PDA

View Full Version : Masochistic DQed from BC Sprint


Pages : [1] 2

cj
12-19-2016, 06:39 PM
http://www.drf.com/news/masochistic-be-disqualified-bc-sprint

cj
12-19-2016, 06:42 PM
This is the worst part:

"Neither the CHRB – whose medical director is Dr. Rick Arthur -- nor the Breeders’ Cup ordered Ellis to scratch. The decision was left to Ellis and Masochistic’s owners."

Basically just flipped the bird to bettors here.

stringmail
12-19-2016, 06:49 PM
Beautiful.

Bettors be damned. What a fricken country!

How about scratching so that the wagering public does not get screwed?

Shame on you - Breeders Cup, Ellis, Shamlian and Siegel.

Are they hoping it won't register? I get that it is legal if administered appropriately but if you receive notice three days before of the bad result, c'mon!

Those that had a Defrong - Mind Your Biscuits exacta are enjoying this outcome immensely. I do realize that the dynamics of the race would have changed and the outcome may have been entirely different but the optics on this are horrible.

SuperPickle
12-19-2016, 07:02 PM
This is the worst part:

"Neither the CHRB – whose medical director is Dr. Rick Arthur -- nor the Breeders’ Cup ordered Ellis to scratch. The decision was left to Ellis and Masochistic’s owners."

Basically just flipped the bird to bettors here.

I'm not following how its an f-u to bettors. The horse ran and finished second and bettors were paid.

Isn't it more of a massive f-u to the other owners. Defrong went wire-to-wire. But if Massochistic had dueled him into defeat and it turned out he tested positive and was essentially a non-runner how would you feel?

I know this forum is bettors centric but if any people should be livid it should be the other owners.

Btw... I personally don't feel anyone should be upset by this but the owners kinda have a case.

However I do think given Ellis knew their was a chance the horse was going to test positive and had an option to scratch and rolled the dice and lost. Given that coupled with its a championship race he deserves a punishment above and beyond.

Personally I think he banned from running horses in at least one Breeders Cup.

cj
12-19-2016, 07:03 PM
I'm not following how its an f-u to bettors. The horse ran and finished second and bettors were paid.

Isn't it more of a massive f-u to the other owners. Defrong went wire-to-wire. But if Massochistic had dueled him into defeat and it turned out he tested positive and was essentially a non-runner how would you feel?

I know this forum is bettors centric but if any people should be livid it should be the other owners.

Btw... I personally don't feel anyone should be upset by this but the owners kinda have a case.

However I do think given Ellis knew their was a chance the horse was going to test positive and had an option to scratch and rolled the dice and lost. Given that coupled with its a championship race he deserves a punishment above and beyond.

Personally I think he banned from running horses in at least one Breeders Cup.

It is an FU to bettors because they let a horse run that they knew was highly likely to fail a drug test. I don't know how you can't see that. What do I care about the owner? The owner's employee cheated. Now we know why he skipped the prep race.

cj
12-19-2016, 07:10 PM
Also, if it wasn't that big a deal, why not tell the public beforehand?

SuperPickle
12-19-2016, 07:17 PM
It is an FU to bettors because they let a horse run that they knew was highly likely to fail a drug test. I don't know how you can't see that.

Yeah but CJ you're going down the EMD/SRU PA Forum Rabbithole of what should happen versus what can happen.

You're a smart guy you have to grasp the CHRB is in a pretty crapy spot on this. They can't force the horse to scratch based on it might fail a drug test. Even a crappy chemist and a crappy lawyer could testify the horse had a reasonable chance of coming back clean. No court would back up the CHRB decision to scratch that horse. Either the Seigel's could have gotten an injunction to force him into the gate or a 3rd year law student could have taken the Breeders Cup and the CHRB to court and gotten the 1st prize money plus damages.

You're the voice of reason on this forum. Surely you grasp due process. You can't arrest a guy who's thinking about robbing a bank and you can't scratch a horse who might fail a drug test. Welcome to America.

Here's where you outrage should be...

Elis had an out of this mess and choose not use it. He should be suspended for months not weeks, denied entry for at least one Breeders Cup and lose his TVG work.

The real crime is if this guy gets two weeks and shows up on TVG this summer that's a MASSIVE slap in the face to integrity.

That's where the outrage should be.

Btw... you can already tell in the DRF article where it mentions how clean he is how its going to go down.

stringmail
12-19-2016, 07:17 PM
Can we count on the journalistic integrity at TVG to ask Ellis why he didn't scratch?

If they are concerned about not losing wagering dollars, shouldn't this be addressed so they can build trust with their "employer", the wagering public?

Maybe we can get Talamo's wife to ask her dad on camera?

classhandicapper
12-19-2016, 07:20 PM
It sounds like they thought it would be out of his system in time, but absolutely knew there was a risk it would not and didn't have the ability to do one last test just before the race to make sure. They basically gambled on it coming back clean and lost.

The issue is whether they should have been allowed to gamble like that to begin with because a positive would be a blow to the reputation of the sport and a "positive horse" could also impact the race.

SuperPickle
12-19-2016, 07:20 PM
Also, if it wasn't that big a deal, why not tell the public beforehand?

CHRB bet on the 90% thing Ellis said and lost. They deserve some heat.

They should have been more transparency I'll give you that. But I don't think there's an action they could take.

cj
12-19-2016, 07:21 PM
Yeah but CJ you're going down the EMD/SRU PA Forum Rabbithole of what should happen versus what can happen.

You're a smart guy you have to grasp the CHRB is in a pretty crapy spot on this. They can't force the horse to scratch based on it might fail a drug test. Even a crappy chemist and a crappy lawyer could testify the horse had a reasonable chance of coming back clean. No court would back up the CHRB decision to scratch that horse. Either the Seigel's could have gotten an injunction to force him into the gate or a 3rd year law student could have taken the Breeders Cup and the CHRB to court and gotten the 1st prize money plus damages.

You're the voice of reason on this forum. Surely you grasp due process. You can't arrest a guy who's thinking about robbing a bank and you can't scratch a horse who might fail a drug test. Welcome to America.

Here's where you outrage should be...

Elis had an out of this mess and choose not use it. He should be suspended for months not weeks, denied entry for at least one Breeders Cup and lose his TVG work.

The real crime is if this guy gets two weeks and shows up on TVG this summer that's a MASSIVE slap in the face to integrity.

That's where the outrage should be.

Btw... you can already tell in the DRF article where it mentions how clean he is how its going to go down.

Why not tell the public then? Let them know a horse might very well fail a drug test. What is the point of that out of competition testing leading up to the BC if you can't use it for anything. This whole thing stinks to high heaven.

I 100% agree with you on Ellis. He should be hammered. But we all know he won't be. He'll keep running his horses two or three times a year so he can drug them up in between races. I smelled a rat when he skipped the prep race and commented on it. Something was fishy then, I just knew it.

classhandicapper
12-19-2016, 07:25 PM
Someone should get hammered for this.

zico20
12-19-2016, 07:31 PM
Can we count on the journalistic integrity at TVG to ask Ellis why he didn't scratch?

If they are concerned about not losing wagering dollars, shouldn't this be addressed so they can build trust with their "employer", the wagering public?

Maybe we can get Talamo's wife to ask her dad on camera?

Ellis said he thought that there was a 90% chance it would be out of his system by race day. That is why he didn't scratch. I don't blame him. If he thought it was 90% I would have run him also.

zico20
12-19-2016, 07:33 PM
Someone should get hammered for this.

It should not be Ellis. The horse should have been scratched by the stewards or BC officials. It should not have been up to Ellis to make the call.

SuperPickle
12-19-2016, 07:33 PM
Why not tell the public then? Let them know a horse might very well fail a drug test. What is the point of that out of competition testing leading up to the BC if you can't use it for anything. This whole thing stinks to high heaven.

I 100% agree with you on Ellis. He should be hammered. But we all know he won't be. He'll keep running his horses two or three times a year so he can drug them up in between races. I smelled a rat when he skipped the prep race and commented on it. Something was fishy then, I just knew it.

And that's why the outrage should be focused on Ellis and not the CHRB or the bettors or whatever.

It's a simple riskversus reward formula. He rolled on the dice on the reward of the horse winning and him making $100K+ versus two weeks vacation and $10K fine.

If he's forced to loss real money and real consequences after this that's the only way to prevent future issues.

Everyone on the forum should be emailing TVG demanding they end their relationship with him.

If you want to stop this stuff you start by doing that.

Robert Fischer
12-19-2016, 07:33 PM
Yeah but CJ you're going down the EMD/SRU PA Forum Rabbithole of what should happen versus what can happen.

You're a smart guy you have to grasp the CHRB is in a pretty crapy spot on this. They can't force the horse to scratch based on it might fail a drug test. Even a crappy chemist and a crappy lawyer could testify the horse had a reasonable chance of coming back clean. No court would back up the CHRB decision to scratch that horse. Either the Seigel's could have gotten an injunction to force him into the gate or a 3rd year law student could have taken the Breeders Cup and the CHRB to court and gotten the 1st prize money plus damages.

You're the voice of reason on this forum. Surely you grasp due process. You can't arrest a guy who's thinking about robbing a bank and you can't scratch a horse who might fail a drug test. Welcome to America.

Here's where you outrage should be...

Elis had an out of this mess and choose not use it. He should be suspended for months not weeks, denied entry for at least one Breeders Cup and lose his TVG work.

The real crime is if this guy gets two weeks and shows up on TVG this summer that's a MASSIVE slap in the face to integrity.

That's where the outrage should be.

Btw... you can already tell in the DRF article where it mentions how clean he is how its going to go down.

i disagree.
Ellis is a class act.



CHRB should consider changing their protocol for dealing with such situations. To have a 10% chance of a failed drug test, and put the trainer, owners, and bettors in such a situation is irresponsible.

cj
12-19-2016, 07:37 PM
i disagree.
Ellis is a class act.



CHRB should consider changing their protocol for dealing with such situations. To have a 10% chance of a failed drug test, and put the trainer, owners, and bettors in such a situation is irresponsible.

You know Ron Ellis personally?

Psychotic Parakeet
12-19-2016, 07:39 PM
Good thing that horse is a gelding, because he would have been possibly rendered useless as a stallion. That medication screws with fertility big time. It is not the greatest medication for long-term use, which it sounds like because of weight problems.

Wasn't O'Neill banned from one of the Breeders' Cup events not too long ago because of some positives? Pretty sure Ellis will get the same treatment.

SuperPickle
12-19-2016, 07:44 PM
i disagree.
Ellis is a class act.



CHRB should consider changing their protocol for dealing with such situations. To have a 10% chance of a failed drug test, and put the trainer, owners, and bettors in such a situation is irresponsible.

I mean if you consider running a horse on performance enhancing drugs in a Championship horse race a "classy" move by that definition he certainly is a class act.

You must be a lot of fun at parties.

dilanesp
12-19-2016, 07:46 PM
Anyone who bets on a race with this horse in it IS masochistic.

Robert Fischer
12-19-2016, 07:50 PM
I mean if you consider running a horse on performance enhancing drugs in a Championship horse race a "classy" move by that definition he certainly is a class act.

You must be a lot of fun at parties.
Not sure that I get the personal comment.



You know Ron Ellis personally?

No, I haven't had the pleasure of meeting him personally.

SuperPickle
12-19-2016, 08:01 PM
Why not tell the public then? Let them know a horse might very well fail a drug test. What is the point of that out of competition testing leading up to the BC if you can't use it for anything. This whole thing stinks to high heaven.

I 100% agree with you on Ellis. He should be hammered. But we all know he won't be. He'll keep running his horses two or three times a year so he can drug them up in between races. I smelled a rat when he skipped the prep race and commented on it. Something was fishy then, I just knew it.

Btw... I just realized the CHRB's best option was to let him run for purse money only.

And we know how that decision would have been greeted in this forum.

Cholly
12-19-2016, 08:11 PM
I mean if you consider running a horse on performance enhancing drugs in a Championship horse race

precisely why the bettors got screwed here

Jeff P
12-19-2016, 08:34 PM
Also, if it wasn't that big a deal, why not tell the public beforehand?

That's a very good question.

Why not be transparent?



-jp

.

cj
12-19-2016, 08:34 PM
Btw... I just realized the CHRB's best option was to let him run for purse money only.

And we know how that decision would have been greeted in this forum.

I think that would have been fine.

outofthebox
12-19-2016, 08:35 PM
Someone should get hammered for this.Stanazolol (Winstrol) is a Class 3, Penalty B on the RCI ruling page. Ist offense is a 15 day and $ 500 fine. That's what were looking at for Ellis.

SG4
12-19-2016, 08:38 PM
I really don't understand all the outrage here.

How are the bettors screwed? If you had the knowledge that one horse was going to have 200 picograms more of steroids in his system than the others, does this all of a sudden alter your handicapping of the race? I'm not a chemist, but from what I can gather this sounds like someone ate a poppy seed yesterday & now they're thrown under the bus for a positive opium test.

Considering 60 days lead time is the recommendation for withdrawal and they gave 68, how can you pin anything on the trainer? Seems to me either new lead time guidelines have to be established or a different threshold for trace amounts. All parties involved were put between a rock and a hard place, but don't see why such anger should be directed to Ellis & his owners here. They're the only ones penalized here when all is said & done, spare me the sadness for the bettors in this instance unless you truly really 100% believe this "drugged" horse's performance was moved up in this situation.

cj
12-19-2016, 08:50 PM
How do we know it was 68 days, the "he said so" rule?

Psychotic Parakeet
12-19-2016, 09:15 PM
This horse sure is a walking pharmacy. His previous trainer got in serious trouble with overages on this horse, like 40 times over the limit on acepromazine use. It is obvious that this horse has some talent, but how much drugs do you need to get him to the races? Sounds like an accident waiting to happen. :/

foregoforever
12-19-2016, 09:20 PM
How do we know it was 68 days, the "he said so" rule?

According to the story on Paulick, the horse ran on Aug 27 and was put on the vet's list on Aug 29, which presumably was a result of Ellis reporting it. The steroid administration requires the horse to be on the list for 60 days. So things seem to add up.

Ellis said the race day test showed less than 200 picograms. I'd like to know the limit and the levels and dates of the out-of-competition tests. This might indicate whether it was reasonable for him to think it a 90% chance that it would clear by race day.

cj
12-19-2016, 09:32 PM
According to the story on Paulick, the horse ran on Aug 27 and was put on the vet's list on Aug 29, which presumably was a result of Ellis reporting it. The steroid administration requires the horse to be on the list for 60 days. So things seem to add up.

Ellis said the race day test showed less than 200 picograms. I'd like to know the limit and the levels and dates of the out-of-competition tests. This might indicate whether it was reasonable for him to think it a 90% chance that it would clear by race day.

That is a lot of presuming. Sport sorely needs documentation system.

Track Phantom
12-19-2016, 11:21 PM
1. Why have out of competition tests and not do anything with them? I would think out of competition tests would be the emphasis for scratching the horse so that you do not have a horse in the BC race have an edge. Seems silly to find an issue and "leave it up to Ellis and the owner" to decide to run. I understand the thought that the horse would be clear after the race but the whole thing seems quite silly to me.

2. This article is a disgrace by Jay Privman. Like CJ said, I wonder if Ellis was part of penning this. It is written in a way to diminish the issue. When I read it, I wonder why they didn't just let this pass and give Ellis an Eclipse award for lifetime integrity instead. This is what happens when the journalists get too close to the people they are reporting on.

3. I agree that transparency is important.

4. When will we have our first Kentucky Derby winner DQ'd for drugs? It's coming.

AltonKelsey
12-19-2016, 11:41 PM
4. When will we have our first Kentucky Derby winner DQ'd for drugs? It's coming.


Sorry, you must have missed the paper that day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dancer's_Image (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dancer's_Imagehttp://)

Track Phantom
12-19-2016, 11:44 PM
Sorry, you must have missed the paper that day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dancer's_Image (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dancer's_Imagehttp://)

I was thinking more modern, drug era times (post 1997).

Track Phantom
12-19-2016, 11:57 PM
Also, in Privman's article, he makes no mention of the 40x over the legal limit of the tranquilizer the horse was given in the debut and the fact that the original trainer, Avila, was suspended for 60 days, after he shipped to horse to CD and won by 14 lengths while being bet down to 2-1.

He makes it seem rather tame (alleged betting coup). I would think mentioning the drug related issue from his debut race was relevant when you are dealing with a drug related DQ on the same horse in a BC race.

cj
12-20-2016, 01:04 AM
The more I read up on this the more it seems this program used by Ellis is just a way to circumvent the steroid rules. Race, juice, wait, race, juice, wait, race, juice, etc.

dilanesp
12-20-2016, 01:12 AM
The more I read up on this the more it seems this program used by Ellis is just a way to circumvent the steroid rules. Race, juice, wait, race, juice, wait, race, juice, etc.

That's how a lot of steroid regimens in track and field happened back in the day.

lamboguy
12-20-2016, 03:03 AM
The more I read up on this the more it seems this program used by Ellis is just a way to circumvent the steroid rules. Race, juice, wait, race, juice, wait, race, juice, etc.that is a very sharp observation. now take into account that the horse that we are talking about is MASOCHISTIC, he happens to be a gelding and produces less testosterone than horses that still have their equipment. in order to run at the level he is attempting to run at he has to devour his food and become very aggressive on the track to compete with the other horses. this is the answer how he does it with steroids that give the horse a huge appetite for food.

Ellis is just one of a bunch of trainers that know how to administer these steroids successfully. this horse just happened to need more time to get the steroid through his body.

it turns out that like everything else in life you have 20% who know how to do something and 80% that don't. that is why we have super trainers, and also why this is a dying game. people read numbers and are much more sophisticated in being able to see these random racing results and have refused to support the game. everyone piles into the 20% that know the secrets and stay away from the other 80%. it makes this a very boring game. at the very highest level of this sport, triple crown races and breeders cups, you see the body of the races composed of a few trainers. a couple of years ago there was a breeders cup turf race that had a field of 14, between 3 trainers they had the majority of the horses qualified for the race and as it turns out those 3 trainer's horse ran 1-2-3-4 for your result. it gets very boring after awhile and even a long time veteran of this like myself is sick and tired of this and probably will give it a rest.

upthecreek
12-20-2016, 06:07 AM
Can we count on the journalistic integrity at TVG to ask Ellis why he didn't scratch?

If they are concerned about not losing wagering dollars, shouldn't this be addressed so they can build trust with their "employer", the wagering public?

Maybe we can get Talamo's wife to ask her dad on camera?
You won't hear one word on TVG about it

upthecreek
12-20-2016, 06:15 AM
i disagree.
Ellis is a class act.



CHRB should consider changing their protocol for dealing with such situations. To have a 10% chance of a failed drug test, and put the trainer, owners, and bettors in such a situation is irresponsible.
I agree I'll give Ellis a pass on this one 35 years training,zero suspensions and only a couple of drug violations Seems he just made a bad decision

lamboguy
12-20-2016, 07:06 AM
I agree I'll give Ellis a pass on this one 35 years training,zero suspensions and only a couple of drug violations Seems he just made a bad decisioni think you miss the point here, Ellis and the others that do this are only part of the problem, the system is rotten to the core.

heres another example on the other side of things, Phipps won't allow Shug to use these PED's and he can't win no more. its not because he's not a great trainer either, the game has a big edge over him and he is no longer a part of the 20%. but the man remains classy and never opens up his mouth even though he knows all about it and tries as hard as anyone. he has gone to being a great dirt trainer into running most his horses on turf against weaker now.

BetHorses!
12-20-2016, 07:53 AM
I'm surprised he had his choice of 8 labs for the split sample. If split comes back negative horse is considered clean...

Dahoss9698
12-20-2016, 08:23 AM
This is an attempt at a coverup on racing's biggest stage.

Maybe it wouldn't be such a big deal if the horses human connections didn't spend yesterday trying to play the "poor me" routine. Plus I can't imagine we'll get much in terms of real reporting consider racing journalists for the most part are allergic to betting. They seem more interested in telling us how classy everyone normally is. Just not when they run a horse they know is dirty.

Assuming that everything was on the up and up and Ellis hasn't just figured out a program....knowing the history of Masochistic, wouldnt you think they'd go out of their way to make sure everything is on the up and up at ALL times?

