Sight, what do you think (53 Views)
Posted by: miff (IP Logged)
Date: August 26, 2008 08:57AM
The Kentucky Horse Racing Commission voted unanimously Aug. 25 to ban the use of anabolic steroids in racehorses, and the rules could be in place the first week of September should Gov. Steve Beshear sign an emergency regulation as expected.
The KHRC amended recommendations from the Kentucky Equine Drug Research Council, which voted Aug. 14 to regulate steroids. There was some discussion Aug. 25 about how the rules will impact claimed horses, but the racing commission didn't see fit to delay action.
"This (regulation) was circulated among all the horse groups in Kentucky," said trainer John Ward Jr., a member of the racing commission. "Everybody is on the same side. For once, Kentucky is in the lead on this issue."
The anabolic steroids in question—boldenone, nandrolone, and testosterone—will be considered Class B substances, positives for which carry more stringent penalties. Trainers who ship horses to Kentucky may follow reporting requirements or certify a horse hasn't been given steroids in the last 60 days. If a trainer doesn't know, he or she must accept responsibility for a positive test.
Sight,
Can you please comment on what you believe this will mean as far as recovery/ performance and any other related \"racing matter\"Thanks.
Regards,
Mike
--------------------------
Mike, I broke this out of the Saratoga thread.
Short answer: nobody will run horses any more frequently than John Ward does now ... And a year from now it will be fine, but it will be ugly at first.
Random thoughts:
I think drug regulation is a great thing. I would like to see the USA have the same drug regs (no drugs allowed race day) as other countries.
Although I don\'t know where Europe will then send talented bleeders - those horses will be out of the racing game (horseburgers, perhaps).
The more well-regulated international scene still has cheaters, there will always be cheaters (note some Olympic jumpers came up positive)
I\'m sorry the KY regs (can\'t use steroids for 60 days before a race) are not consistent with, for example, the CA regs (can\'t use steroids for 30 days before a race)
That\'s due solely to the quick desire of racing commissions to jump on the feel-good publicity bandwagon.
Nationwide inconsistencies will probably be worked out and corrected a year or so from now.
It is going to be a bit ugly before that is done - differences between laboratories are documented, we have a more accurate idea of withdrawal times, trainers can safely ship interstate to run, etc.
There are going to be good people, honest trainers, unfairly accused of \"steroid abuse\" during the first months if they get a positive.
Who is going to ship into Keeneland or Churchill or Turfway, etc. this fall? Willing to take the hit and bad PR for a postive test on any horse they\'ve acquired in the past 30-60 days as a claim or from a client moving from another trainer?
Ideally, if you were in Kentucky and didn\'t give any more anabolics starting today, you wouldn\'t test at the Keeneland meet.
But you might.
Trainers/clients that can afford to do a drug test before running will come, those that can\'t, won\'t risk it. We\'ll see.
I think there will be some initial handicapping chaos (performances not to expectations) especially at the lower and claiming levels and smaller tracks.
Some horses will run less frequently, as trainer won\'t want to give a steroid to help recovery (valid use of legal drugs will be impacted)
More trainers will be restricted (fearful) of where they can run until they can work out ensuring they won\'t test positive.
The situation in the midwest/east coast will be worse than CA, as CA generally has a \"closed\" population of horses, while the east coast guys go to various states frequently.
Trainers will lose money this first year, especially at the bread and butter lower claiming levels, as horses will run less frequently.
The claiming game will change this first year. KY puts the initial onus on the claiming trainer for a previous trainers abuse and a drug positive - ridiculous!
Somebody has to pay for a test before the claimed horse runs back, and I think it should be the state during implementation - not the guy that claimed a horse.
How many in the lower level claiming game, with a few horses, will be put out of business? As they either can\'t use what they used to keep horses running (which is good), or if they didn\'t use it, finding horses that won\'t test and can run back for them?
Any jurisdiction implementing a program should do as CA is, pay for tests and warn trainers privately at the start so trainers that want to comply can comply.
