KHRC bans steroids - impact

[sighthound]

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.

[miff]

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

[TGJB]

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).

[randy_yu]

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.

[TGJB]

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?

[sighthound]

>> 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.

[miff]

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

[TGJB]

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.

[firmturf]

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?

[miff]

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

[miff]

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

[TGJB]

The hell it is.

[miff]

\"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.\"

[TGJB]

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.

[sighthound]

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.