KHRC bans steroids - impact

[TGJB]

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?

[miff]

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

[miff]

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

[sighthound]

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.

[TGJB]

Yeah, that\'s me, going for the flavor of the month.

[sighthound]

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.

[NoCarolinaTony]

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

[sighthound]

They are after EPO in some places (Breeders Cup, Kentucky Derby).

[BitPlayer]

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.

[sighthound]

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.

[jma11473]

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...

[BB]

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