Maline Comments in DRF

[Silver Charm]

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...........

[alm]

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.

[sighthound]

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.

[sighthound]

>> 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.

[alm]

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.

[alm]

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.

[Silver Charm]

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?

[sighthound]

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.

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.

[sighthound]

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.

[sighthound]

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.

[alm]

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?

[sighthound]

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.

Yes, exactly.  Pretty important phrase.

f 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.

[alm]

Then how come you had to overstate the autopsy to support your point of view?

Please take a rest.

[sighthound]

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

Of 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.

[TGJB]

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.