This incident won't impact my handle at all but it's pretty scary to think if this is going on when EVERYONE is watching, what is happening in an 8k claimer on a Wednesday?

cj
12-20-2016, 08:33 AM
http://www.mn.uio.no/ibv/english/research/news-and-events/news/2013/kortvarig-dopingbruk-kan-ha-permanente-effekter.html

RunDustyRun
12-20-2016, 09:18 AM
The more I read up on this the more it seems this program used by Ellis is just a way to circumvent the steroid rules. Race, juice, wait, race, juice, wait, race, juice, etc.

agreed...TVG hosts always tout Ellis horses first off the claim with 60 plus day lay-offs...

upthecreek
12-20-2016, 09:19 AM
Can we count on the journalistic integrity at TVG to ask Ellis why he didn't scratch?

If they are concerned about not losing wagering dollars, shouldn't this be addressed so they can build trust with their "employer", the wagering public?

Maybe we can get Talamo's wife to ask her dad on camera?
Hear No Evil, See No Evil, Report No Evil

I bet if someone asks Rich Perloff today about it, he wont discuss it.

cj
12-20-2016, 09:21 AM
Interesting comment to the article in the Paulick Report:

Ellis is probably the victim of bad luck but an important question that needs to be asked of the Breeders' Cup board is "does the Breeders Cup condone the use of anabolic steriods in preparing horses to race in Breeders' Cup races?" When U.S. racing put its anabolic steroid policy in place, it opted not to go with a complete ban as trainers and veterinarians made their case at the time that anabolic steroids are useful in energizing horses and restoring their appetite when they return from illness or injury. Most trainers now do what Ellis has done, give them a shot two days after a run and space the races out so that they don't get a positive. But think about this if you are a European trainer coming over to race in the Breeders' Cup. From the 2 March 2015, a racehorse in England (and by proxy Europe as all top horses race in England at some stage) must not be administered an anabolic steroid at any point in its life. Any horse administered an anabolic steroid will face a mandatory stand down period from training for 12 months and ineligible to start in any race in Britain for 14 months. So for the last two years at the Breeders' Cup, the European trainers and owners haven't been able to use steroids if they were required as a 'pick me up'. This in not like Lasix where the Euro's can decide if they want to use raceday Lasix or not. They have no ability to use steroids and the performance benefits it gives. By reading what Ellis and others have said, if he wasn't given a steroid he would probably not have been able to recover to compete at the level he did. Over the past two Breeders' Cup, how many European horses have been beaten by US horses who are being afforded a steroid advantage? Does the Breeders' Cup board condone this unlevel playing field?

http://www.paulickreport.com/news/the-biz/masochistic-disqualified-breeders-cup-sprint-small-amount-steroid/

upthecreek
12-20-2016, 09:26 AM
The more I read up on this the more it seems this program used by Ellis is just a way to circumvent the steroid rules. Race, juice, wait, race, juice, wait, race, juice, etc.
Isnt he playing by the rules that are in place? I dont blame him for figuring away around it, I blame the powers to be
CHANGE THE RULES

cj
12-20-2016, 09:31 AM
Isnt he playing by the rules that are in place? I dont blame him for figuring away around it, I blame the powers to be
CHANGE THE RULES

Sure, I'm all for that. That said, we don't know he plays by the rules. Could very well be he was injected inside the 60 days. He did, after all, fail the drug test.

Dahoss9698
12-20-2016, 09:50 AM
Interesting comment to the article in the Paulick Report:



http://www.paulickreport.com/news/the-biz/masochistic-disqualified-breeders-cup-sprint-small-amount-steroid/
Im sure the people that represent the BC will comment after they are done self promoting and taking selfies. :lol:

Track Phantom
12-20-2016, 09:53 AM
Ellis played by the rules. Don't think he is the issue.

You know, the biggest problem is the guys that are destroying the game by improving maiden claimers into graded stakes horses. We all know who they are. These guys are flat out cheating. Others like Ellis, get dirtied up by affiliation.

Track Phantom
12-20-2016, 09:55 AM
Im sure the people that represent the BC will comment after they are done self promoting and taking selfies. :lol:
This is never ending.

cj
12-20-2016, 10:00 AM
Ellis played by the rules. Don't think he is the issue.

You know, the biggest problem is the guys that are destroying the game by improving maiden claimers into graded stakes horses. We all know who they are. These guys are flat out cheating. Others like Ellis, get dirtied up by affiliation.

I'm not a fan of blindly accepting his explanation. How do we know he didn't inject 45 days out, or 30? The horse, after all, did FAIL a drug test. We don't know Ron Ellis. Could very well be he tried to take advantage of a good reputation.

Personally I doubt he did anything wrong other than not scratching the horse. But I'm not willing to give him a pass on reputation. He screwed up and he should pay a heavy price.

Track Phantom
12-20-2016, 10:08 AM
I'm not a fan of blindly accepting his explanation. How do we know he didn't inject 45 days out, or 30? The horse, after all, did FAIL a drug test. We don't know Ron Ellis. Could very well be he tried to take advantage of a good reputation.

Personally I doubt he did anything wrong other than not scratching the horse. But I'm not willing to give him a pass on reputation. He screwed up and he should pay a heavy price.
You're entitled to that opinion. In listening to him, I tend to believe what he is saying and that his explanation is exactly as it occurred.

This is all a bit over my head, to be honest. Like I mentioned above, the guys that have destroyed the game by improving maiden claimers into graded stakes and jump them up 40 points first off a claim 10 days after the claim, these guys have caused everyone to distrust everything as it relates to the word "drug" and horses. This pessimism hurts guys like Ellis who get caught up in something different. To a lot of people, it's the same thing.

cj
12-20-2016, 10:14 AM
This pessimism hurts guys like Ellis who get caught up in something different. To a lot of people, it's the same thing.

This isn't far from being as bad for the game. Using anabolic steroids on your horses between races so they can't race very often stinks too. Seems to be his MO, not just with this horse.

Dahoss9698
12-20-2016, 10:14 AM
You're entitled to that opinion. In listening to him, I tend to believe what he is saying and that his explanation is exactly as it occurred.

This is all a bit over my head, to be honest. Like I mentioned above, the guys that have destroyed the game by improving maiden claimers into graded stakes and jump them up 40 points first off a claim 10 days after the claim, these guys have caused everyone to distrust everything as it relates to the word "drug" and horses. This pessimism hurts guys like Ellis who get caught up in something different. To a lot of people, it's the same thing.
Perception is reality though for a lot of people. Look at some of the asinine threads on here.

The good news is the slap on the wrist Ellis might get should deter this from happening again

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Track Phantom
12-20-2016, 10:22 AM
This isn't far from being as bad for the game. Using anabolic steroids on your horses between races so they can't race very often stinks too. Seems to be his MO, not just with this horse.
Neither good but hardly the same thing. On one hand, you have a trainer trying to keep a runner in training at a level they have been at. On another hand, you have trainers moving horses up dramatically for the sole purpose of stealing purses (and usually betting money) from others. I don't put them in the same league.

HalvOnHorseracing
12-20-2016, 10:26 AM
I'll add five things.

1. Stanozolol was once marketed as Winstrol, but production was discontinued a few years ago. In order to obtain stanozolol today vets would have to go to a compounding pharmacy and have some made up. This means it is more possible than it was previously for the dosing to vary.

2. Stanozolol has long been the treatment of choice in cases of failure to thrive, or post-surgically (primarily gelding). It works very well as an appetite stimulant and as hormone replacement therapy after gelding. Stanozolol does have anabolic effects.

3. Horses metabolyze the drug at varying rates and in some cases it may take 90 days to clear a horse's system. However, it is uncommon that the drug wouldn't clear a horse's system in 45 days.

4. The amount of the drug in Masochistic's system had no performance enhancing effect on raceday

5. The recommended withdrawal times are just that. They are not part of the standard. This is currently an issue with horsemen, especially considering that some of the withdrawal times are not correlated with the ability of current testing technology to find extremely low concentrations of substances. In other words, why provide a recommended withdrawal time when they are not protective?

cj
12-20-2016, 10:29 AM
I'll add five things.

1. Stanozolol was once marketed as Winstrol, but production was discontinued a few years ago. In order to obtain stanozolol today vets would have to go to a compounding pharmacy and have some made up. This means it is more possible than it was previously for the dosing to vary.

2. Stanozolol has long been the treatment of choice in cases of failure to thrive, or post-surgically (primarily gelding). It works very well as an appetite stimulant and as hormone replacement therapy after gelding. Stanozolol does have anabolic effects.

3. Horses metabolyze the drug at varying rates and in some cases it may take 90 days to clear a horse's system. However, it is uncommon that the drug wouldn't clear a horse's system in 45 days.

4. The amount of the drug in Masochistic's system had no performance enhancing effect on raceday

5. The recommended withdrawal times are just that. They are not part of the standard. This is currently an issue with horsemen, especially considering that some of the withdrawal times are not correlated with the ability of current testing technology to find extremely low concentrations of substances. In other words, why provide a recommended withdrawal time when they are not protective?

Regarding #4, did you read the article I cited? People truly believed the earth was flat too, didn't mean you could sail off the edge. Very good chance it absolutely enhances performance long term.

johnhannibalsmith
12-20-2016, 10:30 AM
The duct-tape answer here seems reasonably obvious. If the testing outlined in this case is more or less protocol, then just establish thresholds that disqualify a horse on the final round of out of competition tests from competing. Don't punish the trainer, he/she hasn't failed a test. But the horse is ineligible. Announce the positive. If connections really decide that they want to stay the disqualification by sending the split out and get destroyed in venues like this for the decision to press on and compete, obviously the post-race testing penalties apply, including in my perfect world a much lengthier ban from the event in the future for the connections in general. Horse protected, bettors protected, trainer protected, various acronyms protected. At least a little better than this predictable nonsense when you have out of competition testing being employed as some kind of lame stalking horse.

Big Peps
12-20-2016, 10:41 AM
Ellis played by the rules. Don't think he is the issue.

You know, the biggest problem is the guys that are destroying the game by improving maiden claimers into graded stakes horses. We all know who they are. These guys are flat out cheating. Others like Ellis, get dirtied up by affiliation.

or all these geniuses that are 40% off the claim, those types

the little guy
12-20-2016, 10:54 AM
Let's see....

...from a personal standpoint, I bet this race, and what I needed the most was a Drefong-Mind Your Biscuits exacta ( my picks are a matter of public record and they were my 1-2 choices...I did not like Masochistic at all ). While I have joked with CJ that I wish I could cash my exacta ( who wouldn't? ), I don't feel cheated at all. If Masochistic had not run, Drefong would have been 8:5, and Mind Your Biscuits likely wouldn't have been second, because there would have been little pace, and likely AP Indian would have sucked along for second given the completely different dynamics.

...on the subject of Privman's piece....Jay is a friend, I should be clear on that, but being my friend hardly absolves people from my obnoxious ridiculing ( just ask CJ ). After I read this thread last night, I was prepared to groan when I read Privman's article given the comments here. I read it twice and have no idea how anyone can criticize his reporting. It was fair and balanced, and I really wish people would read it again. You may disagree with the handling of this issue, or Ellis's behavior, and any number of people involved, but how Privman was wrong totally escapes me.

Personally, I don't believe the 200 picogram overage had anything to do with the results of this race. If you want to complain about whether or not you think some medications should or shouldn't be legal, that's fine, but given none of us have drug records for ALL the horses in this race, we don't really know who used what and when, and thus can't hypothesize on how this affected all contestants. Rich Halvey seems to be far and away the most educated person in this thread on matters of medication, and his opinions carry a lot of weight, at least for me.

I agree with CJ that it sucks that using some medications might keep horses from running more frequently. Frequency of starts is a major issue in this game. However, some horses couldn't race at all without some of these legal and therapeutic medications. Now, I know some will say " then maybe they shouldn't race at all" which I suppose is also fine....but wouldn't that be even less starts then? You can't have it both ways...or whichever way suits you the best at some given moment.

cj
12-20-2016, 10:59 AM
Let's see....

...from a personal standpoint, I bet this race, and what I needed the most was a Drefong-Mind Your Biscuits exacta ( my picks are a matter of public record and they were my 1-2 choices...I did not like Masochistic at all ). While I have joked with CJ that I wish I could cash my exacta ( who wouldn't? ), I don't feel cheated at all. If Masochistic had not run, Drefong would have been 8:5, and Mind Your Biscuits likely wouldn't have been second, because there would have been little pace, and likely AP Indian would have sucked along for second given the completely different dynamics.

...on the subject of Privman's piece....Jay is a friend, I should be clear on that, but being my friend hardly absolves people from my obnoxious ridiculing ( just ask CJ ). After I read this thread last night, I was prepared to groan when I read Privman's article given the comments here. I read it twice and have no idea how anyone can criticize his reporting. It was fair and balanced, and I really wish people would read it again. You may disagree with the handling of this issue, or Ellis's behavior, and any number of people involved, but how Privman was wrong totally escapes me.

Personally, I don't believe the 200 nanogram overage had anything to do with the results of this race. If you want to complain about whether or not you think some medications should or shouldn't be legal, that's fine, but given none of us have drug records for ALL the horses in this race, we don't really know who used what and when, and thus can't hypothesize on how this affected all contestants. Rich Halvey seems to be far and away the most educated person in this thread on matters of medication, and his opinions carry a lot of weight, at least for me.

I agree with CJ that it sucks that using some medications might keep horses from running more frequently. Frequency of starts is a major issue in this game. However, some horses couldn't race at all without some of these legal and therapeutic medications. Now, I know some will say " then maybe they shouldn't race at all" which I suppose is also fine....but wouldn't that be even less starts then? You can't have it both ways...or whichever way suits you the best at some given moment.

I agree with the race part. I joke about it but I know that no way to know the results without Masochistic, plus he was a large part of the reason Mind Your Biscuits was such a high price anyway. Without him, probably not interested.

Privman's piece was fine. My only problem with it was the huge amount of quotes by Ellis. I guess it makes sense since he gave Privman the story, but it made it as much an Ellis PR piece as it was reporting news.

The amount of the overage isn't the problem. It is the time leading up to the overage. We don't really know the effects. My guess is Ellis was trying to play within the rules, but the rules are a mess.

The race spacing is a major issue. I don't know the answer, but only racing every 60 days to give horses time to get clean is a horrible precedent. What would we have missed this year without Masochistic's three starts really?

Track Phantom
12-20-2016, 11:00 AM
...on the subject of Privman's piece.... but how Privman was wrong totally escapes me.
I don't think he was wrong anywhere in his piece. I thought it was far too slanted in an attempt to excuse what happened. I understand why he went that way given who Ellis is and his record but it felt too much like a piece he had to write but wanted to give Ellis a soft landing.

I also felt he should have been more detailed on what happened with this horse in the debut.

Just my opinion.

Track Phantom
12-20-2016, 11:02 AM
The race spacing is a major issue. I don't know the answer, but only racing every 60 days to give horses time to get clean is a horrible precedent. What would we have missed this year without Masochistic's three starts really?
Do you feel this is the reason there is so much time between races with Pletcher runners? He famously has a lot of spacing involved.

cj
12-20-2016, 11:06 AM
Do you feel this is the reason there is so much time between races with Pletcher runners? He famously has a lot of spacing involved.

It makes you wonder. His horses sure seem to deteriorate and vanish often. That said, I have no idea. He is playing within the rules I think since I can't remember his last positive.

HalvOnHorseracing
12-20-2016, 11:08 AM
Regarding #4, did you read the article I cited? People truly believed the earth was flat too, didn't mean you could sail off the edge. Very good chance it absolutely enhances performance long term.
Yes, the muscle building effect the drug may have had remains after the drug has cleared a horse's system. But my discussions with pharmacologists suggest a shot every 60 days is not a sufficient regimen to build the kind of muscle, say, a body builder is looking for. In the article you cited, mice were dosed up for three weeks or something like that. The stanozolol used by track vets is meant as a therapeutic and the dosing reflects it. I did research on the medication back when I was investigating Ferris Allen's case.

But it is also a legal medication, and it is legitimate to ask if it should be a zero-tolerance drug or whether there should be a de minimis level as long as it stays legal. My point is that if you take cocaine and three days later you test positive for the metabolite at picogram levels, you are no longer "high" but clearly you took the drug.

You can solve the problem by making stanozolol illegal.

cj
12-20-2016, 11:09 AM
You can solve the problem by making stanozolol illegal.

Seems that is the case many places outside North America.

o_crunk
12-20-2016, 11:11 AM
...on the subject of Privman's piece....Jay is a friend, I should be clear on that, but being my friend hardly absolves people from my obnoxious ridiculing ( just ask CJ ). After I read this thread last night, I was prepared to groan when I read Privman's article given the comments here. I read it twice and have no idea how anyone can criticize his reporting. It was fair and balanced, and I really wish people would read it again. You may disagree with the handling of this issue, or Ellis's behavior, and any number of people involved, but how Privman was wrong totally escapes me.



Here's the problem with this type of "fair" reporting, IMO.

Privman goes out of his way to frame Ellis as a clean guy citing his history of being an upstanding trainer with regard to positives. Many turf writers do this when positives come to light. It happened w/ Graham Motion. Bill Mott. I get it.

But here's the problem with that: it confuses the public in understanding the issue, it absolves the trainer of responsibility and it blurs the line of what is a positive and what is not a positive.

This last point, I believe in strongly. When you say..."well, he's a good guy, who has a great history, can't be cheating", it throws into question the rules. And maybe the rules do need to be looked at. However, everyone participating knew the rules before hand and the framing of this article makes a mockery of the rules. It's no wonder the public is batsh*t crazy when it comes to positives. It's no wonder the public can't tell the difference between a real positive and a fake one (what I mean by this: what is truly egregious and what is a minor offense).

It's because of this kind of "friendly" journalism that purposely blurs the line on a rule violation. The history doesn't matter. The horse came back positive. It's should not be up for debate or framed in the article if the guy is good or bad. The rules were broken, the explanation and back story really doesn't matter. It does not need to be "framed" as "good guy". No one needs to know that and further, what happens when Privman decides to report on the same issue where a positive is, in his view, not from a "good guy"?

HalvOnHorseracing
12-20-2016, 11:17 AM
I should have my article on Graham Motion's positive for methocarbamol finished in two weeks. I'll just say things are not as clear cut as the short articles may have led people to believe.

JustRalph
12-20-2016, 11:41 AM
i think you miss the point here, Ellis and the others that do this are only part of the problem, the system is rotten to the core.

heres another example on the other side of things, Phipps won't allow Shug to use these PED's and he can't win no more. its not because he's not a great trainer either, the game has a big edge over him and he is no longer a part of the 20%. but the man remains classy and never opens up his mouth even though he knows all about it and tries as hard as anyone. he has gone to being a great dirt trainer into running most his horses on turf against weaker now.

Didn't do anything for Jack van Berg when he cried foul.

So Ron Ellis wins the Derby next year by entering a 1000lb mouse that looks like Jack Lalanne ?

turninforhome10
12-20-2016, 11:41 AM
The thing that I don't get is how did the vet and said horse get administered a drug that is not even made in the states anymore. Winstrol was banned and not available back shortly after the Big Brown fiasco. Was training at the time and had 3 geldings that would not run a lick and quit eating without it. Had to retire them. If Winstrol was available, it was not advertised that you were using it. So is it even legal and how did he get a drug that is not available in the states?

cj
12-20-2016, 11:53 AM
I should have my article on Graham Motion's positive for methocarbamol finished in two weeks. I'll just say things are not as clear cut as the short articles may have led people to believe.

Honest questions...can you point me to an article you've done where you lay the blame at the trainer's feet? Do you have one coming on Ramon Preciado?

cj
12-20-2016, 11:54 AM
This makes you wonder every time a horse skips an obvious target for a race "down the road", doesn't it?

HalvOnHorseracing
12-20-2016, 12:00 PM
The thing that I don't get is how did the vet and said horse get administered a drug that is not even made in the states anymore. Winstrol was banned and not available back shortly after the Big Brown fiasco. Was training at the time and had 3 geldings that would not run a lick and quit eating without it. Had to retire them. If Winstrol was available, it was not advertised that you were using it. So is it even legal and how did he get a drug that is not available in the states?
I told you. It is available through compounding pharmacies.

dilanesp
12-20-2016, 12:01 PM
Let's see....