You can\'t expect trainers to carry this cost, as they were using legal, permitted drugs.
If you are a trainer of overuse or abuse, you are going to have a hard time of it, relearning your craft.
I note that \"steroid abuse\" (at the sales testing, during this implementation) doesn\'t seem to be the widespread problem people thought it was based upon the lack of positives.
What are folks going to blame breakdowns on next year, as steroid restrictions will hardly impact it?
In a drug-free world, the veterinarian-trainer relationship on the backstretch will change (I hope).
Historically, for many and especially at lower levels (not all), a trainer would call a vet as the trainer wanted the knees injected, wanted a shot of this or that, etc.
The trainer dictated the medical treatment of the horse, and there was little diagnosis done (saves money).
A vet could comply, or if he didn\'t do as the trainer demanded, wouldn\'t earn money to feed his kids. The trainer would just call another vet that would say, \"yassir\" and do as he wished.
Many trainers think vets are useless necessities that don\'t know crap, and many times they are correct. The backstretch environment encouraged that in many cases.
That\'s not good medicine, nor is it best for the horse.
The trainers that are in the 21st century, that have always paid attention to \"sports medicine\" - innovations and information regarding optimal training techniques, nutrition, ancillary aids, etc - will do fine.
Trainers that believed in diagnosis of problems before appropriate treatment (rather than shotgunning it and guessing) won\'t have to change.
That\'s expensive and not all trainers and clients can afford that.
Their vets - who know about innovations in sports medicine and can advise the trainer - will do fine.
The guys who, if a horse didn\'t do well, just guessed and ordered a vet to give a shot of this or that - won\'t do well.
Either will vets that don\'t know how to maintain an athlete, or diagnose and treat, that only know how to automatically inject knees, give shots, etc. A good thing in my eyes.
Thanks Sight,
Why did I have a feeling that you would respond that way. Between my post and your reply, I spoke to NY vet friend at NYRA tracks who knows I gamble the game. I was advised to be VERY cautious during the shake out period and she had similar thoughts to you.
Mike
As someone who was at Del Mar for 10 days and saw
a) Sadler horses getting pounded at the windows, making them underlays BASED ON PUBLIC INFORMATION
b) Sadler horses run off the screen on a regular basis
c) Heard the CHRB announce that 17 of the 38 steroid positives had come from Sadler alone,
I added a, b, and c and got
d) Steroids make horses run faster, and someone knew these horses were getting them, and took money out of the pockets of those playing honestly in the pools.
If you want a real laugh, read the comments of Gary Barber (Sadler\'s primary owner) about Shapiro\'s (head of CHRB) comments about him and Sadler. In effect, yes, it\'s against the rules, but you said you wouldn\'t penalize anyone until September, so it\'s your own fault, we did nothing wrong, shut up. He also threatened to sue, which ain\'t gonna happen, but would be GREAT (think supoenas, and vet records).
On the ESPN telecast last Sunday from Del Mar, it mentioned Sadler has pre-tested the usage of steroids for Dearest Trickski and Whatsthescript and the results came back clean. Much to my dismay, these horses won anyway. Whatsthescript was especially painful as I have win bets on the 2nd and 3rd place finishers as well as a cold exacta.
Sadler did the testing, or the CHRB? My understanding is it takes time for them to get out of the horse\'s system-- so he pulled those two off steroids months ago, and not all the others that got positives?
>> In effect, yes, it\'s against the rules, but you said you wouldn\'t penalize anyone until September, so it\'s your own fault, we did nothing wrong, shut up. He also threatened to sue, which ain\'t gonna happen, but would be GREAT (think supoenas, and vet records).
Yeah. Those guys are a piece of work.
JB,
Notwithstanding what you saw at DM being pretty obvious, I spoke to Dr Maylin(NY State top drug guy) who flatly stated that there is no medical scientific evidence that steroids make horses run faster. Dr Arthur, I read, said the same thing.If thats the case, why are they being kinda banned? Public perception? A Public Relations thing to appease the betting public and the animal loons?
