly administered therapeutic medications.
Key Actions:
Develop an alliance of industry stakeholders to determine if, when and how withdrawal times (or, alternatively, decision levels) can be made the standard for specific therapeutic medications;
Continue and expand research on the pharmacology of therapeutic medications; and
Develop a program for communicating proper systems for medication withdrawal and for reporting violations in a manner consistent with protecting the integrity of horse racing.
4. A national, external quality assurance program for drug-testing laboratories should be established.
Key Actions:
Monitor the performance of laboratories through oversight by a consortium of industry stakeholders, including racing commissions, laboratory analysts and national racing organizations;
Establish a list of substances to be tested for, and develop programs to document and verify the accuracy and reliability of testing methods; and
Disseminate findings to industry stakeholders and to participating laboratories to ensure full compliance with accepted testing procedures.
5. Create a national organization to implement improvements in drug testing and provide leadership in jurisprudence and public communication practices relating to drug testing issues.
Key Actions:
Form a national organization, representing regulators, owners, trainers. racetracks, veterinarians and drug testing researchers to implement recommendations outlined in the task force report;
Coordinate judicial and drug testing research efforts between states and racing jurisdictions; and
Reduce litigation relating to medication violations and increase horse racing\'s credibility in the area of drug testing by promoting judicially sound, \"best practices\" relating to public disclosure of suspected medication violations.
Executive Summary of Racing Integrity and Drug Testing Task Force Report
by Tom LaMarra
Date Posted: 8/19/2001 1:35:32 AM (That\'s right - over SEVEN yrs ago)
Last Updated: 8/20/2001 9:19:03 AM
http://www.bloodhorse.com/article/5469/drug-testing-report-its-just-the-beginning.htm
Quote[Sight-- so again, if I read you right, you\'re saying the small number of positives for performance enhancers means we don\'t have a problem.
/quote]
?? Not at all. It\'s the first time I\'ve ever seen someone try and present something as a quantitation of this nationally, and I too am surprised it\'s so small.
QuoteSo I\'m going back to what I said to you before-- if we follow your line of reasoning, we shouldn\'t test anyone, that way we would never have a positive.
Excuse me - I have already said that the your statement above doesn\'t reflect what I believe, nor is anywhere near what I\'ve ever said here - so you can stop repeating it as if it were true.
I\'d test every single horse. Will never happen, but that would be what I would shoot for.
Quote[/I\'m going to strongly suggest you back off this. As I have told you, there is a lot going on right now, and you are going to end up with egg on your face. You have kept pushing this \"what-me-worry\" non-position, and the only reason I\'m not coming at you a lot harder is that I\'m not allowed to talk about what is taking place.
quote]
First, I have never pushed a \"what-me-worry\" position - in fact I\'ve stated the opposite right here - so you can drop your repeating of that false accusation.
And your threats to me to \"back off\" are laughable.
<>> The bottom line for me is that a lot of people seem to think that the RMTC approach is workable.
I think it\'s very workable and I support it.
I think that some jurisdictions putting the RMTC proposals into practice prior to having documented withdrawal times (as we should have in August as you mentioned - although I think that\'s delayed a month now) was silly.
But once in place, that will effectively prevent the use of any of the legal steroids anywhere near race day at levels that can be considered pharmacologically active; but still allow legal FDA-approved use in the horse on the backstretch.
But I doubt that the above will change much except for the few trainers that are currently abusing the legal steroids (and less Winstrol, as it\'s fairly weak, more the others) - we need to keep RMTC funded to find illegal steroids and other illegal drugs.
[quoteIn that context, and in the context of Kentucky\'s less-than-stellar reputation in this area, I think that agendas other than scientific concerns are behind the go-slow approach being pushed in Kentucky.][/quote]
They had their chance to keep their own house clean and chose not to do so. Now they can suffer the nightmare of public and government interference due to their lack of action.
So your point in posting the stat was that it was meaningless. Yeah, anybody would have gotten that.
There was no threat, I was saying that events would embarass the holder of the nebulous quasi-position you either do or do not hold. You are free to continue being as amgiguous as you want. However, since I\'m the only one with a delete and block function on this board, if I were making a threat it would be credible. Ask Chuckles, if you can find him.
No, my point in posting it was, as I said, it was the first I\'ve ever seen presented \"nationally\"
I\'m sure if you wanted me gone it would be a done deal before I knew of it.
JB,
Would think that a practicing vet\'s take on the drug/steroid/breakdown issue would be welcome here to shed some light on matters that are technically way over our heads.There are a few posters here who have deep knowledge of the game besides yourself.
Just because someone perhaps disagrees with your stance on an issue, that is no reason to pull the plug. Ban everyone who disagrees about anything you post and you are left with the Kool Aid drinkers.Your board to do with as you wish though.
Mike
Miff-- I said I was NOT going to pull the plug. Whatsamattayou?
\"Perhaps disagrees\" is about right.
I admire TGJB for his obvious singleminded dedication to protecting the interests of his clients, the people that fund this sport and literally allow it to exist, the gamblers.
My life\'s work is to protect the horses. I\'m proud I have never put earning money for an owner, trainer, or myself before the best welfare of any horse.
Different paths, perceptions, experiences, same end goal: the cheaters must be gone.
Here is something even scarier...Moddy Malign has just graduated from law school and plans to practice.
He, along with Kent Stirling of the Florida HBPA, are setting the sport back a generation.
They disgust me.
On the face of it, yes, you would want a practicing vets take on these issues, but keep in mind it\'s practicing vets who are on the dark side of the force too. I\'m not saying Sight is one of them, but his misquoting significantly the Eight Belles autopsy in smacking me suggests he\'s not so objective himself. And that\'s the stance Jerry is taking in response to his other posts.
Excuse me, Alm, but I did not misstate or missquote one thing from that necropsy report.
That you have no training in pathology, orthopaedics or veterinary medicine, thus are unable to understand that the listing of the filly\'s injuries indeed reveals the logical and likely pathogenesis isn\'t my fault.
That you can not understand that my saying, \"zero sign of pre-existing condylar deficiency\" is entirely justified and true, and based upon the necropsy report saying the same via saying, \"no observation of pre-existing bone pathology.\" is not my fault either.
So when you say, speaking of me, \"but his misquoting significantly the Eight Belles autopsy in smacking me suggests he\'s not so objective himself\", you are in fact describing your own gross ignorance and obvious inability to understand the subject matter at hand.
OK...I don\'t agree with you or your analysis. I\'ve had vets misdiagnose and screw up horses on me so I don\'t think you, as a vet, sit at the Right Hand. Sorry I feel this way, but let\'s let it go at that.
My original point was this filly was on some sort of anti-inflamatory ACCORDING TO THE TRAINER and that this was masking a problem that she had. It could have been a condylar condition or something else. Her vet didn\'t administer it for fun.
Was her breakdown related to that condition? Most likely. Does that make her trainer an evil guy? No, he was just another guy with a good horse with ONE shot at a 3 YO Classic and he took it.
And, yes, you completely embellished the autopsy.