...from a personal standpoint, I bet this race, and what I needed the most was a Drefong-Mind Your Biscuits exacta ( my picks are a matter of public record and they were my 1-2 choices...I did not like Masochistic at all ). While I have joked with CJ that I wish I could cash my exacta ( who wouldn't? ), I don't feel cheated at all. If Masochistic had not run, Drefong would have been 8:5, and Mind Your Biscuits likely wouldn't have been second, because there would have been little pace, and likely AP Indian would have sucked along for second given the completely different dynamics.

...on the subject of Privman's piece....Jay is a friend, I should be clear on that, but being my friend hardly absolves people from my obnoxious ridiculing ( just ask CJ ). After I read this thread last night, I was prepared to groan when I read Privman's article given the comments here. I read it twice and have no idea how anyone can criticize his reporting. It was fair and balanced, and I really wish people would read it again. You may disagree with the handling of this issue, or Ellis's behavior, and any number of people involved, but how Privman was wrong totally escapes me.

Personally, I don't believe the 200 picogram overage had anything to do with the results of this race. If you want to complain about whether or not you think some medications should or shouldn't be legal, that's fine, but given none of us have drug records for ALL the horses in this race, we don't really know who used what and when, and thus can't hypothesize on how this affected all contestants. Rich Halvey seems to be far and away the most educated person in this thread on matters of medication, and his opinions carry a lot of weight, at least for me.

I agree with CJ that it sucks that using some medications might keep horses from running more frequently. Frequency of starts is a major issue in this game. However, some horses couldn't race at all without some of these legal and therapeutic medications. Now, I know some will say " then maybe they shouldn't race at all" which I suppose is also fine....but wouldn't that be even less starts then? You can't have it both ways...or whichever way suits you the best at some given moment.

I agree with most of this. (And I had Drefong too and posted the pick in the Selections forum here :) )

I do think it goes too far when it refers to "legal and therapeutic medications". That's spin and a deliberate attempt not to use the correct words "drugs" amd "steroids".

Amd I would take apologetics from the industry more seriously if they would use the word "drugs" more and honestly and openly defend the drugging of horses, rather than using euphamisms and hoping we won't notice

cj
12-20-2016, 12:04 PM
From the BC courtesy of Bloodhorse reporter Jeremy Balan.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C0IomgyUkAAjlwS.jpg:large

Spalding No!
12-20-2016, 12:19 PM
Considering 60 days lead time is the recommendation for withdrawal and they gave 68, how can you pin anything on the trainer?
60 days is not the recommended withdrawal.

It is simply the time period that a horse is placed on the Veterinarian's List once it is treated. In fact, only a few years ago, horses were only placed on the list for 30 days.

cj
12-20-2016, 12:24 PM
60 days is not the recommended withdrawal.

It is simply the time period that a horse is placed on the Veterinarian's List once it is treated. In fact, only a few years ago, horses were only placed on the list for 30 days.

Isn't that due to better testing?

Spalding No!
12-20-2016, 12:29 PM
You're entitled to that opinion. In listening to him, I tend to believe what he is saying and that his explanation is exactly as it occurred.

Ron Ellis earlier this year at a CHRB meeting discussing the requirement to transfer veterinary records for claimed horses:

"We don't want to divulge what we've been doing to get that horse to run better. You can't legislate morality. If you think I'm going to tell the truth, I'm just telling you, I'm not."

classhandicapper
12-20-2016, 12:34 PM
But here's the problem with that: it confuses the public in understanding the issue, it absolves the trainer of responsibility and it blurs the line of what is a positive and what is not a positive.


I don't think it's so bad to give the public a balanced explanation. I think you want to give the public a better understanding of the specifics of a case. However, I agree with you about the rules.

Unless I misunderstood the article, these guys absolutely knew they were gambling with a potential positive because of a previous recent test and went ahead anyway. I'm not sure who should have prevented that from happening, but somebody should have.

You can't have guys gambling on getting away with steroid use (or other medications) like this if you already know there's some chance it will come back positive and then have an actual positive come back a few weeks later. It's bad for perception. Who did or didn't benefit from this particular race is irrelevant. Sooner or later one of these cases will matter to a result (or be perceived to matter) and many gamblers, owners, trainers, and riders will get really pissed off and feel screwed.

Rules are rules.

cj
12-20-2016, 12:40 PM
I don't think it's so bad to give the public a balanced explanation. I think you want to give the public a better understanding of the specifics of a case. However, I agree with you about the rules.



Balanced? It was mostly Ellis quotes.

Spalding No!
12-20-2016, 12:45 PM
Isn't that due to better testing?
No, the expansion from 30 days to 60 days was an attempt to effectively ban anabolic steroids without actually doing it. When they were first regulated around 2008, the CHRB found that 4 trainers were responsible for about 40% of all anabolic steroid use. That finding, plus public perception in human sports and international horse racing scandals prompted the change.

In that sense, the argument regarding whether or not the level found in Masochistic was performance enhancing or not is supposed to be moot. It is essentially a "no tolerance" policy without banning the drug completely as in other jurisdictions.

Psychotic Parakeet
12-20-2016, 12:46 PM
This makes you wonder every time a horse skips an obvious target for a race "down the road", doesn't it?

Speaking of things that make you wonder, how about a string of six bullet workouts in-a-row at various distances leading up to the BC?

HalvOnHorseracing
12-20-2016, 12:50 PM
Honest questions...can you point me to an article you've done where you lay the blame at the trainer's feet? Do you have one coming on Ramon Preciado?
I did one on AC Avila and Masochistic that clearly blamed Avila.

http://halveyonhorseracing.com/?p=1270

I did an article on Kirk Ziadie where I clearly noted his guilt.

http://halveyonhorseracing.com/?p=2911

In the article I did on Ferris Allen I clearly said Hector Garcia and Scott Lake were guilty of mis-using stanozolol.

http://halveyonhorseracing.com/?p=1191

In the article I did on Chris Grove I clearly pointed a finger at Julio Cartagena for being the source of nikethamide.

Let me be frank. If you want to read a story about a trainer that violated and was in fact guilty, Paulick, the DRF and the Blood Horse have that story. I'm not interested in republishing a story on a guy who is undoubtedly guilty, and I think Preciado fits that scenario. What exactly would I add to the story? The guilty trainers I've written about I did so because to tell a complete story.

I'm not going to let the inference that I am protecting drug cheats pass. I've made it clear over and over that I firmly believe any trainer who knowingly looks to gain an edge should be punished. But I also believe when ARCI or RMTC are arbitrary in how they set standards, someone needs to call them on it and I seem to be the only one with enough balls to call them out. When the racing commissions do a half-assed job, don't you think someone should tell you when they did? And clearly you aren't going to get that from Paulick, DRF or the BH. You're talking about ruining trainers reputations and careers, and you shouldn't do that casually. Read any article I've done and tell me where I wasn't fair and balanced.

I believe the bad guys should get theirs but the good guys deserve to have the whole story told. I can tell you the people who call me who are simply guilty (and I won't name names) I usually just give my best advice and tell them good luck. I write about trainers who have reason to question the standard they violated or the investigation that the racing commission did. I'm performing a service for the horseplayer that nobody else seems to want to take up. I'm giving you all the details so you can decide just how guilty that trainer is.

cj
12-20-2016, 12:53 PM
I did one on AC Avila and Masochistic that clearly blamed Avila.

http://halveyonhorseracing.com/?p=1270

I did an article on Kirk Ziadie where I clearly noted his guilt.

http://halveyonhorseracing.com/?p=2911

In the article I did on Ferris Allen I clearly said Hector Garcia and Scott Lake were guilty of mis-using stanozolol.

http://halveyonhorseracing.com/?p=1191

In the article I did on Chris Grove I clearly pointed a finger at Julio Cartagena for being the source of nikethamide.

Let me be frank. If you want to read a story about a trainer that violated and was in fact guilty, Paulick, the DRF and the Blood Horse have that story. I'm not interested in republishing a story on a guy who is undoubtedly guilty, and I think Preciado fits that scenario. What exactly would I add to the story? The guilty trainers I've written about I did so because to tell a complete story.

I'm not going to let the inference that I am protecting drug cheats pass. I've made it clear over and over that I firmly believe any trainer who knowingly looks to gain an edge should be punished. But I also believe when ARCI or RMTC are arbitrary in how they set standards, someone needs to call them on it and I seem to be the only one with enough balls to call them out. When the racing commissions do a half-assed job, don't you think someone should tell you when they did? And clearly you aren't going to get that from Paulick, DRF or the BH. You're talking about ruining trainers reputations and careers, and you shouldn't do that casually. Read any article I've done and tell me where I wasn't fair and balanced.

I believe the bad guys should get theirs but the good guys deserve to have the whole story told. I can tell you the people who call me who are simply guilty (and I won't name names) I usually just give my best advice and tell them good luck. I write about trainers who have reason to question the standard they violated or the investigation that the racing commission did. I'm performing a service for the horseplayer that nobody else seems to want to take up. I'm giving you all the details so you can decide just how guilty that trainer is.

I should have checked to see you had them archived. I'm sure I've read them and will be sure to do so again now.

cj
12-20-2016, 12:59 PM
No, the expansion from 30 days to 60 days was an attempt to effectively ban anabolic steroids without actually doing it. When they were first regulated around 2008, the CHRB found that 4 trainers were responsible for about 40% of all anabolic steroid use. That finding, plus public perception in human sports and international horse racing scandals prompted the change.

In that sense, the argument regarding whether or not the level found in Masochistic was performance enhancing or not is supposed to be moot. It is essentially a "no tolerance" policy without banning the drug completely as in other jurisdictions.

Thanks, good info.

HalvOnHorseracing
12-20-2016, 01:02 PM
I agree with most of this. (And I had Drefong too and posted the pick in the Selections forum here :) )

I do think it goes too far when it refers to "legal and therapeutic medications". That's spin and a deliberate attempt not to use the correct words "drugs" amd "steroids".

Amd I would take apologetics from the industry more seriously if they would use the word "drugs" more and honestly and openly defend the drugging of horses, rather than using euphamisms and hoping we won't notice
The term therapeutic medication is a term of precision to designate substances that are on the list of 26 approved medications because that is what they are called. Of course they are drugs in the generic sense. That's not spin. That's not a deliberate attempt to avoid what you think are the correct words. The terms of art - therapeutic medication and drug - are used to distinguish between substances that are legal and for which there are standards and substances that are not legal and for which there are not standards.

Yeah right. You'd take apologetics if they only used the word drugs. Bullshit.

SuperPickle
12-20-2016, 01:07 PM
Let's see....

...from a personal standpoint, I bet this race, and what I needed the most was a Drefong-Mind Your Biscuits exacta ( my picks are a matter of public record and they were my 1-2 choices...I did not like Masochistic at all ). While I have joked with CJ that I wish I could cash my exacta ( who wouldn't? ), I don't feel cheated at all. If Masochistic had not run, Drefong would have been 8:5, and Mind Your Biscuits likely wouldn't have been second, because there would have been little pace, and likely AP Indian would have sucked along for second given the completely different dynamics.

...on the subject of Privman's piece....Jay is a friend, I should be clear on that, but being my friend hardly absolves people from my obnoxious ridiculing ( just ask CJ ). After I read this thread last night, I was prepared to groan when I read Privman's article given the comments here. I read it twice and have no idea how anyone can criticize his reporting. It was fair and balanced, and I really wish people would read it again. You may disagree with the handling of this issue, or Ellis's behavior, and any number of people involved, but how Privman was wrong totally escapes me.

Personally, I don't believe the 200 picogram overage had anything to do with the results of this race. If you want to complain about whether or not you think some medications should or shouldn't be legal, that's fine, but given none of us have drug records for ALL the horses in this race, we don't really know who used what and when, and thus can't hypothesize on how this affected all contestants. Rich Halvey seems to be far and away the most educated person in this thread on matters of medication, and his opinions carry a lot of weight, at least for me.

I agree with CJ that it sucks that using some medications might keep horses from running more frequently. Frequency of starts is a major issue in this game. However, some horses couldn't race at all without some of these legal and therapeutic medications. Now, I know some will say " then maybe they shouldn't race at all" which I suppose is also fine....but wouldn't that be even less starts then? You can't have it both ways...or whichever way suits you the best at some given moment.


Andy I got to disagree with you on three points...

1. You may not think the drugs are performance enhancing but they're banned and every other sport (NBA, NFL, MLB) treats drugs as banned or not banned. What they do is irrelevant.

2. Why are you not outraged by Ellis' actions? Essentially the CHRB and Breeders Cup went to him and said "we think your horse is going to fail a post race drug test you should scratch him we can't scratch him because he technically hasn't done anything wrong but we'd strongly like him not to race." He then ran the horse. Giving you, me, every bettor and every owner and the BC and CHRB the finger. How are people not outraged by him doing this? How does this not make it worse?

3. And I think CJ with agree with this I simply don't think Ron Ellis is telling the truth right now. And I have facts in my corner. Notice only Ellis is claiming the 90% thing. This has been backed up by no one else. (which is a problem with Privman's piece btw. Where's the confirmation on anything Ellis says. Jay got no third party confirmation on Ellis' claims.) So here's the million dollar or $600,000 question. Why did they hold the purse? You work in the industry you know tying up about $600,000 for THAT long is no small thing. If the CHRB and BC were 90% this horse was going to come back clean surely they would have paid the purse. But they didn't. They appear on the surface reasonably confident this horse was going to come back hot.

The 90% thing holds no water with me.

CJ, thoughts on #3?

classhandicapper
12-20-2016, 01:10 PM
Balanced? It was mostly Ellis quotes.

I was speaking in general terms, not referring to any specific article.

lamboguy
12-20-2016, 01:14 PM
today is going to be Ramon's last day, but don't worry about a thing, Mario Serey just got 4 positive tests.

Robert Fischer
12-20-2016, 01:15 PM
I'm not a fan of blindly accepting his explanation. How do we know he didn't inject 45 days out, or 30? The horse, after all, did FAIL a drug test. We don't know Ron Ellis. Could very well be he tried to take advantage of a good reputation.

Personally I doubt he did anything wrong other than not scratching the horse. But I'm not willing to give him a pass on reputation. He screwed up and he should pay a heavy price.

I am a layman when it comes to equine medicine. I can only mention bits and pieces of info that I find to be interesting.

The RMTC withdrawal time for 0.55 mg/kg IM (single dose) Stanozolol seems to be 30 days.
'30-45' days sometimes being listed as a safe recommendation.
If you want to give 250 mg IM (3 doses, 7 days apart), the RMTC lists 60 days withdrawal time.


Also found a somewhat interesting article (http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/109169/anabolic-steroids-still-issue-in-u-s-racing)on Maryland racing, regarding Stanozolol overages, trainers, and withdrawl time protocol...

"Some of the trainers cited suggested they'd been following a withdrawal time of 30 days recommended by a veterinarian, but the race record of horses involved throws some dirt on that explanation. Three of the six horses with stanozolol positives in 2014 at Laurel had started within 23 days of the race in which they had the positive. Home Team Stables' Lady Vivien (http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/thoroughbred/lady-vivien/2009?source=BHonline), trained by Lake, started 22 days before the race in which she tested positive for stanozolol. Joseph Besecker's Kylie's Cozy Kid (http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/thoroughbred/kylies-cozy-kid/2010?source=BHonline), also trained by Lake, started 15 days before the Dec. 18 race he had a positive. Winning Player, owned by Haras Los Samanes Polo Racing and trained by Hector Garcia, started 23 days before her stanozolol positive Dec. 19."


Like I said, I'm a layman when it comes equine medicine, and I don't want to insinuate that the Privman article wasn't hard-hitting, or that a classy gentleman such as Ellis has had any related difficulties with withdrawal times.

The split sample came back with what was a rather small amount of a legal, therapeutic medicine.

HalvOnHorseracing
12-20-2016, 01:17 PM
No, the expansion from 30 days to 60 days was an attempt to effectively ban anabolic steroids without actually doing it. When they were first regulated around 2008, the CHRB found that 4 trainers were responsible for about 40% of all anabolic steroid use. That finding, plus public perception in human sports and international horse racing scandals prompted the change.

In that sense, the argument regarding whether or not the level found in Masochistic was performance enhancing or not is supposed to be moot. It is essentially a "no tolerance" policy without banning the drug completely as in other jurisdictions.
Of course, therein lies the rub. You are absolutely correct that any level is a violation. The question is, given the ultra-sensitivity of current testing machines, is it really fair to call a violation for levels of a legal therapeutic that are so small they are not pertinent to performance. Clearly the point is moot at the moment. ARCI and the RMTC have decided if they can't ban certain substances outright, they'll do it effectively through standards. (see flunixin or methocarbamol) They have the upper hand because most people like the equation (all drugs)=cheating

HalvOnHorseracing
12-20-2016, 01:20 PM
I am a layman when it comes to equine medicine. I can only mention bits and pieces of info that I find to be interesting.

The RMTC withdrawal time for 0.55 mg/kg IM (single dose) Stanozolol seems to be 30 days.
'30-45' days sometimes being listed as a safe recommendation.
If you want to give 250 mg IM (3 doses, 7 days apart), the RMTC lists 60 days withdrawal time.


Also found a somewhat interesting article (http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/109169/anabolic-steroids-still-issue-in-u-s-racing)on Maryland racing, regarding Stanozolol overages, trainers, and withdrawl time protocol...





Like I said, I'm a layman when it comes equine medicine, and I don't want to insinuate that the Privman article wasn't hard-hitting, or that a classy gentleman such as Ellis has had any related difficulties with withdrawal times. The split sample came back with what was a rather small amount of a legal, therapeutic medicine.
I did a full story on that Maryland outbreak of stanozolol positives if you're interested.

http://halveyonhorseracing.com/?p=1191

cj
12-20-2016, 01:29 PM
Andy I got to disagree with you on three points...

1. You may not think the drugs are performance enhancing but they're banned and every other sport (NBA, NFL, MLB) treats drugs as banned or not banned. What they do is irrelevant.

2. Why are you not outraged by Ellis' actions? Essentially the CHRB and Breeders Cup went to him and said "we think your horse is going to fail a post race drug test you should scratch him we can't scratch him because he technically hasn't done anything wrong but we'd strongly like him not to race." He then ran the horse. Giving you, me, every bettor and every owner and the BC and CHRB the finger. How are people not outraged by him doing this? How does this not make it worse?

3. And I think CJ with agree with this I simply don't think Ron Ellis is telling the truth right now. And I have facts in my corner. Notice only Ellis is claiming the 90% thing. This has been backed up by no one else. (which is a problem with Privman's piece btw. Where's the confirmation on anything Ellis says. Jay got no third party confirmation on Ellis' claims.) So here's the million dollar or $600,000 question. Why did they hold the purse? You work in the industry you know tying up about $600,000 for THAT long is no small thing. If the CHRB and BC were 90% this horse was going to come back clean surely they would have paid the purse. But they didn't. They appear on the surface reasonably confident this horse was going to come back hot.

The 90% thing holds no water with me.

CJ, thoughts on #3?

I think it was standard procedure to hold the purse until the actual test results were back. Once he failed it had to be held up. All the extra time was because they were waiting on the test of the split sample.

cj
12-20-2016, 01:33 PM
They have the upper hand because most people like the equation (all drugs)=cheating

The reason people like that is that there are always some that will go too far.

Dahoss9698
12-20-2016, 01:36 PM
Ron Ellis earlier this year at a CHRB meeting discussing the requirement to transfer veterinary records for claimed horses:

"We don't want to divulge what we've been doing to get that horse to run better. You can't legislate morality. If you think I'm going to tell the truth, I'm just telling you, I'm not."
Classy

Robert Fischer
12-20-2016, 02:05 PM
It isn't difficult to read between the lines and see that performance enhancing anabolic steroids continue to remain a part of training racehorses, in spite of a regal stance and tortured language.

A real PED issue remains in our sport, and in addition to anabolic steroids, there are things like blood-doping that make anabolic steroids seem almost tame by comparison.

Setting that aside for a minute, I continue to place at least some of the responsibility on the governing body who allowed a horse with a significant chance of failing the drug test, to race.
The trainer claims there was a 90% chance that the drug would clear his horse's system in time.

Really, we have no idea if 90% is truly accurate. It's a difficult estimate to make, and could even be a kind of figure of speech, essentially meaning "it would probably be out of his system".