This is certainly not the detection of the magic bullet here.
Mike
I\'m definitely not saying it\'s the \"magic bullet\".
There should be an article in the Thoroughbred Times coming out with some comments from me. I was away when the JC recommendations came out and am catching up now, but more when I have time.
I would be curious to see whether there is scientific evidence that steroids DON\'T make horses faster.
I\'m no expert....
I have always believed that the steroids allow an athlete to \"recover\" quicker. Nothing more, nothing less.
Weight lifters liked them because they could work out without being forced to stop for a day to allow muscles to recover.
Same could be said about baseball players. I never thought a baseball was easier to hit on steroids but you didn\'t ache during a day game after a night game, ya know?
Firm,
That has been my understanding however Barry Bonds once stated that as he got older, those line drives of years past were going over the fence. Steroids, No? more muscle power/strength, etc.
The same would seem to apply to racehorses, yet even those medical equine experts, diabolically opposed to performance enhancing substances, cannot confirm by science that steroids make horses run faster.
Mike
I would be curious to see whether there is scientific evidence that steroids DON\'T make horses faster
....think JB,it\'s the same thing!
Mike
The hell it is.
\"To compare anabolic steroids in horses to people is not fair,\" Maylin says. \"There is a difference and they are approved for use in horses by the FDA because they do have useful purposes.\"
\"Steroids permit a horse to recover quickly. They add muscle mass and horses become more aggressive for the most part. They\'re not used to cheat but to keep horses in training when they shouldn\'t be.\"
That doesn\'t address my point.
We know, for example, that elevated TCO2 increases performance, because Rick Arthur ran a study of thousands of runners in California, and found correlation between CO2 levels and finish position. It\'s unlikely anyone has done such a test for steroids in a large population of racehorses.
And as I pointed out earlier, simply helping a horse recover faster can help performance (avoid bouncing).
What we do know is this-- of the 38 steroid positives during the cool-off period in California, 17 were for Sadler, who is by far the leading trainer, and 11 are supposedly for Mitchell, although that has not been confirmed. He is third in the standings. Only 11 for all other trainers combined.
When asked who had the steroid positives, Shapiro said \"Just look at the standings\". The standings reflect performance, to some degree.
In racing greyhounds, testosterone is legally used** to keep bitches from coming into season and missing training days and racing days.
Trainers know there is a trade off to the increased racing and training days for putting a bitch on \"T\" - they slow down a tad (yes, it has been measured), and they may be a bit more aggressive on the track (risking interference during a race and maybe being set down)
** note this steroid is legal (to certain levels, it is tested for) in that public gambling sport as it does not enhance performance.
1-- Testosterone is only one of the steroids.
2-- You have said steroids have different effects in horses than in humans, fair to question whether greyhound results are relevant.
3-- My understanding is that other racing countries (all?) have banned steroids. Why?
JB,
Surprised you went for the flavor of the month. Steroids,(as you know) have been around and used for over 50 years or more by most accounts with app 70% of ALL of todays trainers using some form of them until recently. I had 20 horses in the 80\'s getting all sorts of legal steroid cocktails which did ZERO to their performance.Maybe today, guys have worked out better brews or something.
Those abusing steroids in combination with other stuff may have found an edge but it\'s not even close to being Oscar like.
Steroids are probably NOT the reason that many trainers are winning at higher percentages than others and maybe not why Sadler, Mitchell, Levine,Catalano and others have some of their horses running off the screen.
First it was milkshakes, now steroids, both very old news recently resurrected by the suits, racetracks to ward off the feds. The illegal chemist with the magic bullet is laughing at those who believe that the racing playing field will be much more level after steroids are banned.
Steroids/shakes, minutia in the big picture.A very respected vet in NY feels that racing will suffer on the whole by banning these steroids instead of regulating them more closely. That again won\'t happen solely because of costs and the sudden purist attitude of those in the racing fifedoms.
Mike
3-- My understanding is that other racing countries (all?) have banned steroids. Why
JB,
Why ban something that everyone can use and that many vets feel help a horse through the rigors of racing. Isn\'t that a better question?