If 90% is close to an accurate figure, we are talking 90%pass/10%fail.
10% chance is equivalent to a 9/1 shot.
We've all bet on some 9/1s and higher this year. If we were holding a huge pick 6 ticket with all but a 9/1 covered, we'd all hedge, in a heartbeat.
10% or thereabouts is NOT some miniscule, improbable longshot.
Anything close to 10% is way too high to allow to taint the competition.

If the last out-of-competition drug test shows that there is a significant chance that the horse will fail his raceday drug test because of missing a long-term withdrawal window, it is reasonable to expect protocol that includes removing the horse from competition.

Spalding No!
12-20-2016, 02:43 PM
Of course, therein lies the rub. You are absolutely correct that any level is a violation. The question is, given the ultra-sensitivity of current testing machines, is it really fair to call a violation for levels of a legal therapeutic that are so small they are not pertinent to performance. Clearly the point is moot at the moment. ARCI and the RMTC have decided if they can't ban certain substances outright, they'll do it effectively through standards. (see flunixin or methocarbamol) They have the upper hand because most people like the equation (all drugs)=cheating
Yes, it is fair. The trainers know exactly what they are doing. Many essentially 'titrate' treatments to the day of the horse's next race. For example, if shockwave regulations make a horse ineligible to race for 10 days, you can be certain that many horses will be running w/in a couple of days of being off the list. This is what is known as 'pre-racing' in racing parlance. Anything that comes along the pipe that might help a horse is employed as a 'pre race' regardless of its actual indication. This is the mentality that should broken. If no race day meds is the goal, then the reaction from trainers should not be to have as many drugs in the horse the day before the race.

cj
12-20-2016, 02:53 PM
Yes, it is fair. The trainers know exactly what they are doing. Many essentially 'titrate' treatments to the day of the horse's next race. For example, if shockwave regulations make a horse ineligible to race for 10 days, you can be certain that many horses will be running w/in a couple of days of being off the list. This is what is known as 'pre-racing' in racing parlance. Anything that comes along the pipe that might help a horse is employed as a 'pre race' regardless of its actual indication. This is the mentality that should broken. If no race day meds is the goal, then the reaction from trainers should not be to have as many drugs in the horse the day before the race.

Well said.

bobphilo
12-20-2016, 03:33 PM
Racing is far behind other major sports with it's permissive policy towards anabolic steroids. Even if they are out of a horses system by race day, the increased muscle mass they cause will continue. That's why they are totally taboo in other sports.

lamboguy
12-20-2016, 03:54 PM
today is going to be Ramon's last day, but don't worry about a thing, Mario Serey just got 4 positive tests.Mario is tearing them apart today

classhandicapper
12-20-2016, 04:15 PM
60 days is not the recommended withdrawal.

It is simply the time period that a horse is placed on the Veterinarian's List once it is treated. In fact, only a few years ago, horses were only placed on the list for 30 days.


I always found it interesting that the sudden decline in the average winning Beyer speed figure of top Grade 1 horses started right around the time steroids were "banned". There may have been a lot of reasons for that, but I was always suspicious that steroids was one of them. Then again, we've had quite a few very fast races this year.

SuperPickle
12-20-2016, 06:30 PM
http://www.drf.com/news/masochistic-ellis-could-be-denied-participation-2017-breeders-cup

I really hope he's banned from the BC as well as the horse but given how this area of racing is a constant disappointment I'll be waiting for the announcement he's not.

bobphilo
12-20-2016, 07:25 PM
The number of horses that need anabolic steroids for medical reasons is even more infinitesimal than those that need Lasix as (dubious) anti-bleeding medication.

They're both performance enhancing drugs and have no legitimate place in racing.

Lemon Drop Husker
12-20-2016, 09:02 PM
All I'm reading here is my already cashed WPS ticket on Mind Your Biscuits should be upgraded to an actual WIN, and PLACE, and SHOW winner on each and available line. :jump:...., wait, no..., still a... :mad:

(I'll hold the rest of my thoughts till MYB is tested positive for marijuana.):(

HalvOnHorseracing
12-20-2016, 09:55 PM
The number of horses that need anabolic steroids for medical reasons is even more infinitesimal than those that need Lasix as (dubious) anti-bleeding medication.

They're both performance enhancing drugs and have no legitimate place in racing.
All medications are performance enhancing. If you take ibuprofen for a headache you'll perform better because you don't have a headache.

cj
12-20-2016, 10:30 PM
All medications are performance enhancing. If you take ibuprofen for a headache you'll perform better because you don't have a headache.

I'm pretty sure you know what he means by performance enhancing. Nobody calls ibuprofen performance enhancing.

A performance-enhancing drug is any substance taken by athletes to improve performance. This term is referenced often and typically refers to anabolic steroid use in sports by professional and amateur athletes.

SG4
12-20-2016, 10:33 PM
2. Why are you not outraged by Ellis' actions? Essentially the CHRB and Breeders Cup went to him and said "we think your horse is going to fail a post race drug test you should scratch him we can't scratch him because he technically hasn't done anything wrong but we'd strongly like him not to race." He then ran the horse. Giving you, me, every bettor and every owner and the BC and CHRB the finger. How are people not outraged by him doing this? How does this not make it worse?

3. And I think CJ with agree with this I simply don't think Ron Ellis is telling the truth right now. And I have facts in my corner. Notice only Ellis is claiming the 90% thing. This has been backed up by no one else. (which is a problem with Privman's piece btw. Where's the confirmation on anything Ellis says. Jay got no third party confirmation on Ellis' claims.)....

The 90% thing holds no water with me.

Here's what I don't get in the outrage towards Ellis in this instance - considering the pre-race testing showed the horse was still at levels which would test at a positive, why would he have run the horse if he didn't really believe the levels would come down by race day? The testing was showing it was catching the drug, so it's not like he was putting one over on anyone with some masked steroid. He knew the risks & if a positive test came back all purse money would be redistributed & himself & horse would face a pretty stiff penalty going forward too. He took a shot & it failed, honestly if you had a gelding who was going to be near-favored in a $2 million race, you wouldn't take a chance running him, say if he was even 50-50 or less to pass a drug test?

Now are you saying the big middle finger to the industry by Ellis was in letting some bad press possibly occur several weeks after the event in the dead of winter when nobody cares about racing?

HalvOnHorseracing
12-20-2016, 11:12 PM
I'm pretty sure you know what he means by performance enhancing. Nobody calls ibuprofen performance enhancing.
We've had the Lasix discussion ad nauseam, and why it can be performance enhancing in non-bleeders who take it. It is not a performance enhancer in that it improves heart/lung function (except if it prevents pulmonary bleeding) or builds muscle. We're not going to agree on Lasix use. As for anabolic steroids, the specific drug we are talking about, stanozolol, is given at dosages which limit the anabolic effects. It also has a a very long record of helping horses suffering from failure to thrive or serious appetite loss, again at relatively small doses, and helping horses recover from gelding. If you are going to use anabolic steroids to build extra muscle, you take them at higher doses and at more frequency, which is exactly what the article you cited indicated.

The definition of performance enhancing you cited makes my point. Everything that is therapeutic is performance enhancing at some level. For me, performance enhancing is something that improves heart/lung function or chemically builds muscle.

rastajenk
12-20-2016, 11:13 PM
Now are you saying the big middle finger to the industry by Ellis was in letting some bad press possibly occur several weeks after the event in the dead of winter when nobody cares about racing?Yeah, it would have been much better to air it out two days before the Big Event, wouldn't it?

I tend to agree with SG; I'm not fired up about this. It smells like virtue-signalling in the political realm; a minuscule amount of a legal remedy does not insult the institution of the Breeders Cup, doesn't tip the playing field, doesn't give the finger to bettors, doesn't do any of those things any more than some Ruskies reading emails should invalidate the recent election. And it doesn't deserve any harsher penalty than in any other similar situation in that jurisdiction. It's a sizable purse re-distribution for sure, but that should be about the end of it.

thespaah
12-21-2016, 12:02 AM
This is the worst part:

"Neither the CHRB – whose medical director is Dr. Rick Arthur -- nor the Breeders’ Cup ordered Ellis to scratch. The decision was left to Ellis and Masochistic’s owners."

Basically just flipped the bird to bettors here.
Question I have is such an infinitesimal amount of that substance do anything to enhance the performance of the animal?

Nitro
12-21-2016, 12:06 AM
I read a thread like this and find it anticlimactic with regard to all the fuss that’s being made about a topic that’s permeated this game for decades. Many of those commenting seem to be in denial about the fact that the drugs have been legalized and as a result these inevitable incidents both intentional and accidental will naturally occur. Others make lame excuses for justifying its continued use and even recommend tolerance in situations like this. Either way, does anyone really suppose that any of this bantering is going to change or accomplish anything that will benefit those who support the local game?

it turns out that like everything else in life you have 20% who know how to do something and 80% that don't. that is why we have super trainers, and also why this is a dying game. people read numbers and are much more sophisticated in being able to see these random racing results and have refused to support the game. everyone piles into the 20% that know the secrets and stay away from the other 80%. it makes this a very boring game. at the very highest level of this sport, triple crown races and breeders cups, you see the body of the races composed of a few trainers. a couple of years ago there was a breeders cup turf race that had a field of 14, between 3 trainers they had the majority of the horses qualified for the race and as it turns out those 3 trainer's horse ran 1-2-3-4 for your result. it gets very boring after awhile and even a long time veteran of this like myself is sick and tired of this and probably will give it a rest.Then I came across Lamboguy’s post and realized why I’ve also decided to forgo a lot of the local action. 3 years ago I decided to start playing elsewhere in a racing environment that I later found to be not only transparent, but containing a veracity that’s definitely lacking locally. I soon realized that the racing in Hong Kong surpassed my wildest expectations and why it’s regarded by players all over the world as a first class product. An important part of their regime is the prohibition of administrating drugs to horses racing there. The penalties are swift and severe. In spite of these restrictions they have no problem continuously filling fields with 12 to 14 entries in every race. And better yet the animals can race more frequently because they don’t have to recuperate from the side effects of running with drugs. Everything about their product is superior including the payoffs!

cj
12-21-2016, 12:10 AM
Question I have is such an infinitesimal amount of that substance do anything to enhance the performance of the animal?

The point of the test is they don't want any in a horse's system when it races. If they could test for a lower amount, that would be the threshold. Do you think baseball wants guys juicing up and then stopping just in time to test clean before the regular season begins? Is that really clean?

Don't kid yourself. Ellis knew exactly what he was doing. He took a gamble and lost. The horse basically got back to the barn after his allowance win and was given steroids. It was planned IMO, not some therapeutic treatment for a suffering horse. It was to get the most effect they possibly could from steroids and still come back clean on BC day. Think about it, they passed up a pretty much lock G1 (SA Sprint Championship) to use steroids instead.

So yes, I think there was some performance enhancement. Not from the small amount left in his system, but from being allowed to use steroids and train leading up to a championship race.

Robert Fischer
12-21-2016, 01:03 AM
either that, or a horse that was suffering from a failure to thrive, had a MIRACULOUS recovery! (from very small doses which limit the anabolic effects, of course)
http://oi63.tinypic.com/o5dl07.jpg

Masochistic breezes at Santa Anita Oct. 21 (http://www.paulickreport.com/news/breeders-cup/masochistic-fires-bullet-sprint-friday/)

Sprint favorite Masochistic worked six furlongs for Ron Ellis in a bullet 1:11.60 Friday at Santa Anita, fastest of 21 drills at the distance, the average time of which was 1:14.96.


Masochistic was given fractional times of 35.40, 47 flat and 59.40 by Santa Anita clocker Dane Nelson, with a seven furlong gallop out of 1:24.60.

“It was at least as good as any of his works ever,” said Ellis, who plans one more breeze for the six-year-old California-bred gelding by Sought After, that coming next Saturday.

MONEY
12-21-2016, 01:31 AM
Quote from the article.
University of California at Davis, showing less than 200 picograms – a picogram being one-trillionth of a gram – of the drug in the horse’s blood.

The horse had about 200 picograms of drugs in his system.

The total weight of 200 picograms is .00000000002 of a gram.
In my opinion since the drug is legal on non race days, they should not be testing for picograms.

If they are going to test for such minuscule amounts, they should just stop allowing the drug.

Having said the above, Ellis knew that testing for ridiculously small amounts was being done, so he should not have allowed the horse to run. He deserves to be suspended for being stupid.

Spalding No!
12-21-2016, 01:52 AM
We've had the Lasix discussion ad nauseam, and why it can be performance enhancing in non-bleeders who take it. It is not a performance enhancer in that it improves heart/lung function (except if it prevents pulmonary bleeding) or builds muscle.
Lasix improves heart function by altering blood pressure. It also alkalinizes blood which delays fatigue, similar to milkshaking. On top of that it rids the body very quickly of body weight in the range of 30 lbs.

We're not going to agree on Lasix use. As for anabolic steroids, the specific drug we are talking about, stanozolol, is given at dosages which limit the anabolic effects.
Actually stanozolol is designed to maximize anabolic effects over masculinizing effects relative to the parent hormone testosterone. It's only effect essentially is anabolic. The standard dose at the track is the recommended dose, not some 'limited' amount.

It also has a a very long record of helping horses suffering from failure to thrive or serious appetite loss, again at relatively small doses, and helping horses recover from gelding.
Which of these does a racehorse fit into? It wouldn't be able to race or train if it was in a severe catabolic state.

If you are going to use anabolic steroids to build extra muscle, you take them at higher doses and at more frequency, which is exactly what the article you cited indicated.
Interestingly, Masochistic has been on the Vet List multiple times this year for steroids.

lamboguy
12-21-2016, 03:16 AM
good horses eat real well, horses that eat real well train real well, horses that train well run good.

steroids make horses eat good. if we want a game that allows its stars to be on steroids then just make it public and every trainer will either put his horses on steroids so that he can compete at the top level or otherwise go to another track where every horse doesn't use steroids. but to run horses and let them get their heads chopped up because you are not on steroids is ludicrous.,

in today's world, you show me a great trainer that wins big races and i can prove to you that he is just like Ellis or he has another trick to circumvent the system.

upthecreek
12-21-2016, 06:22 AM
EDITED by CJ:

Vic is a member here with many posts. If he wants to post here he is free to do so. No posting by proxy.

Track Phantom
12-21-2016, 06:43 AM
Don't kid yourself. Ellis knew exactly what he was doing. He took a gamble and lost. The horse basically got back to the barn after his allowance win and was given steroids. It was planned IMO, not some therapeutic treatment for a suffering horse. It was to get the most effect they possibly could from steroids and still come back clean on BC day. Think about it, they passed up a pretty much lock G1 (SA Sprint Championship) to use steroids instead.
This process is within bounds under the current rules, right? If he had scratched the horse 3 days before the BC, would there still be outrage regarding this method (if, in fact, there is outrage)?

classhandicapper
12-21-2016, 08:40 AM
This process is within bounds under the current rules, right? If he had scratched the horse 3 days before the BC, would there still be outrage regarding this method (if, in fact, there is outrage)?

I believe the problem is he didn't scratch.

I'm rather extreme on issues like these. So take what I am saying with a grain of salt. I think horses should be treated the way a responsible parent would treat their own child. I would not drug my kids between games to gain a small advantage on the ball field.

However, even if you are less extreme, imo CJ is correct. It gives a bad appearance when people are studying the rules and looking for ways to circumvent them so they can continue to gain an unfair advantage using drugs or other treatments.

Track Phantom
12-21-2016, 09:03 AM
I believe the problem is he didn't scratch.

I'm rather extreme on issues like these. So take what I am saying with a grain of salt. I think horses should be treated the way a responsible parent would treat their own child. I would not drug my kids between games to gain a small advantage on the ball field.

However, even if you are less extreme, imo CJ is correct. It gives a bad appearance when people are studying the rules and looking for ways to circumvent them so they can continue to gain an unfair advantage using drugs or other treatments.
I agree on the appearance of it. But when you're responsible for these horses, which can bring multi-millions of dollars both in racing and breeding to the connections, there are always going to be people "gaming" the system, for a lack of a better term.

Either it's legal to follow this path or not. Whether it's ethically acceptable or not wont change things.

lamboguy
12-21-2016, 09:06 AM
I believe the problem is he didn't scratch.

I'm rather extreme on issues like these. So take what I am saying with a grain of salt. I think horses should be treated the way a responsible parent would treat their own child. I would not drug my kids between games to gain a small advantage on the ball field.

However, even if you are less extreme, imo CJ is correct. It gives a bad appearance when people are studying the rules and looking for ways to circumvent them so they can continue to gain an unfair advantage using drugs or other treatments.if this had happened to Baffert or Chad Brown they would have scratched their horses. but those guys have many more that compete in the Breeders Cup than what Ellis has.

to think that Ellis is the only one using this method to get his horses to run faster is naive. the question here should be whether we want to get rid of PED's altogether so that the game is played on a more level playing field. there are trainers that will never in a million years subject their horses to these substances and they don't win races. is the game that hard up that they need to allow horses to run that were drugged up while training?

classhandicapper
12-21-2016, 09:07 AM
I agree on the appearance of it. But when you're responsible for these horses, which can bring multi-millions of dollars both in racing and breeding to the connections, there are always going to be people "gaming" the system, for a lack of a better term.

Either it's legal to follow this path or not. Whether it's ethically acceptable or not wont change things.


Agreed.

I guess I was extending the conversation toward my view that we need tighter controls.

Tom
12-21-2016, 10:11 AM
Steve Byk, ATR, Tuesday, Hour #1 - Ron Ellis the guest, explains the whole incident.

HalvOnHorseracing
12-21-2016, 11:21 AM
Lasix improves heart function by altering blood pressure. It also alkalinizes blood which delays fatigue, similar to milkshaking. On top of that it rids the body very quickly of body weight in the range of 30 lbs.
As I said, we've had the discussion about Lasix and improved performance and I'm not interested in rehashing it. The primary benefit for horses that are not serious bleeders is the weight loss, although 30 pounds would be at the upper end of the range. And yes, in the hypothetical lower blood pressure can make it easier to pump blood, but in race horses the change would be moderate. And comparing Lasix to milkshaking is hardly fair.

Actually stanozolol is designed to maximize anabolic effects over masculinizing effects relative to the parent hormone testosterone. It's only effect essentially is anabolic. The standard dose at the track is the recommended dose, not some 'limited' amount.
You misunderstood. My use of the term limited referenced the number of doses, not the amount of the dose, the point being that the anabolic effect would be limited at that dosing. Give anyone a single standard dose of testosterone and measure the change in muscle mass two months later, if you can find a change. You don't get Barry Bonds muscles with limited dosing. And like Lasix, not all horses will receive the "standard" dose. I don't know what Masochistic was dosed at, but I know plenty of trainers who are dosing Lasix at well below the "standard" dosage.

Which of these does a racehorse fit into? It wouldn't be able to race or train if it was in a severe catabolic state.
You know better than that. Failure to thrive has a range of presentation, and plenty of racehorses can suffer from loss of appetite for various reasons and in various manifestations. Loss of appetite is going to be caught be the trainer long before the horse starts breaking down metabolically. Ostensibly Masochistic was given stanozolol because he did not eat well. That is the category THIS racehorse fit into.

Interestingly, Masochistic has been on the Vet List multiple times this year for steroids.
I don't know the whole story. But as I've said, if racing commissions don't want to fight this fight, or deal with the perception issues, make the drug illegal. But if Ellis was using the drug as intended for legitimate therapeutic reasons, so it goes.

Racetrack Playa
12-21-2016, 11:34 AM
Steve Byk, ATR, Tuesday, Hour #1 - Ron Ellis the guest, explains the whole incident.
http://stevebyk.com/broadcast/hour-1-ron-ellis/

Spalding No!
12-21-2016, 11:47 AM
And comparing Lasix to milkshaking is hardly fair.
And yet some jurisdictions have a contingency in their total bicarbonate screening protocol that accounts for lasix administration (i.e., if the horse receives lasix its held to a different--higher--threshold for blood bicarbonate).

I guess since lasix imparts a whole heap of benefits, but only in modest amounts, it cannot be considered performance enhancing. Just like limited amounts of steroids.

You misunderstood. My use of the term limited referenced the number of doses, not the amount of the dose, the point being that the anabolic effect would be limited at that dosing. Give anyone a single standard dose of testosterone and measure the change in muscle mass two months later, if you can find a change. You don't get Barry Bonds muscles with limited dosing.
I just told you that Masochistic has been on the CHRB Vet List multiple times for steroid administration this year. Doesn't that constitute the "multiple doses" required for your Barry Bonds-standard threshold?

Talk about unfair comparison. The horse's drug regimen has to resemble the purported worse offender in Baseball in order for you to call it performance enhancing?

You know better than that. Failure to thrive has a range of presentation, and plenty of racehorses can suffer from loss of appetite for various reasons and in various manifestations. Loss of appetite is going to be caught be the trainer long before the horse starts breaking down metabolically. Ostensibly Masochistic was given stanozolol because he did not eat well. That is the category THIS racehorse fit into.
Again, this is the mentality that ruins the use of therapeutic medication in racehorses. Transient loss of appetite is not an indication to administer steroids. One missed meal and the horse is on its way to cachexia? This is laughable.

That said, the reality is what CJ suggested: the administration was planned post-race. They didn't even wait for a missed oat. It had nothing to do with the horse's current condition, but rather its future entries.

I don't know the whole story. But as I've said, if racing commissions don't want to fight this fight, or deal with the perception issues, make the drug illegal. But if Ellis was using the drug as intended for legitimate therapeutic reasons, so it goes.
But he's not using it for legitimate therapeutic reasons.

bobphilo
12-21-2016, 11:53 AM
I believe the problem is he didn't scratch.

I'm rather extreme on issues like these. So take what I am saying with a grain of salt. I think horses should be treated the way a responsible parent would treat their own child. I would not drug my kids between games to gain a small advantage on the ball field.

However, even if you are less extreme, imo CJ is correct. It gives a bad appearance when people are studying the rules and looking for ways to circumvent them so they can continue to gain an unfair advantage using drugs or other treatments.

Amen. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

bobphilo
12-21-2016, 12:02 PM
And yet some jurisdictions have a contingency in their total bicarbonate screening protocol that accounts for lasix administration (i.e., if the horse receives lasix its held to a different--higher--threshold for blood bicarbonate).

I guess since lasix imparts a whole heap of benefits, but only in modest amounts, it cannot be considered performance enhancing. Just like limited amounts of steroids.


I just told you that Masochistic has been on the CHRB Vet List multiple times for steroid administration this year. Doesn't that constitute the "multiple doses" required for your Barry Bonds-standard threshold?

Talk about unfair comparison. The horse's drug regimen has to resemble the purported worse offender in Baseball in order for you to call it performance enhancing?


Again, this is the mentality that ruins the use of therapeutic medication in racehorses. Transient loss of appetite is not an indication to administer steroids. One missed meal and the horse is on its way to cachexia? This is laughable.

That said, the reality is what CJ suggested: the administration was planned post-race. They didn't even wait for a missed oat. It had nothing to do with the horse's current condition, but rather its future entries.


But he's not using it for legitimate therapeutic reasons.

Excellent exposition. Remember how Russian tennis players, including Maria Sharapova, would claim that the performance enhancing drug they were taking was prescribed by a doctor for a cardiac problem. At least the International Tennis Federation saw through this bullshit. Why doesn't U.S.? racing?

foregoforever
12-21-2016, 12:12 PM
You know better than that. Failure to thrive has a range of presentation, and plenty of racehorses can suffer from loss of appetite for various reasons and in various manifestations. Loss of appetite is going to be caught be the trainer long before the horse starts breaking down metabolically. Ostensibly Masochistic was given stanozolol because he did not eat well. That is the category THIS racehorse fit into.

You've obviously researched this extensively, so let me ask you. Is "failure to thrive" used as a euphemism to justify dosing horses with steroids?

When I look up the term on the web, the presentations that I see typically involve clear signs of emaciation - ribs showing, bone projection, etc. The treatment involves an extensive search for, and treatment of, underlying causes. Steroids are generally not mentioned.

Where anabolic steroids are mentioned, they are in the context of recovery from injury and/or illness.

I've seen photos of Masochistic from his previous race, and he definitely didn't fit these cases. Perhaps he wasn't eating as much as his trainer would like. Human athletes often have similar problems with maintaining their weight in training. We don't grant humans an exception to use steroids just for this reason. The ability to maintain weight and strength while training heavily is one of the things that separates top athletes from the rest of us.

So to my generally suspicious mind, all this seems to be a means of taking a medication that is therapeutic in extreme cases and then classifying it as therapeutic in a very different situation, all to justify its use as a performance enhancer.

bobphilo
12-21-2016, 12:17 PM
good horses eat real well, horses that eat real well train real well, horses that train well run good.

steroids make horses eat good. if we want a game that allows its stars to be on steroids then just make it public and every trainer will either put his horses on steroids so that he can compete at the top level or otherwise go to another track where every horse doesn't use steroids. but to run horses and let them get their heads chopped up because you are not on steroids is ludicrous.,

in today's world, you show me a great trainer that wins big races and i can prove to you that he is just like Ellis or he has another trick to circumvent the system.
Oh, so since steroid use is rampant we should be permissive about its use. The fact that it is so rampant, is all the more reason to crack down on and make an example of trainers that game the system. Throw the book at all those responsible and see how fast these abuses stop.
Of course, I'm assuming we want to protect the bettors and preserve the integrity of the sport.

lamboguy
12-21-2016, 12:27 PM
Oh, so since steroid use is rampant we should be permissive about its use. The fact that it is so rampant, is all the more reason to crack down on and make an example of trainers that game the system. Throw the book at all those responsible and see how fast these abuses stop.
Of course, I'm assuming we want to protect the bettors and preserve the integrity of the sport.i race horses without steroids and watch my horses go backwards after they race against loaded up horses, so i am probably one of the last ones to want steroids. but these these trainers are in control, not me, and they are legally allowed to use them. of course the bettors that are not in the know lack that information. if they can't get rid of PED's at the least they should make the betting public aware of the horses that are on them. if they chose to do out of competition testing and get rid of them they there is no problem and the best solution.

Spalding No!
12-21-2016, 12:55 PM
if they can't get rid of PED's at the least they should make the betting public aware of the horses that are on them.
The CHRB Veterinarian's List is public information. There is probably a link to it on the Santa Anita website.

I believe many jurisdictions do the same. Definitely NYRA has a link.

HalvOnHorseracing
12-21-2016, 01:44 PM
And yet some jurisdictions have a contingency in their total bicarbonate screening protocol that accounts for lasix administration (i.e., if the horse receives lasix its held to a different--higher--threshold for blood bicarbonate).
I'd be happy to explain how RMTC came up with the TCO2 standard.
http://halveyonhorseracing.com/?p=555

Yes, some jurisdictions make an allowance for horses on Lasix because the dehydration ostensibly changes the concentration. but it is a small amount amount. But, in general jurisdictions with one standard make allowances for the Lasix bump. So the CA standard of 37 mmol/L accounts for a potential Lasix bump, and you may see a standard of 35/37 mmol/L in jurisdictions that make a distinction.

And by the way, you can tell whether a horse was milkshaked as opposed to just overly dehydrated based on sodium levels.

I guess since lasix imparts a whole heap of benefits, but only in modest amounts, it cannot be considered performance enhancing. Just like limited amounts of steroids.
As I said, we've already had discussions about the performance enhancing effect of Lasix, and I agree that it has effects for both bleeders and non-bleeders. But, I also said everything therapeutic is performance enhancing. What Lasix doesn't do is change body morphology like steroids do.

I just told you that Masochistic has been on the CHRB Vet List multiple times for steroid administration this year. Doesn't that constitute the "multiple doses" required for your Barry Bonds-standard threshold? Talk about unfair comparison. The horse's drug regimen has to resemble the purported worse offender in Baseball in order for you to call it performance enhancing?
The dosing to turn skinny Pittsburgh Pirate Barry Bonds into incredible hulk San Francisco Giant Barry Bonds is bigger and more regular than Masochisitc likely got. Frankly, if I were in charge I would ban stanozolol except as treatment post surgery or where the diagnosis of failure to thrive has been confirmed by an independent state vet. But I'm not in charge and it is a legal therapeutic with a standard that is supposed to be protective. The argument about stanozolol is with veterinarians who convinced ARCI that it was a necessary therapeutic, not those who use it as intended.

Again, this is the mentality that ruins the use of therapeutic medication in racehorses. Transient loss of appetite is not an indication to administer steroids. One missed meal and the horse is on its way to cachexia? This is laughable.

That said, the reality is what CJ suggested: the administration was planned post-race. They didn't even wait for a missed oat. It had nothing to do with the horse's current condition, but rather its future entries.
I'll bet your doctor has a good idea of your health issues and may prescribe medication prophylactically. If you have every reason to believe the horse will become symptomatic, why would you not treat it? Whether or not the treatment with stanozolol was necessary, it was legal, and as I said, change the standard or ban the drug or change how a horse can get that treatment.

But he's not using it for legitimate therapeutic reasons.
Your opinion. Perhaps the full story will emerge.

upthecreek
12-21-2016, 01:45 PM
The more I read up on this the more it seems this program used by Ellis is just a way to circumvent the steroid rules. Race, juice, wait, race, juice, wait, race, juice, etc.
According to Ellis on Byk's radio show, Masochistic received 2 shots ALL YEAR
He said there was nothing nefarious going on

cj
12-21-2016, 01:48 PM
Quote from the article.
University of California at Davis, showing less than 200 picograms – a picogram being one-trillionth of a gram – of the drug in the horse’s blood.

The horse had about 200 picograms of drugs in his system.

The total weight of 200 picograms is .00000000002 of a gram.
In my opinion since the drug is legal on non race days, they should not be testing for picograms.

If they are going to test for such minuscule amounts, they should just stop allowing the drug.

Having said the above, Ellis knew that testing for ridiculously small amounts was being done, so he should not have allowed the horse to run. He deserves to be suspended for being stupid.

You are correct, it should be banned. It is certainly not allowed so trainers can use it like Ellis attempted to do here. This is the danger of allowing horses to be drugged. Somebody will always push it too far. Look what has happened with Lasix.

cj
12-21-2016, 01:52 PM
This process is within bounds under the current rules, right? If he had scratched the horse 3 days before the BC, would there still be outrage regarding this method (if, in fact, there is outrage)?

I doubt we would have ever heard the real reason the horse was scratched, so probably not. This may actually turn out to be a good thing as a drugging practice has been exposed. We are talking about a horse that was IN TRAINING skipping a G1 to be on steroids instead for the big day.

cj
12-21-2016, 01:52 PM
According to Ellis on Byk's radio show, Masochistic received 2 shots ALL YEAR
He said there was nothing nefarious going on

LOL, criminals would love to have you on the jury.

upthecreek
12-21-2016, 01:53 PM
LOL, criminals would love to have you on the jury.
So Ron Ellis is a liar?

cj
12-21-2016, 01:54 PM
I agree on the appearance of it. But when you're responsible for these horses, which can bring multi-millions of dollars both in racing and breeding to the connections, there are always going to be people "gaming" the system, for a lack of a better term.

Either it's legal to follow this path or not. Whether it's ethically acceptable or not wont change things.

Winstrol was legal not too long ago. Things like this expose what is going on and lead to change. I'm glad he got caught.

upthecreek
12-21-2016, 01:54 PM
LOL, criminals would love to have you on the jury.
what Ellis did was LEGAL How bout we go after the guys using ILLEGAL stuff, like Preciado for one.

cj
12-21-2016, 01:55 PM
So Ron Ellis is a liar?

I don't know, but I'm not going to blindly accept what he says at face value. I'd be foolish to do so.

cj
12-21-2016, 01:56 PM
what Ellis did was LEGAL How bout we go after the guys using ILLEGAL stuff, like Preciado for one.

It wasn't legal, which is why a quarter million dollars in purse money was forfeited.

upthecreek
12-21-2016, 01:57 PM
LOL, criminals would love to have you on the jury.
I suggest you listen to the interview Seems like a straight shooter to me and did everything he supposed to do
Enough said

cj
12-21-2016, 01:58 PM
You've obviously researched this extensively, so let me ask you. Is "failure to thrive" used as a euphemism to justify dosing horses with steroids?

When I look up the term on the web, the presentations that I see typically involve clear signs of emaciation - ribs showing, bone projection, etc. The treatment involves an extensive search for, and treatment of, underlying causes. Steroids are generally not mentioned.

Where anabolic steroids are mentioned, they are in the context of recovery from injury and/or illness.

I've seen photos of Masochistic from his previous race, and he definitely didn't fit these cases. Perhaps he wasn't eating as much as his trainer would like. Human athletes often have similar problems with maintaining their weight in training. We don't grant humans an exception to use steroids just for this reason. The ability to maintain weight and strength while training heavily is one of the things that separates top athletes from the rest of us.

So to my generally suspicious mind, all this seems to be a means of taking a medication that is therapeutic in extreme cases and then classifying it as therapeutic in a very different situation, all to justify its use as a performance enhancer.

I have to admit I have no idea what this "failure to thrive" thing is. Can I go to my doctor and get some drugs because I'm sure after a tennis match and don't feel like doing laundry that day? I'm just not thriving around the house after exercise. Maybe I need some steroids. :)

upthecreek
12-21-2016, 01:58 PM
It wasn't legal, which is why a quarter million dollars in purse money was forfeited.
Im talking about the drug he used No its not legal race day

HalvOnHorseracing
12-21-2016, 01:58 PM
You've obviously researched this extensively, so let me ask you. Is "failure to thrive" used as a euphemism to justify dosing horses with steroids?

When I look up the term on the web, the presentations that I see typically involve clear signs of emaciation - ribs showing, bone projection, etc. The treatment involves an extensive search for, and treatment of, underlying causes. Steroids are generally not mentioned.

Where anabolic steroids are mentioned, they are in the context of recovery from injury and/or illness.

I've seen photos of Masochistic from his previous race, and he definitely didn't fit these cases. Perhaps he wasn't eating as much as his trainer would like. Human athletes often have similar problems with maintaining their weight in training. We don't grant humans an exception to use steroids just for this reason. The ability to maintain weight and strength while training heavily is one of the things that separates top athletes from the rest of us.

So to my generally suspicious mind, all this seems to be a means of taking a medication that is therapeutic in extreme cases and then classifying it as therapeutic in a very different situation, all to justify its use as a performance enhancer.
Obviously Masochistic wasn't halfway to skin and bones. If I read the Ellis explanation correctly, Masochistic is a small horse who had a tendency to not eat post race. If true, the treatment with Stanozolol was meant to keep the horse from losing muscle mass because he wouldn't eat normally. In my experience, stanozolol is commonly used post surgery (especially gelding) as an aid in recovery. No doubt, stanozolol may prevent loss of muscle mass post race or speeds recovery from racing stress, but I don't believe it should be used willy nilly. I can't say this definitively, but I don't think stanozolol is used widely post race. The vets I've talked to have said there are limited cases in which its use is appropriate.

The issue is that you have a horse like Masochistic that you want to keep on the track and if that means using stanozolol, well, it's legal. I'm not saying it's a good thing. Just a legal thing.

cj
12-21-2016, 01:59 PM
I suggest you listen to the interview Seems like a straight shooter to me and did everything he supposed to do
Enough said

Except, or course, scratch the horse.

I really don't need to listen the interview. I already know what he said happened because it is all in the Privman article, which Ellis mostly penned.

upthecreek
12-21-2016, 01:59 PM
It wasn't legal, which is why a quarter million dollars in purse money was forfeited.

Rich Perloff yesterday to an emailer
"Legal substance, end of Discussion"

upthecreek
12-21-2016, 02:00 PM
Except, or course, scratch the horse.

I really don't need to listen the interview. I already know what he said happened because it is all in the Privman article, which Ellis mostly penned.
I just think there are far worse trainers than Ellis, doing far worse things

upthecreek
12-21-2016, 02:03 PM
Im listening now, they are talking about old school training, hay and oats and they use to give horses arsenic to increase appetite I never heard that before

HalvOnHorseracing
12-21-2016, 02:03 PM
I have to admit I have no idea what this "failure to thrive" thing is. Can I go to my doctor and get some drugs because I'm sure after a tennis match and don't feel like doing laundry that day? I'm just not thriving around the house after exercise. Maybe I need some steroids. :)
NSAIDS will do the trick.

Lots of TV commercials these days about "Low T." At some point your doc may recommend hormone replacement.

Racetrack Playa
12-21-2016, 02:06 PM
Winstrol And Stanozolol are the same thing stabanol
Ellis seems to believe otherwise , according to the interview

cj
12-21-2016, 02:07 PM
I just think there are far worse trainers than Ellis, doing far worse things

I don't doubt that either. But if we allow it at the top of the game, what hope do we have at the lower ends? I despise training by chemistry and this whole thing reeks of it to me whether Ellis is a good guy or not.

upthecreek
12-21-2016, 02:08 PM
EDITED by CJ:

Vic is a member here with many posts. If he wants to post here he is free to do so. No posting by proxy.
Sorry didnt know we werent allowed to quote Twitter

cj
12-21-2016, 02:09 PM
Obviously Masochistic wasn't halfway to skin and bones. If I read the Ellis explanation correctly, Masochistic is a small horse who had a tendency to not eat post race. If true, the treatment with Stanozolol was meant to keep the horse from losing muscle mass because he wouldn't eat normally. In my experience, stanozolol is commonly used post surgery (especially gelding) as an aid in recovery. No doubt, stanozolol may prevent loss of muscle mass post race or speeds recovery from racing stress, but I don't believe it should be used willy nilly. I can't say this definitively, but I don't think stanozolol is used widely post race. The vets I've talked to have said there are limited cases in which its use is appropriate.

The issue is that you have a horse like Masochistic that you want to keep on the track and if that means using stanozolol, well, it's legal. I'm not saying it's a good thing. Just a legal thing.

Even if all this is true, that is terrible for horse racing. Of course we have no idea if any of it is true or just an excuse to get an edge. But either way it should be gone and I hope this is the catalyst for that change.

cj
12-21-2016, 02:09 PM
Rich Perloff yesterday to an emailer
"Legal substance, end of Discussion"

Co-worker.

Robert Fischer
12-21-2016, 02:10 PM
We need to do a better job in the future with out-of-competition testing that indicates a high probability of a failed race day test.


As far as the BIG PED problem?
Governing sports bodies generally have two fronts; Rules, and Propaganda.

As fans, bettors, purists, etc... most of us would prefer that the Rules be such that detectable PEDs were removed from the game.

Is that possible??
Horse racing is a unique situation with elements such as geldings. I don't have any special veterinarian knowledge, of how to answer the 'geldings need steroids' claim, issue.

You are also going to have a strong general push back from trainers across the board, if PEDs like Stanozolol were to be ruled-out.

Racing does a decent job on the Propaganda front.

While sports like the NFL or NBA tell you that they are strictly tested, and then headline former MVPs over 30 coming off of knee surgery looking like body builders, or squeezing out one more MVP/Prime season in the midst of advertising/shoe/endorsement battles that involve a billion dollars...
Horse Racing tells you they are strictly tested, while at the same time calling the PEDs "legal, therapeutic medicine".

Either way, if you look too long, you are left looking at a steaming pile of horseshit.

cj
12-21-2016, 02:10 PM
Sorry didnt know we werent allowed to qoute Twitter

No big deal there, you obviously can, but not in Vic's case. I think that is fair since he can and does post here. PA can correct me if wrong.

cj
12-21-2016, 02:12 PM
NSAIDS will do the trick.

Lots of TV commercials these days about "Low T." At some point your doc may recommend hormone replacement.


Nice try but I don't have low T.

HalvOnHorseracing
12-21-2016, 02:24 PM
Nice try but I don't have low T.
Statistics say you will!

cj
12-21-2016, 02:42 PM
Statistics say you will!

Undoubtedly :)

upthecreek
12-21-2016, 02:50 PM
NSAIDS will do the trick.

Lots of TV commercials these days about "Low T." At some point your doc may recommend hormone replacement.


http://www.healthline.com/health/low-testosterone/natural-boosters

PaceAdvantage
12-21-2016, 03:09 PM
No big deal there, you obviously can, but not in Vic's case. I think that is fair since he can and does post here. PA can correct me if wrong.He asked me to make it so he can't post here anymore...I guess he lacked the self control to just stop on his own...

cj
12-21-2016, 03:12 PM
He asked me to make it so he can't post here anymore...I guess he lacked the self control to just stop on his own...