Mike
Handicappers are going to have to go back to looking at a horse in the paddock, to see if he\'s in bloom and ready to run.
I didn\'t have Shakis on any tickets this past weekend, until I happened to look up at the television set and saw him in the paddock.
Yeah, that\'s me, going for the flavor of the month.
I\'ll try and find and post the package insert for Equipoise.
My point about \"steroids are different in humans\" is first, level of use vs massive abuse; secondly, that using a drug in a horse, that is naturally occuring in the horse, is not the same as a human using a drug that is not naturally occuring in his body (a human using a horse hormone). The equivalent would be a horse being given a non-horse, \"designer\" hormone.
I have no problem at all with anabolics being banned on race day, and doing what we are doing now: go ahead and use the legal anabolics as needed, but the horse then goes on a 30- or 60- day vet list (varies by state, bad) and can\'t race during that time until the anabolic falls to a permissable level.
I doubt any of the anabolics will be out of the system after 30 days, but we\'ll see.
The benefit of steroids is indeed to keep the horse in an anabolic state, moving forward in training, feeling good, not missing days, eating well - not in speed as in turn-of-foot, measurable on the track.
It is indeed performance enhancing in the sense that it enables a horse to run instead of needing some more time off to recover.
Recall Miff said word on the backstretch is that Big Brown didn\'t come out of the last race well - not recoving quickly, not putting weight lost from the race back on.
That\'s exactly when a horse deserves an anabolic steroid shot. That can be the difference between running again in 30-45 days, and not being ready.
Why do you think Dutrow gave a shot once a month to his whole stable? Not to make them faster. It kept them all eating, in training, not missing days, and not burning out: feeling good and ready to go.
American trainers may have to go back to giving a horse the winter off, getting shaggy in a turnout paddock.
Sight...what about EPO, which I think is the more commonly abused formula by certain trainers, (including blood doping). Why are they not after it?
Thanks,
NC Tony
They are after EPO in some places (Breeders Cup, Kentucky Derby).
Sighthound -
How does all of this fit with what one reads about sale horses (yearlings?) looking robust at the sale (purportedly due to steroids) and then shriveling after the buyer has brought them home. Are those horses getting much larger (i.e., abusive) doses? Thanks in advance.
With respect to the claiming issue, wouldn\'t the simple answer be to take samples from all claimed horses and freeze them, to be tested only if the horse tests positive for steroids after running from the new barn? If the sample taken at the time of the claim tests positive for the same steroid, the new trainer is off the hook and has the right to rescind the claim, and the former trainer gets penalized.
None of the horses tested at the Fasig-Tipton sale for anabolics were positive. Not that many were tested, but obviously some new owners wanted to make sure.
I\'m sure steroid use (a shot or two) is part of the 60-day prep for some yearlings (keeps them eating during a very stressful period, when they are stalled more, groomed and meet the farrier more often, have increased forced exercise, etc.)
But if you are walking them daily on an exercise machine or around a field for sales prep, then you throw them out in a field after you purchase them, they will not look like what you bought in 30-45 days.
With regard to the claiming issue testing protocol you suggest: it\'s logical, easy and inexpensive. This is why you are not a racing commission member
I think that now, all claims should stop at the test barn on the way back to their new barn. I think CA does this?
If the claim potentially can be disallowed due to steroid presence at the time of the claim, why wait and have the new owner pay to feed the horse for a few weeks, do vet work, etc? Queer the deal immediately.
And obviously the faster recovery can let you work more and harder, so you can put on 20 or 30 pounds of muscle that you otherwise wouldn\'t be able to. That muscle can let you hit a ball farther, or push past an offensive lineman for a sack, if you have the reflexes to do so normally. I can\'t see how that wouldn\'t work to make a horse stronger too, but...
Firm/Miff;
Yeah, steroids had nothing to do with Bonds, Sosa, McGwire, et al. Just allowed them to train really hard, and reach their true potential. Sheesh!
Bob