Even more reason not to have his tweets posted, he doesn't want his stuff here :)

upthecreek
12-21-2016, 03:21 PM
Even more reason not to have his tweets posted, he doesn't want his stuff here :)
Fair Enough :ThmbUp:

cj
12-21-2016, 03:50 PM
Fair Enough :ThmbUp:

All good my man, never mind a discussion even when disagreeing.

the little guy
12-21-2016, 03:57 PM
I wonder if the BC Sprint had anything close to a full field if the BC would have let him run?

Dahoss9698
12-21-2016, 04:00 PM
Rich Perloff yesterday to an emailer
"Legal substance, end of Discussion"
Ellis works for TVG right?

HalvOnHorseracing
12-21-2016, 04:23 PM
He asked me to make it so he can't post here anymore...I guess he lacked the self control to just stop on his own...
I know the feeling

HalvOnHorseracing
12-21-2016, 04:44 PM
Even if all this is true, that is terrible for horse racing. Of course we have no idea if any of it is true or just an excuse to get an edge. But either way it should be gone and I hope this is the catalyst for that change.
There are a couple of important things. Unless NA does what Europe did and declares a lifetime ban on steroid use, you can't do better than have a zero-tolerance standard for stanozolol on race day. Stanozolol is a legal substance that is available to veterinarians, and if they decide to treat a horse with it, as long as there is no trace on race day that's that. I offered a compromise of sorts to have stanozolol used only post surgery or in cases of horses with "eating disorders" they must be certified by the state medical director.

Track Phantom
12-21-2016, 05:07 PM
Think new players will read this thread and say to themselves "yeah, this is a game I want to learn"?

Let's see, add up numbers from a deck of cards, pull a lever or spend 8 years learning more about science and math than Einstein. Which of these things are less likely to attract new gamblers?

Whew...

Redboard
12-21-2016, 05:20 PM
I'm surprised stanozolol is legal. NYRA has banned it. Maybe this is why there have been so many good west coast 3YrOlds lately.

lamboguy
12-21-2016, 05:30 PM
I'm surprised stanozolol is legal. NYRA has banned it. Maybe this is why there have been so many good west coast 3YrOlds lately. i think it has been banned since the first quarter of 2016 by NYRA. a real good move on their part even though they might be paying a price for it right now.

also 1 of the reason's why NYRA doesn't deserve to get bashed all the time.

HalvOnHorseracing
12-21-2016, 05:47 PM
I'm surprised stanozolol is legal. NYRA has banned it. Maybe this is why there have been so many good west coast 3YrOlds lately.
I think every jurisdiction has gone to zero-tolerance for stanozolol, and if I recall, NYRA was the last place to do so. The NYRA rule actually went into effect in September. I think one of the differences for the NYRA rule is that if a horse tests positive, the horse is suspended from racing, although I'm not sure how long the ban lasts. I believe the naturally occurring steroids, nandrolone, boldenone and testosterone are still legal for therapeutic use in NY. I also believe a vet could use stanozolol, since it is not an illegal drug, but of course it needs to be completely out of the horse's system on raceday.

cj
12-21-2016, 07:32 PM
I wonder if the BC Sprint had anything close to a full field if the BC would have let him run?

I've wondered the same thing.

Maximillion
12-21-2016, 08:09 PM
One of his former horses entered in the 4th at Penn on Friday, and if you look closely at the performances while he had him- and the almost precise timing of the layoffs preceding them it does make you wonder.

Maximillion
12-21-2016, 08:23 PM
One of his former horses entered in the 4th at Penn on Friday, and if you look closely at the performances while he had him- and the almost precise timing of the layoffs preceding them it does make you wonder.

I meant Thursday not Friday.

rastajenk
12-21-2016, 09:14 PM
Makes you wonder what?

cj
12-21-2016, 09:37 PM
Makes you wonder what?

I thought it was pretty obvious, no?

menifee
12-22-2016, 02:36 AM
He asked me to make it so he can't post here anymore...I guess he lacked the self control to just stop on his own...

Vic Stauffer self-banned from Pace Advantage? I have heard of people self-banning from gambling websites or casinos, but never from a message board. For some reason, I cannot stop laughing when I think about this.

I like Vic a lot so I hope he reconsiders. He is a tremendous handicapper and a really good tournament player.

menifee
12-22-2016, 03:14 AM
Here is a link to the Vet's list in California. Really full of information for the handicapper:

http://www.chrb.ca.gov/misc_docs/VetlistDATE.pdf

The main problem with American horse racing is that the sport has completely failed to enter the information age. It permeates the entire sport and is fairly remarkable for 2016. As a smart poster noted before, compare the HK product to the American product.

1. Does a horse have soundness issue or what drugs is the horse on? (no disclosure)
2. What are the true odds of the horse? (you'll know after the race goes off). Even then we still fail to present the odds in decimals.
3. What is the trainer and jockey's intent in a race (you'll know when your lone speed horse is being strangled to the back in the first quarter of a mile)
4. Why did the stewards dq your horse (you can find out from a report published on a website a month after the race)(we won't let you watch the stewards deliberations)

There are many more countless examples. I could get into the reasons why the sport is stuck in the 1980's, but when your industry is primarily run by entities subsidized with slot handouts and regulated by state commissioners who are inept it is pretty simple to figure out why.

PaceAdvantage
12-22-2016, 08:50 AM
I know the feelingOy...

Track Phantom
12-22-2016, 09:43 AM
Here is a link to the Vet's list in California. Really full of information for the handicapper:

http://www.chrb.ca.gov/misc_docs/VetlistDATE.pdf

The main problem with American horse racing is that the sport has completely failed to enter the information age. It permeates the entire sport and is fairly remarkable for 2016. As a smart poster noted before, compare the HK product to the American product.

1. Does a horse have soundness issue or what drugs is the horse on? (no disclosure)
2. What are the true odds of the horse? (you'll know after the race goes off). Even then we still fail to present the odds in decimals.
3. What is the trainer and jockey's intent in a race (you'll know when your lone speed horse is being strangled to the back in the first quarter of a mile)
4. Why did the stewards dq your horse (you can find out from a report published on a website a month after the race)(we won't let you watch the stewards deliberations)

There are many more countless examples. I could get into the reasons why the sport is stuck in the 1980's, but when your industry is primarily run by entities subsidized with slot handouts and regulated by state commissioners who are inept it is pretty simple to figure out why.
Best post I've read on here in a long, long time. Couldn't agree more with everything you said here!

Redboard
12-22-2016, 09:54 AM
He asked me to make it so he can't post here anymore...I guess he lacked the self control to just stop on his own...

Now that’s Vic’s the public face of a major track, he certainly did the right thing in retiring from this board. As we all know, he’s not the type who can “stifle himself” when he has an opinion. He now has to be careful that he doesn’t do anything stupid which might jeopardize his job. If you want to follow him, sign up for his twitter handle. @goofonroof It’s a feather in one’s cap for a celeb to have a lot of followers. He’s currently on vacation and plans to attend eight Broadway shows next week. We are all looking forward to his calls at Oaklawn next year, most of us anyway.

Spalding No!
12-22-2016, 11:43 AM
Now that’s Vic’s the public face of a major track, he certainly did the right thing in retiring from this board. As we all know, he’s not the type who can “stifle himself” when he has an opinion. He now has to be careful that he doesn’t do anything stupid which might jeopardize his job. If you want to follow him, sign up for his twitter handle. @goofonroof It’s a feather in one’s cap for a celeb to have a lot of followers. He’s currently on vacation and plans to attend eight Broadway shows next week. We are all looking forward to his calls at Oaklawn next year, most of us anyway.
That's funny, because he's all over the DRF website in re: Ellis.

As far as being careful with his comments, he suggested that someone's brain could be measured in picograms after they failed to post an opinion that was congruent with his own.

Personally, I think his twitter comments should be fair game since he's a "public face".

Jeff P
12-22-2016, 12:22 PM
12/21/2016 Bloodhorse.com article by Frank Angst
Racing's Anabolic Steroid Problem Not Solved:
http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/218542/racings-anabolic-steroid-problem-not-solved

Racing regulators currently are moving forward on changes to out-of-competition rules that would require horses treated with any anabolic steroid to spend at least six months on the vet's list. The rule would help ensure that a horse receiving such treatments is out of training.

The model rule, approved by the Association of Racing Commissioners International earlier this month, would require at least six months on the vet's list for any horse receiving stanozolol, boldenone, nandrolone, or testosterone treatments. Breeders' Cup president Craig Fravel said the updated rules would help remove anabolic steroids from the training environment.

"The new out-of-competition rules basically preclude in-competition use of anabolic agents," Fravel said. "We'd like to see those get adopted as soon as possible and the vet's list requirement would be six months. That might not be as much as overseas, but it's a lot better than 60 days."

A step in the right direction if you ask me.

-jp

.

lamboguy
12-22-2016, 12:31 PM
this would be a big game changer. let us not forget that clen beuterol is also used as a steroid and must be in this mix as well as other drugs.

cj
12-22-2016, 12:39 PM
Personally, I think his twitter comments should be fair game since he's a "public face".

That is a good point. I had just seen a week or so ago somebody was passing on words directly from Vic, posting by proxy. I didn't want that to become a thing.

If somebody wants to post his tweets here for discussion, that is fine.

cj
12-22-2016, 02:57 PM
I thought it was pretty obvious, no?

Check out the horse Fashioned Gem from this chart:

http://www.equibase.com/premium/chartEmb.cfm?track=SA&raceDate=10/02/2016&cy=USA&rn=2

He was claimed that day by Ellis and went on the vet list for 60 days two days later. Gee, I wonder what he gave the horse? Hasn't run back yet but has been working plenty. This one also happens to be a filly.

Looking back through the vet lists Ellis does this often, almost like standard procedure.

cj
12-22-2016, 03:07 PM
http://www.paulickreport.com/news/ray-s-paddock/questions-remain-steroids-likely-breeders-cup-dq-masochistic/

Ray Paulick's take on the steroid issue.

HalvOnHorseracing
12-22-2016, 04:22 PM
http://www.paulickreport.com/news/ray-s-paddock/questions-remain-steroids-likely-breeders-cup-dq-masochistic/

Ray Paulick's take on the steroid issue.
Let me start by saying it wouldn't bother me in the least for racing to ban stanozolol. Paulick correctly points out that the current system doesn't ban stanozolol, it simply sets a zero tolerance standard. If I'm not mistaken, Europe, on the other hand, says, use a steroid and the horse is finished.

As long as it is essentially a legal therapeutic medication you're going to have issues like you had with Ellis.

I actually think he glossed over the picogram issue AND the BS that is the "recommended withdrawal time." When you look at the RMTC therapeutic substance list, the withdrawal times are not part of the standard. Now you can say, trainers should know, but when they are essentially being told you're safe after X days, and you can prove you followed the recommendation, it starts to sound like a "gotcha" system.

Because I am familiar with a lot of the ways standards were established, I can tell you some of them are meant as a back door way to ban the drug. You'll see this when I publish on methocarbamol. You saw it with flunixin. They set the standard at 20 ng/ml and withdrawal time at 24 hours. The study they used recommended a standard of 49 ng/ml at 24 hours to ensure almost no positives. When the standard that they adopted started returning up to 25% positives at 24 hours, instead of fixing the standard they changed the withdrawal time to 32 hours, a point at which almost the entire therapeutic value of flunixin is gone. Which was the point. ARCI would like to see trainers not use the medication.

If you want to ban all the therapeutics, including Lasix, fine. But if they are legal, set a proper standard. People have accused me of being pro-drug. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I just don't think you should ruin somebody's career if they did everything you asked of them to do the right thing, especially when you've set a BS standard. If they try to gain an edge, punish them. But otherwise, use some common sense.

Robert Fischer
12-22-2016, 04:49 PM
Changing the terminology used to categorize Stanozolol from "therapeutic" to "performance enhancing", seems like a good start.

cj
12-22-2016, 04:54 PM
Let me start by saying it wouldn't bother me in the least for racing to ban stanozolol. Paulick correctly points out that the current system doesn't ban stanozolol, it simply sets a zero tolerance standard. If I'm not mistaken, Europe, on the other hand, says, use a steroid and the horse is finished.

As long as it is essentially a legal therapeutic medication you're going to have issues like you had with Ellis.

I actually think he glossed over the picogram issue AND the BS that is the "recommended withdrawal time." When you look at the RMTC therapeutic substance list, the withdrawal times are not part of the standard. Now you can say, trainers should know, but when they are essentially being told you're safe after X days, and you can prove you followed the recommendation, it starts to sound like a "gotcha" system.

Because I am familiar with a lot of the ways standards were established, I can tell you some of them are meant as a back door way to ban the drug. You'll see this when I publish on methocarbamol. You saw it with flunixin. They set the standard at 20 ng/ml and withdrawal time at 24 hours. The study they used recommended a standard of 49 ng/ml at 24 hours to ensure almost no positives. When the standard that they adopted started returning up to 25% positives at 24 hours, instead of fixing the standard they changed the withdrawal time to 32 hours, a point at which almost the entire therapeutic value of flunixin is gone. Which was the point. ARCI would like to see trainers not use the medication.

If you want to ban all the therapeutics, including Lasix, fine. But if they are legal, set a proper standard. People have accused me of being pro-drug. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I just don't think you should ruin somebody's career if they did everything you asked of them to do the right thing, especially when you've set a BS standard. If they try to gain an edge, punish them. But otherwise, use some common sense.

My only problem with Ellis is I think he used the rules to the advantage of gaining an edge on the track, not to do what was best for the horse. I've been looking over some vet's lists and his name is on there a lot with 60 day designations. It seems to be a routine for him rather than actual training. I'm not saying he is the only one doing it, because he certainly isn't.

Guys are abusing the rule so the next logical step is to ban the drug.

o_crunk
12-22-2016, 04:58 PM
Let me start by saying it wouldn't bother me in the least for racing to ban stanozolol. Paulick correctly points out that the current system doesn't ban stanozolol, it simply sets a zero tolerance standard. If I'm not mistaken, Europe, on the other hand, says, use a steroid and the horse is finished.

As long as it is essentially a legal therapeutic medication you're going to have issues like you had with Ellis.

I actually think he glossed over the picogram issue AND the BS that is the "recommended withdrawal time." When you look at the RMTC therapeutic substance list, the withdrawal times are not part of the standard. Now you can say, trainers should know, but when they are essentially being told you're safe after X days, and you can prove you followed the recommendation, it starts to sound like a "gotcha" system.

Because I am familiar with a lot of the ways standards were established, I can tell you some of them are meant as a back door way to ban the drug. You'll see this when I publish on methocarbamol. You saw it with flunixin. They set the standard at 20 ng/ml and withdrawal time at 24 hours. The study they used recommended a standard of 49 ng/ml at 24 hours to ensure almost no positives. When the standard that they adopted started returning up to 25% positives at 24 hours, instead of fixing the standard they changed the withdrawal time to 32 hours, a point at which almost the entire therapeutic value of flunixin is gone. Which was the point. ARCI would like to see trainers not use the medication.

If you want to ban all the therapeutics, including Lasix, fine. But if they are legal, set a proper standard. People have accused me of being pro-drug. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I just don't think you should ruin somebody's career if they did everything you asked of them to do the right thing, especially when you've set a BS standard. If they try to gain an edge, punish them. But otherwise, use some common sense.

From my understanding, after listening to the parade of vets and docs on Byk the last two days, Stanozolol comes from compounders and there's a pretty wide variance in what one single dose will do depending on where it came from. One of the docs even said they tested the potency of a batch and it was found to have less than 1% of what compunder claimed.

It would seem to make sense to me that there should be a zero tolerance for a drug that essentially could contain anything according to the docs / vets on Byk.

lamboguy
12-22-2016, 05:08 PM
Let me start by saying it wouldn't bother me in the least for racing to ban stanozolol. Paulick correctly points out that the current system doesn't ban stanozolol, it simply sets a zero tolerance standard. If I'm not mistaken, Europe, on the other hand, says, use a steroid and the horse is finished.

As long as it is essentially a legal therapeutic medication you're going to have issues like you had with Ellis.

I actually think he glossed over the picogram issue AND the BS that is the "recommended withdrawal time." When you look at the RMTC therapeutic substance list, the withdrawal times are not part of the standard. Now you can say, trainers should know, but when they are essentially being told you're safe after X days, and you can prove you followed the recommendation, it starts to sound like a "gotcha" system.

Because I am familiar with a lot of the ways standards were established, I can tell you some of them are meant as a back door way to ban the drug. You'll see this when I publish on methocarbamol. You saw it with flunixin. They set the standard at 20 ng/ml and withdrawal time at 24 hours. The study they used recommended a standard of 49 ng/ml at 24 hours to ensure almost no positives. When the standard that they adopted started returning up to 25% positives at 24 hours, instead of fixing the standard they changed the withdrawal time to 32 hours, a point at which almost the entire therapeutic value of flunixin is gone. Which was the point. ARCI would like to see trainers not use the medication.

If you want to ban all the therapeutics, including Lasix, fine. But if they are legal, set a proper standard. People have accused me of being pro-drug. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I just don't think you should ruin somebody's career if they did everything you asked of them to do the right thing, especially when you've set a BS standard. If they try to gain an edge, punish them. But otherwise, use some common sense.no one in the world is questioning the intentions that Ron Ellis had. they allowed him to use the drug, they warned him that the drug my test positive and he decided to roll the dice.

the bigger issue is that all these "therapeutic" substances carry side effects, like good chances of ruining the horse's kidneys and putting a few holes in his stomach. but aside from that, the customer's of the sport don't know ahead of time if the horse is on these "therapeutic" substances. and they are forced to be on a guess while others might be in the know.

do you get the picture now?

Dahoss9698
12-22-2016, 05:17 PM
My only problem with Ellis is I think he used the rules to the advantage of gaining an edge on the track, not to do what was best for the horse. I've been looking over some vet's lists and his name is on there a lot with 60 day designations. It seems to be a routine for him rather than actual training. I'm not saying he is the only one doing it, because he certainly isn't.

Guys are abusing the rule so the next logical step is to ban the drug.
That's why I thought it was silly the way everyone rushed to defend Ellis and Siegel essentially because they are nice.

Ellis has always had strong numbers off the claim so people paying attention knew he had found an edge.

Seems like they rolled the dice, lost and then played dumb. And I still see bettors defending them. Amazing

cj
12-22-2016, 05:31 PM
...And I still see bettors defending them. Amazing


Boggles the mind. This guy doesn't give two craps about bettors.

Tom
12-22-2016, 05:43 PM
When you listen to his interview with Byk, it is pretty clear he is trying to blame everyone but himself. Never once did I get the impression he cared at all about the rules of the bettors.

He was whining like a baby.
The man has no integrity.

HalvOnHorseracing
12-22-2016, 05:48 PM
From my understanding, after listening to the parade of vets and docs on Byk the last two days, Stanozolol comes from compounders and there's a pretty wide variance in what one single dose will do depending on where it came from. One of the docs even said they tested the potency of a batch and it was found to have less than 1% of what compunder claimed.

It would seem to make sense to me that there should be a zero tolerance for a drug that essentially could contain anything according to the docs / vets on Byk.
I mentioned that stanozolol was compounded a while back in the thread, and yes that is a problem in terms of consistency. But saying there should be zero tolerance because there are occasional compounding issues makes no sense at all. Zero tolerance is just a ban through the back door, and I say if you want to ban it, ban it outright.

HalvOnHorseracing
12-22-2016, 05:51 PM
My only problem with Ellis is I think he used the rules to the advantage of gaining an edge on the track, not to do what was best for the horse. I've been looking over some vet's lists and his name is on there a lot with 60 day designations. It seems to be a routine for him rather than actual training. I'm not saying he is the only one doing it, because he certainly isn't.

Guys are abusing the rule so the next logical step is to ban the drug.
As I said, I don't have an issue with doing that. Just do it outright.

HalvOnHorseracing
12-22-2016, 06:15 PM
no one in the world is questioning the intentions that Ron Ellis had. they allowed him to use the drug, they warned him that the drug my test positive and he decided to roll the dice.

the bigger issue is that all these "therapeutic" substances carry side effects, like good chances of ruining the horse's kidneys and putting a few holes in his stomach. but aside from that, the customer's of the sport don't know ahead of time if the horse is on these "therapeutic" substances. and they are forced to be on a guess while others might be in the know.

do you get the picture now?
That was my point you heard whizzing by your head. For about the millionth time, I've only argued that if you are going to have legal therapeutics, set reasonable and protective standards. And if you don't want drugs, ban them and see how that works out.

There are plenty of legal substances - you almost certainly take some of them - that have side effects. In fact, it's hard to find one that doesn't have side effects. Just listen to a TV commercial for a drug.

But, the other side is that if you use the medications as intended and dosed correctly, unless you are one of the "sensitive" population you are likely to do just fine. The reason there are standards for therapeutics is to prevent abuse. The point is that if you are going to have legal therapeutics, you should set standards for their use to be protective of the animals, but at the same time remain effective as therapeutics.

If your issue is that some trainers will essentially abuse medications, we all know that. If you didn't have such an inept enforcement system, perhaps you could find them and weed them out. If your point is that we should ban effective therapeutics, that makes as much sense as banning Robitussin because some chucklehead decided to use it to get high.

If you want to argue that there should be medication records for horses, I've long been on record as making that publicly available. Put the trainers in the sunshine and see if they get away with whatever you are concerned about them getting away with.

Spalding No!
12-22-2016, 07:34 PM
I actually think he glossed over the picogram issue AND the BS that is the "recommended withdrawal time." When you look at the RMTC therapeutic substance list, the withdrawal times are not part of the standard. Now you can say, trainers should know, but when they are essentially being told you're safe after X days, and you can prove you followed the recommendation, it starts to sound like a "gotcha" system.

Because I am familiar with a lot of the ways standards were established, I can tell you some of them are meant as a back door way to ban the drug. You'll see this when I publish on methocarbamol. You saw it with flunixin. They set the standard at 20 ng/ml and withdrawal time at 24 hours. The study they used recommended a standard of 49 ng/ml at 24 hours to ensure almost no positives. When the standard that they adopted started returning up to 25% positives at 24 hours, instead of fixing the standard they changed the withdrawal time to 32 hours, a point at which almost the entire therapeutic value of flunixin is gone. Which was the point. ARCI would like to see trainers not use the medication.

If you want to ban all the therapeutics, including Lasix, fine. But if they are legal, set a proper standard. People have accused me of being pro-drug. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I just don't think you should ruin somebody's career if they did everything you asked of them to do the right thing, especially when you've set a BS standard. If they try to gain an edge, punish them. But otherwise, use some common sense.
The error you are making, as has Privman and Paulick in their articles and Ron Ellis in his explanation, is the equating of what the rules say as far as time required on the Veterinarian's List or the restriction on administration time with some sort of "recommended" withdrawal time.

The recommended withdrawal for stanozolol has absolutely nothing to do with the 60 day time period on the Veterinarian's List. In fact, only a few years ago it was 30 days. The 60 day period was instituted in order to deter the use of the drug for horses actively racing and training. The basic withdrawal time for a single administration of stanozolol at a standard dose is altered radically when multiple doses are given in a short time frame. This probably explains why Masochistic continued to test positive despite despite the feeling by his connections that they allowed enough time for the horse to clear. Their mistake was thinking that the 60 day Vet List was some sort of withdrawal period. Far from it.

As for flunixin, it is an authorized medication up to 24 hours before post time in CA. So no, regulators are not trying to ban flunixin. What regulators might be trying to do is stop people from "stacking" flunixin on top of other authorized drugs in its class, such as Bute. However, none of that means that 24 hours is supposed to be the withdrawal time for flunixin. It is simply the cutoff as to when it can be administered. Administration at 23 hours out, no matter what the dose, would be very illegal.

In fact, based on the 48 hour entry rule, one can give any non-prohibited medication up to 48 hours out. However, that does not mean that the withdrawal time for all legal medications is 48 hours. It is the responsibility of the connections to be aware of the withdrawal times.

The reason we have so many of these "legal drug" positives is that trainers are pre-racing horses in a cookbook fashion with a variety of medications simply because they think they need to throw the kitchen sink at the horse in order to play on a level playing field. Did all of Kiaran McLaughlin's horses need to be on bronchodilators in 2009, leading to several positives? If his horses really had respiratory conditions warranting the use of the drug, why were they even running? Did all of Tom Amoss's multistate runners need to be on methocarbamol in 2011? If his horses really were suffering from muscle spasms, why was he still training and entering them? Were all of Bob Baffert's horses suffering from hypothyroidism, necessitating the entire barn to be on thyroxine?

The answer is obviously "No". What is really happening is that trainers are exploiting the fact that certain drugs technically are "legal" and "therapeutic" in order to use them indiscriminately, especially when a horse is entered to race. What these geniuses don't realize is that it is this sort of abusive and irresponsible behavior that leads to stricter medication rules in the first place.

If this mentality were broken, we wouldn't have to listen to all these classy good guys crying, tweeting, and writing letters to the Paulick Report when they get a bad test. We also might not have to read about owners getting out of the game because their training and veterinary bills are too high.

HalvOnHorseracing
12-22-2016, 08:08 PM
The error you are making, as has Privman and Paulick in their articles and Ron Ellis in his explanation, is the equating of what the rules say as far as time required on the Veterinarian's List or the restriction on administration time with some sort of "recommended" withdrawal time.

The recommended withdrawal for stanozolol has absolutely nothing to do with the 60 day time period on the Veterinarian's List. In fact, only a few years ago it was 30 days. The 60 day period was instituted in order to deter the use of the drug for horses actively racing and training. The basic withdrawal time for a single administration of stanozolol at a standard dose is altered radically when multiple doses are given in a short time frame. This probably explains why Masochistic continued to test positive despite despite the feeling by his connections that they allowed enough time for the horse to clear. Their mistake was thinking that the 60 day Vet List was some sort of withdrawal period. Far from it.

As for flunixin, it is an authorized medication up to 24 hours before post time in CA. So no, regulators are not trying to ban flunixin. What regulators might be trying to do is stop people from "stacking" flunixin on top of other authorized drugs in its class, such as But. However, none of that means that 24 hours is supposed to be the withdrawal time for flunixin. It is simply the cutoff as to when it can be administered. Administration at 23 hours out, no matter what the dose, would be very illegal.

In fact, based on the 48 hour entry rule, one can give any non-prohibited medication up to 48 hours out. However, that does not mean that the withdrawal time for all legal medications is 48 hours. It is the responsibility of the connections to be aware of the withdrawal times.

The reason we have so many of these "legal drug" positives is that trainers are pre-racing horses in a cookbook fashion with a variety of medications simply because they think they need to throw the kitchen sink at the horse in order to play on a level playing field. Did all of Kiaran McLaughlin's horses need to be on bronchodilators in 2009, leading to several positives? If his horses really had respiratory conditions warranting the use of the drug, why were they even running? Did all of Tom Amoss's multistate runners need to be on methocarbamol in 2011? If his horses really were suffering from muscle spasms, why was he still training and entering them? Were all of Bob Baffert's horses suffering from hypothyroidism, necessitating the entire barn to be on thyroxine?

The answer is obviously "No". What is really happening is that trainers are exploiting the fact that certain drugs technically are "legal" and "therapeutic" in order to use them indiscriminately, especially when a horse is entered to race. What these geniuses don't realize is that it is this sort of abusive and irresponsible behavior that leads to stricter medication rules in the first place.

If this mentality were broken, we wouldn't have to listen to all these classy good guys crying, tweeting, and writing letters to the Paulick Report when they get a bad test. We also might not have to read about owners getting out of the game because their training and veterinary bills are too high.
First, there is no recommended withdrawal time. There is no standard - it is a zero tolerance substance, and it is not on the list of 26 approved therapeutics. I've also said a few times that the recommended withdrawal times for therapeutics are just that. There aren't either/or standards. Regardless of how long the withdrawal time is, the standard is still zero for stanozolol.

I've also explained why horsemen have consistently become confused by the standard/recommended withdrawal time. Look at the RMTC list of approved therapeutics and tell me you couldn't possibly mistake the withdrawal guideline for the standard. Trust me, I know a lot of this stuff inside and out because I've made it my business to know.

On Flunixin, the RMTC withdrawal guideline was changed to 32 hours. You're simply wrong if you believe otherwise. You're also wrong that it is illegal to dose the horse at 23 hours. You can take the chance, but again the only operational standard is 20 ng/ml.

Again, if you look at the RMTC schedule, a number of medications are on 72 hour withdrawal, some are at 7 days, some at 14 days. Any jurisdiction that has adopted the RMTC schedule uses those withdrawal times. I don't know where you are getting your information, but it seems half wrong and half dated.

Your argument about whether trainers needed those medications is not with me. I'm not sure why I need to keep saying this, but I am not in favor of the willy-nilly use of medications. I've clearly said that trainers who abuse legal therapeutics should be dealt with. And then I said, but you don't punish the trainers who are using them as intended. I've only said standards for legal therapeutics should be fair and protective of the horse and the public.

cj
12-22-2016, 08:32 PM
First, there is no recommended withdrawal time. There is no standard - it is a zero tolerance substance, and it is not on the list of 26 approved therapeutics. I've also said a few times that the recommended withdrawal times for therapeutics are just that. There aren't either/or standards. Regardless of how long the withdrawal time is, the standard is still zero for stanozolol.

I've also explained why horsemen have consistently become confused by the standard/recommended withdrawal time. Look at the RMTC list of approved therapeutics and tell me you couldn't possibly mistake the withdrawal guideline for the standard. Trust me, I know a lot of this stuff inside and out because I've made it my business to know.

On Flunixin, the RMTC withdrawal guideline was changed to 32 hours. You're simply wrong if you believe otherwise. You're also wrong that it is illegal to dose the horse at 23 hours. You can take the chance, but again the only operational standard is 20 ng/ml.

Again, if you look at the RMTC schedule, a number of medications are on 72 hour withdrawal, some are at 7 days, some at 14 days. Any jurisdiction that has adopted the RMTC schedule uses those withdrawal times. I don't know where you are getting your information, but it seems half wrong and half dated.

Your argument about whether trainers needed those medications is not with me. I'm not sure why I need to keep saying this, but I am not in favor of the willy-nilly use of medications. I've clearly said that trainers who abuse legal therapeutics should be dealt with. And then I said, but you don't punish the trainers who are using them as intended. I've only said standards for legal therapeutics should be fair and protective of the horse and the public.

Do you really think Ellis was confused by the recommended withdrawal times? He seems like a very smart guy and I find that hard to believe.

Do you honestly think Ellis (and others) are using the medications as intended when they give it two days after a successful race or after a claim?

Spalding No!
12-22-2016, 08:49 PM
You're also wrong that it is illegal to dose the horse at 23 hours. You can take the chance, but again the only operational standard is 20 ng/ml.
If it is your business to know, you need to try harder:

In CA, the rules are quite clear (and different from what you are purporting):

Rule 1844: (b) No drug substance, other than authorized bleeder medication, shall be administered to a horse entered to race within 24 hours of the race in which entered.

Rule 1843.5: (g) One of the following non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications may be administered until 24 hours before the post time of the race in which the horse is entered under Rule 1844 of this division: (1) Phenylbutazone; (2) Flunixin; (3) Ketoprofen.

In NY its even stricter, with flunixin administration being prohibited within 48 hours of a race.

Additionally, it is well spelled out in the RMTC's proposed guidelines (see #1 and #2...its the first ones!)

On Flunixin, the RMTC withdrawal guideline was changed to 32 hours. You're simply wrong if you believe otherwise.
For the record, I never said that the recommended withdrawal for flunixin at a 20 ng/ml threshold was not changed to 32 hours. My point was that the restriction on administration within 24 hours of a race had nothing to do with this withdrawal time.

As far as extending the withdrawal time to 32 hours, of course they are going to do this rather than increase the allowable level. They lowered the thresholds for Bute and Ketofen recently, why would they increase flunixin?

Again, if you look at the RMTC schedule, a number of medications are on 72 hour withdrawal, some are at 7 days, some at 14 days. Any jurisdiction that has adopted the RMTC schedule uses those withdrawal times. I don't know where you are getting your information, but it seems half wrong and half dated.
Again, the withdrawal times have nothing to do with the rules regarding administration times.

Your argument about whether trainers needed those medications is not with me. I'm not sure why I need to keep saying this, but I am not in favor of the willy-nilly use of medications. I've clearly said that trainers who abuse legal therapeutics should be dealt with. And then I said, but you don't punish the trainers who are using them as intended. I've only said standards for legal therapeutics should be fair and protective of the horse and the public.
I guess my problem is that I haven't come across a positive that was the result of a trainer using a therapeutic medication "as intended". In general, if a horse has a distinct physical issue that needs treatment, why the F was it ever entered in the first place?

I would like to propose the theory that in the vast majority of cases, the only reason why a horse was treated with a "legal" substance was precisely because it was entered (or going to be entered) to race.

JustRalph
12-22-2016, 09:52 PM
Hell of a thread

HalvOnHorseracing
12-22-2016, 10:33 PM
If it is your business to know, you need to try harder:

In CA, the rules are quite clear (and different from what you are purporting):

Rule 1844: (b) No drug substance, other than authorized bleeder medication, shall be administered to a horse entered to race within 24 hours of the race in which entered.

Rule 1843.5: (g) One of the following non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications may be administered until 24 hours before the post time of the race in which the horse is entered under Rule 1844 of this division: (1) Phenylbutazone; (2) Flunixin; (3) Ketoprofen.

In NY its even stricter, with flunixin administration being prohibited within 48 hours of a race.

Additionally, it is well spelled out in the RMTC's proposed guidelines (see #1 and #2...its the first ones!)
I was quoting the RMTC guidelines, and I've clearly said, for those jurisdictions that have adopted those guidelines. If you're talking about the footnotes on the RMTC schedule, they say

1 Note: Withdrawal Guidelines are for informational purposes only. They do not constitute a guarantee. Additionally, this guidance is based upon administration of a single medication – the combination of any of these medications or addition of other substances may substantially affect the withdrawal times.
2 Note: Administration of albuterol other than via intra-nasal routes is not recommended. Use of therapeutic doses of oral albuterol even outside of the recommended withdrawal guidelines carries a substantial risk of exceeding the regulatory threshold.

NY does specify both the withdrawal time and the blood plasma standard. They use 48 hours for all the NSAIDS. Of course jurisdictions can adopt whatever rules they want. I use the RMTC schedule because it is the most common in the states. But I carefully say that is what I am quoting.

For the record, I never said that the recommended withdrawal for flunixin at a 20 ng/ml threshold was not changed to 32 hours. My point was that the restriction on administration within 24 hours of a race had nothing to do with this withdrawal time.

As far as extending the withdrawal time to 32 hours, of course they are going to do this rather than increase the allowable level. They lowered the thresholds for Bute and Ketofen recently, why would they increase flunixin?

I've said I don't know how many times in this thread that the withdrawal guidelines are not part of the standard. And of course the 24 hour administration was related to the withdrawal time. You're not trying to tell me it was a coincidence that RMTC published the standard with a 24 hour withdrawal guideline and another jurisdiction put a restriction on administration of 24 hours, are you?

No, I was the one who said that the RMTC withdrawal guideline for flunixin was changed from 24 to 32 hours, and I explained why it was changed. Apparently you didn't read that. And you didn't read that the RMTC's own study recommended a standard of 49 ng/ml. And you didn't read that when they published a 20 ng/ml standard with a 24 hour withdrawal guideline they were seeing up to 25% violations, so they changed the withdrawal time to 32 hours.

Of course they are going to increase the withdrawal guideline? Sure, especially considering they set a standard less than half of what their study recommended. The standard was wrong given the purpose of giving a horse flunixin. As I said, this was really a back door attempt to get trainers away from using the medication.

Unless you are bouncing back to CA, the RMTC withdrawal guidelines for Phenylbutazone and Ketoprofen haven't changed from 24 hours for at least the last three years

I guess my problem is that I haven't come across a positive that was the result of a trainer using a therapeutic medication "as intended". In general, if a horse has a distinct physical issue that needs treatment, why the F was it ever entered in the first place?

I would like to propose the theory that in the vast majority of cases, the only reason why a horse was treated with a "legal" substance was precisely because it was entered (or going to be entered) to race.

I guess you haven't read my stuff, because I've documented multiple cases of trainers who followed the dosing and withdrawal times and still wound up with positives. You know the answer to the question of why the horse was entered to race as well as I do, especially if the horse was a bottom level claimer. Treatment with NSAIDS allows a horse with inflammation to race comfortably. Something like acepromazine allows trainers to perform necessary services - horseshoeing or certain grooming activities - on high strung animals. We can argue about whether clenbuterol should be on the list, but the fact is at the moment it is. As I've said over and over, if you're going to put a medication on the legal therapeutic list, set standards that are fair and protective of the horse and the trainer.

As for your theory, i'm pretty sure that a horse that has been taken out of training may still need some meds - I'll bet you know people who take arthritis medication and don't run in races or have heartburn and take Prevacid - to be comfortable, but certainly not most of the things on the RMTC list. Yes, at least some of the treatments (Lasix the most obvious) are related to the horse racing.

HalvOnHorseracing
12-22-2016, 10:50 PM
Do you really think Ellis was confused by the recommended withdrawal times? He seems like a very smart guy and I find that hard to believe.

Do you honestly think Ellis (and others) are using the medications as intended when they give it two days after a successful race or after a claim?
Given what may be Ellis' long term use of stanozolol, I'm sure he was familiar with the withdrawal guideline. But I know from talking to trainers they often look at the standards and withdrawal guidelines as either/or, but in fact only the standard determines a violation. I'm just telling you whether or not these trainers are grasping at straws, it's more common than you'd think.

As for Ellis, I'm tempted to interview him, although I think he's already accepted his guilt. I'm not sure what I would add. Ellis is taking advantage of a rule (or lack thereof) and I'm inclined to split the blame here. If you're not going to make stanozolol illegal, then my recommendation is to limit it's use to post surgery or when failure to thrive has been documented independently by the state medical director.

cj
12-22-2016, 10:53 PM
Given what may be Ellis' long term use of stanozolol, I'm sure he was familiar with the withdrawal guideline. But I know from talking to trainers they often look at the standards and withdrawal guidelines as either/or, but in fact only the standard determines a violation. I'm just telling you whether or not these trainers are grasping at straws, it's more common than you'd think.

As for Ellis, I'm tempted to interview him, although I think he's already accepted his guilt. I'm not sure what I would add. Ellis is taking advantage of a rule (or lack thereof) and I'm inclined to split the blame here. If you're not going to make stanozolol illegal, then my recommendation is to limit it's use to post surgery or when failure to thrive has been documented independently by the state medical director.

I agree with you. I just don't like him getting painted as a saint and "great guy" when anyone with common sense can figure out what he was trying to accomplish.

HalvOnHorseracing
12-22-2016, 11:54 PM
The tough part about these threads, at least for me, is that there is always two discussions going on. One is the drugs are bad and why can't we be Hong Kong discussion. The other is, you have legal, therapeutic medications where the trainer seemingly tried to do the right thing, but there is a violation at a trivial level. And it is often difficult to have the second discussion without the first. My position is that as long as the medications are legal, the first discussion is a different thread. My bias is that there are standards that have been set poorly and are in fact wrong, that there are medications that can have absolutely no performance enhancing effect at picogram levels, that racing commissions are poor at dealing with environmental contamination cases, that the violation prevention programs are all but absent, meaning horseplayers get screwed because nothing is found out until AFTER the result is official, and that the investigations are often amateurish if they are done at all. There are trainers abusing the rules who need to be dealt with, there are guys who simply screw up, and there are guys trying to do the right thing who get caught up in the technical violations. But in my opinion, the standard setters and the standard enforcement people are a part of the problem. Every violation makes racing look bad. The first priority of racing should be to prevent as many violations as possible. The second is to make sure they aren't "gotcha" violations.

cj
12-22-2016, 11:58 PM
The tough part about these threads, at least for me, is that there is always two discussions going on. One is the drugs are bad and why can't we be Hong Kong discussion. The other is, you have legal, therapeutic medications where the trainer seemingly tried to do the right thing, but there is a violation at a trivial level. And it is often difficult to have the second discussion without the first. My position is that as long as the medications are legal, the first discussion is a different thread. My bias is that there are standards that have been set poorly and are in fact wrong, that there are medications that can have absolutely no performance enhancing effect at picogram levels, that racing commissions are poor at dealing with environmental contamination cases, that the violation prevention programs are all but absent, meaning horseplayers get screwed because nothing is found out until AFTER the result is official, and that the investigations are often amateurish if they are done at all. There are trainers abusing the rules who need to be dealt with, there are guys who simply screw up, and there are guys trying to do the right thing who get caught up in the technical violations. But in my opinion, the standard setters and the standard enforcement people are a part of the problem. Every violation makes racing look bad. The first priority of racing should be to prevent as many violations as possible. The second is to make sure they aren't "gotcha" violations.

There is also the problem that trainers are using therapeutic meds for non-therapeutic reasons, so the two tend to run together for me. I don't see any way this horse was on this steroid for medical reasons. The pieces just don't add up.

Robert Fischer
12-23-2016, 12:09 AM
The 'picogram' argument seems weak.

Yes, it's a small number.

Looking at a blood sample, requires using small measurements. Not going to be measuring it in 'grams'.

The rule is "no more than x picograms on raceday".

The story goes that the vet gave Masochistic some tiny therapeutic dose, once, 68 days before the race.
And apparently the reason he still wasn't clean on race day is that he was a slow metabolizer, or it got in his fat cells, or whatever...

Even if you buy that story, when you get up to raceday, if you have more than x picograms in your sample, you shall be disqualified.

The fact that a picogram happens to be small, doesn't make much difference.

Spalding No!
12-23-2016, 02:50 AM
I was quoting the RMTC guidelines, and I've clearly said, for those jurisdictions that have adopted those guidelines. If you're talking about the footnotes on the RMTC schedule, they say
No, not the footnotes. The guidelines were adopted by the Mid-Atlantic states last year in August. The first two rules are:

1. Salix® (furosemide), pursuant to Commission supervised administration, is the only medication that can be administered to a horse within 24 hours of its race.
2. The administration of any adjunct medication within 24 hours of a horse’s race is strictly forbidden.

NY does specify both the withdrawal time and the blood plasma standard. They use 48 hours for all the NSAIDS. Of course jurisdictions can adopt whatever rules they want. I use the RMTC schedule because it is the most common in the states. But I carefully say that is what I am quoting.
I understand your focus is on withdrawal times and threshold levels. Nevertheless, there are rules in place that limit the administration of most substances within specified time periods prior to an entered horse's race. If the withdrawal time for aspirin is 6 hours, that doesn't mean it's legal to give aspirin the morning of the race.

No, I was the one who said that the RMTC withdrawal guideline for flunixin was changed from 24 to 32 hours, and I explained why it was changed. Apparently you didn't read that. And you didn't read that the RMTC's own study recommended a standard of 49 ng/ml. And you didn't read that when they published a 20 ng/ml standard with a 24 hour withdrawal guideline they were seeing up to 25% violations, so they changed the withdrawal time to 32 hours.
Well, what you apparently didn't read was that in fact CA did adopt the 50 ng/ml level for flunixin after the study was reported (i.e., they raised the threshold from 20 ng to 50 ng). However, in the interim, fatalities were at unacceptable levels.

One of the strategies to reduce breakdowns was to lower the thresholds for authorized anti-inflammatories so that pre-race examining veterinarians could get a better assessment of the horses entered to race. Keep in mind that in that respect, the levels of anti-inflammatories are in fact likely still having analgesic effects since the examinations are performed several hours prior to post time.

Of course they are going to increase the withdrawal guideline? Sure, especially considering they set a standard less than half of what their study recommended. The standard was wrong given the purpose of giving a horse flunixin. As I said, this was really a back door attempt to get trainers away from using the medication.
Again, in CA they actually raised the threshold to the recommended level for a few years (between 2007 and 2012).

Great, there weren't any Banamine positives. The problem? We had a bunch of breakdowns.

Which do you prefer?

Unless you are bouncing back to CA, the RMTC withdrawal guidelines for Phenylbutazone and Ketoprofen haven't changed from 24 hours for at least the last three years
The threshold levels have changed. Read up.

You know the answer to the question of why the horse was entered to race as well as I do, especially if the horse was a bottom level claimer. Treatment with NSAIDS allows a horse with inflammation to race comfortably.
Laughable. Yes, NSAIDS are indicated when a horse is suffering from arthritis in an acute fashion.

However, do you realize what is probably not indicated? Entering said horse and running him. Again, this is the mentality that needs to be broken...especially when it comes to low level claimers.

Something like acepromazine allows trainers to perform necessary services - horseshoeing or certain grooming activities - on high strung animals.
How about a dose of horsemanship?

lamboguy
12-23-2016, 03:45 AM
i doubt it makes to much of a difference whether you allow a steroid to be used during the race or not. the horse already has developed a big powerful rear end prior to the day of the race and he is ready to fire over the top of his game. for that matter all other drugs. i know that you can't administer omeprazole 1 week before a race, but they allow a certain amount of the stuff in the body of the horse before they call it an infraction. i think the stuff will still block the acid from coming up even if you stop giving it a week before the race. as far as i know the olympics don't allow any type of antacid's in the system. there are people that stay up late nights figuring out how to beat those olympic tests as well.

HalvOnHorseracing
12-23-2016, 10:17 AM
The 'picogram' argument seems weak.

Yes, it's a small number.

Looking at a blood sample, requires using small measurements. Not going to be measuring it in 'grams'.

The rule is "no more than x picograms on raceday".

The story goes that the vet gave Masochistic some tiny therapeutic dose, once, 68 days before the race.
And apparently the reason he still wasn't clean on race day is that he was a slow metabolizer, or it got in his fat cells, or whatever...

Even if you buy that story, when you get up to raceday, if you have more than x picograms in your sample, you shall be disqualified.

The fact that a picogram happens to be small, doesn't make much difference.
A trillion picograms is a gram. Just as a point of reference, if picograms (trillionths) were seconds, a trillion seconds is 31,700 years. 200 picograms would be the equivalent of three and a half minutes. Three and a half minutes in 31,700 years.

I'll use one other example. If you are at the track and you handle money, it's entirely possible you'd test positive for cocaine at a picogram level. You wouldn't be high on cocaine, and for most employers if you were tested you wouldn't be guilty because the National Institute of Drug Abuse says anything below 300 ng/ml would be de minimis. However, if your horse tested 300 picograms - 1,000 times less than 300 ng - you're guilty.

The argument that the drug has already had its effect is moot since the substance is legal. The question is, should a residual amount that cannot be performance enhancing on raceday, be enough to disqualify? Should there be de minims levels for legal drugs? Zero tolerance for completely illegal substances may make sense, although there have been clear cases of cross-contamination. In my mind it isn't that clear cut for legal substances.

Robert Fischer
12-23-2016, 10:22 AM
you aren't going to find kilograms in a blood sample


either going to be looking for nanograms or picograms

Tom
12-23-2016, 10:32 AM
The only amounts that matter are what is allowed and what was there.
Fair or not is not the issue.

HalvOnHorseracing
12-23-2016, 10:56 AM
i doubt it makes to much of a difference whether you allow a steroid to be used during the race or not. the horse already has developed a big powerful rear end prior to the day of the race and he is ready to fire over the top of his game. for that matter all other drugs. i know that you can't administer omeprazole 1 week before a race, but they allow a certain amount of the stuff in the body of the horse before they call it an infraction. i think the stuff will still block the acid from coming up even if you stop giving it a week before the race. as far as i know the olympics don't allow any type of antacid's in the system. there are people that stay up late nights figuring out how to beat those olympic tests as well.
You actually point out one of the problems with standards - they vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The RMTC withdrawal guideline for omeprezole is 24 hours, and the standard is 10 ng/ml. You're right - Omeprazole is a proton pump inhibitor and essentially suppresses stomach acid secretion. I didn't see it on the WADA list of prohited substances. I also didn't see anything about antacids, but I looked pretty quickly.

HalvOnHorseracing
12-23-2016, 11:05 AM
you aren't going to find kilograms in a blood sample


either going to be looking for nanograms or picograms
Right, but there are levels below which the drug is not having any additional effect. My point is the same. There should be de minims levels for legal therapeutics, and those levels should represent an amount where the substance is no longer efficacious. The jurisdiction allows you to use the substance, so no big surprise there may be residual amounts. I simply don't agree with zero tolerance for legal substances, especially considering other sports have de minims levels for illegal substances. Look up what MLB or the NFL do.

lamboguy
12-23-2016, 11:06 AM
then why not ban the use of all drugs whether in or out of competition. this way people can watch real horses run around the track and bettors can make their decisions based strictly on the horses and not on how good a trainer might be fooling drug labs?

johnhannibalsmith
12-23-2016, 11:15 AM
...I simply don't agree with zero tolerance for legal substances...

Amen.

HalvOnHorseracing
12-23-2016, 11:46 AM
No, not the footnotes. The guidelines were adopted by the Mid-Atlantic states last year in August.
Standards vary between jurisdictions. That is why when I cite guidelines I cite the RMTC guidelines because they are most common within jurisdictions. I'm not a mind reader. Unless you specify I have no idea where 1 and 2 come from.

I understand your focus is on withdrawal times and threshold levels. Nevertheless, there are rules in place that limit the administration of most substances within specified time periods prior to an entered horse's race. If the withdrawal time for aspirin is 6 hours, that doesn't mean it's legal to give aspirin the morning of the race.
Actually, in a lot of jurisdictions the withdrawal guidelines are just that - guidelines. They are not enforceable standards. I can tell you I know of cases where trainers have administered substances outside the withdrawal time. If their horse doesn't test positive, they are not cited. The entire world is not California.

Well, what you apparently didn't read was that in fact CA did adopt the 50 ng/ml level for flunixin after the study was reported (i.e., they raised the threshold from 20 ng to 50 ng).

Great, there weren't any Banamine positives. The problem? We had a bunch of breakdowns.

Which do you prefer?
You are seriously going to tell me that a standard of 50 ng/ml as opposed to 20 ng/ml is the difference between lots of breakdowns and minimal breakdowns? 30 billionths of a gram is the tipping point? There are a lot of reasons for breakdowns, most commonly injury that exacerbates over time. That's bad training, not banamine.

The threshold levels have changed. Read up.
Again, I don't know which thresholds you are talking about, but the latest RMTC guidelines set Flunixin at 20 ng/ml, and the RMTC guidelines have been there for years. How far back do I need to go to make the point that the current standard is 20 ng/ml? You can see all of them at
http://rmtc.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/CTS-List-2-25-2016.pdf


Laughable. Yes, NSAIDS are indicated when a horse is suffering from arthritis in an acute fashion.

However, do you realize what is probably not indicated? Entering said horse and running him. Again, this is the mentality that needs to be broken...especially when it comes to low level claimers.

How about a dose of horsemanship?
I did serious article about banamine. I can tell you know more than the average bear, but I'll still bet you haven't dug into it as deeply as I have. Read the article and tell me where it falls down.
http://halveyonhorseracing.com/?p=1351

lamboguy
12-23-2016, 11:54 AM
after listening and watching all this, maybe my solution is ass'd backwards, maybe instead of banning all the guys that use these substances, they should get rid of everyone that doesn't instead. there would be a lot less that fit into this category and a lot easier to do because most of those people have very few horses and they won't be missed on the race track.

HalvOnHorseracing
12-23-2016, 12:00 PM
then why not ban the use of all drugs whether in or out of competition. this way people can watch real horses run around the track and bettors can make their decisions based strictly on the horses and not on how good a trainer might be fooling drug labs?
The cynical answer is the practical answer. North America might need 18-20,000 horses to get through a year of meets. Guess how you can feed the demand for starters, especially considering that thoroughbreds get minor injuries just like any athlete. You want to be Hong Kong? Let's only run at three to four tracks at a time. All your Hong Kong outcomes can be yours. Full fields, drug free horses, handle that would dwarf Hong Kong. All you have to do is kick 90% of the horses to the curb and keep the sturdy ones. Gotta think these things through all the way to the end.

Spalding No!
12-23-2016, 12:35 PM
Standards vary between jurisdictions. That is why when I cite guidelines I cite the RMTC guidelines because they are most common within jurisdictions. I'm not a mind reader. Unless you specify I have no idea where 1 and 2 come from.
You're blowing smoke here. You claimed I was wrong about treatment restrictions of certain authorized drugs (i.e., flunixin, etc.). In fact, I was correct. Never mind what different jurisdictions do, the answer was always right there in the RMTC guidelines you claim to be an expert on.

Apology accepted.

Actually, in a lot of jurisdictions the withdrawal guidelines are just that - guidelines. They are not enforceable standards. I can tell you I know of cases where trainers have administered substances outside the withdrawal time. If their horse doesn't test positive, they are not cited. The entire world is not California.
Amazingly, you still fail to recognize that racing has rules related to the administration of "legal" medications, regardless of withdrawal times. You do realize that horses on raceday are stabled in detention stalls that restrict access to the horse, correct?

I never said that withdrawal times are in any way specific rules of the respective racing commissions. In fact, I was pointing out that many people conflate the two.

You are seriously going to tell me that a standard of 50 ng/ml as opposed to 20 ng/ml is the difference between lots of breakdowns and minimal breakdowns? 30 billionths of a gram is the tipping point? There are a lot of reasons for breakdowns, most commonly injury that exacerbates over time. That's bad training, not banamine.
All I said was that it was a strategy. However, the pre-race examination is an important component in the mission to minimize breakdowns. The use of anti-inflammatories obstructs that, since the examination period is within the timeframe of when the drug is still active in the horse. While you can't say its the drugs causing the breakdowns, you do realize that the use of anti-inflammatories is intimately related to the soundness of the horse (you said it made them "more comfortable while racing" or something to that effect).

For example, a study done in Kentucky in the late 1990s showed that when compared to control horses, horses that had suffered catastrophic and/or non-fatal racing injuries had higher levels of flunixin and bute in their systems.

What does that tell you? It probably means connections know when their horses are ailing and react by administering higher amounts of anti-inflammatories.

If that is not grounds for making medication threshold levels lower, I don't know what is.

HalvOnHorseracing
12-23-2016, 02:43 PM
You're blowing smoke here. You claimed I was wrong about treatment restrictions of certain authorized drugs (i.e., flunixin, etc.). In fact, I was correct. Never mind what different jurisdictions do, the answer was always right there in the RMTC guidelines you claim to be an expert on.

You are both confused and confusing. You jump from California to California five years ago, to the RMTC, and frankly I have no idea what you think you are right about. I've had this conversation with officials from ARCI and RMTC and they made it clear for me. The withdrawal guidelines are just that. When it says 24 hours it means that is what should allow the horse to test negative. It is not an adjunct standard. Just show me any instance where a horse did not test positive for a horse where the trainer was cited for administering the medication outside the withdrawal guideline. Every instance of violation I've seen is the violation of the blood serum standard. You pick the medication and find the violation of the time standard without a violation of the blood serum standard.

Amazingly, you still fail to recognize that racing has rules related to the administration of "legal" medications, regardless of withdrawal times. You do realize that horses on raceday are stabled in detention stalls that restrict access to the horse, correct?

I never said that withdrawal times are in any way specific rules of the respective racing commissions. In fact, I was pointing out that many people conflate the two.
There you go again. The move to the detention stalls is long after any medication would be administered. The Lasix shot - the only medication allowed on raceday - is administered in the horse's stall. What's your point? You can't get at a horse once its in the detention barn? Well, DUH. You absolutely said that it is illegal to administer substances outside some time period. YOU were pointing out people conflate the two? I've done that ten times in this thread.

All I said was that it was a strategy. However, the pre-race examination is an important component in the mission to minimize breakdowns. The use of anti-inflammatories obstructs that, since the examination period is within the timeframe of when the drug is still active in the horse. While you can't say its the drugs causing the breakdowns, you do realize that the use of anti-inflammatories is intimately related to the soundness of the horse (you said it made them "more comfortable while racing" or something to that effect).

For example, a study done in Kentucky in the late 1990s showed that when compared to control horses, horses that had suffered catastrophic and/or non-fatal racing injuries had higher levels of flunixin and bute in their systems.

What does that tell you? It probably means connections know when their horses are ailing and react by administering higher amounts of anti-inflammatories.

If that is not grounds for making medication threshold levels lower, I don't know what is.
I've been there for plenty of pre-race inspections and I've interviewed state vets. It is external and fairly cursory. They are looking for heat, filling, soreness, etc. It certainly can't hurt. Again, read the article I gave you the link to if you want to learn about inflammation. It is a bad thing, and removing inflammation is part of proper care of the horse. In simple terms, inflammation left untreated will create long term joint issues.

If you dose a horse properly, you should not be putting the horse at greater risk. If you abuse any drug, or overdose horses of course you are asking for trouble. No you can't say anti-inflammatories cause injury, and there have been better studies since the Kentucky study. More often catastrophic breakdowns are associated with smaller injuries that are undetected and untreated and compound until something gives. For example, microfractures that eventually weaken the bone to the point of larger injury.

Trainers who knowing run horses by masking injury are a problem, and for the millionth time, if racing spent more time dealing with things before the fact than after the fact we'd see few catastrophic injuries. And for the millionth time, I have steadfastly been against the willy-nilly injection of horses.

You sound a lot like an ex-trainer I knew who couldn't make it against all those other trainers who pump their horses full of drugs.

lamboguy
12-23-2016, 03:23 PM
something like 7 or 8 years ago racetracks banned the use of anabolic steroids.

today instead of using them illegally horses can now get pumped with therapeutic steroids that do the very same thing as long as the horse doesn't test for it. and to make sure the horse doesn't test for it they race with lasix so that it should pass through their systems. the case with MASOCHISTIC is not the norm, he did not get rid of everything.

these steroids help horses attack feed tubs, horses that do that develop very large and powerful rear ends while they train. horses with big rear ends that are powerful tend to run like locomotives.

this is all legal today. if this is the way racing has to be, i would think the right thing to do would be to make it known for the customers of the sport so that they can act accordingly. but if it was up to me, i would get rid of the use of any of these medication's, including the ones that are therapeutic.

Spalding No!
12-23-2016, 03:29 PM
Just show me any instance where a horse did not test positive for a horse where the trainer was cited for administering the medication outside the withdrawal guideline. Every instance of violation I've seen is the violation of the blood serum standard. You pick the medication and find the violation of the time standard without a violation of the blood serum standard.
That is a fool's errand. If a horse is found to have been administered a medication in an illegal fashion before the race, appropriately, it would be scratched and therefore unlikely to be tested. This is one of the reasons why this whole Masochistic fiasco is important.

For example, from the Paulick Report regarding the Jockey Club Gold Cup and entry of War Story:

...War Story was also treated with the tranquilizer Dormosedan within the prohibited time frame allowed, and would've had to been scratched from the race, according to a steward with the New York State Gaming Commission.

There you go again. The move to the detention stalls is long after any medication would be administered. The Lasix shot - the only medication allowed on raceday - is administered in the horse's stall. What's your point? You can't get at a horse once its in the detention barn? Well, DUH. You absolutely said that it is illegal to administer substances outside some time period. YOU were pointing out people conflate the two? I've done that ten times in this thread.

One more time for the cheap seats, here are your words (which are dead wrong):

You're also wrong that it is illegal to dose the horse at 23 hours. You can take the chance, but again the only operational standard is 20 ng/ml.

No you can't.

I've been there for plenty of pre-race inspections and I've interviewed state vets. It is external and fairly cursory. They are looking for heat, filling, soreness, etc. It certainly can't hurt. Again, read the article I gave you the link to if you want to learn about inflammation. It is a bad thing, and removing inflammation is part of proper care of the horse. In simple terms, inflammation left untreated will create long term joint issues.
So will repeated racing and training on inflamed joints.

One area where you "fall down" in your blog is that you say flunixin is to help the horse "recuperate", yet when discussing the multiple violations of the Colorado trainer, you mention his painstaking efforts to titrate the dose of flunixin before all his horses' races so that he doesn't get a violation. Was each horse still "recuperating" 24 hours before their next starts? Or was he simply trying to get 19 ng/ml in his runners since the cutoff was 20 ng/ml? It's called "toeing the line". You get burned very easily with that behavior.

If you dose a horse properly, you should not be putting the horse at greater risk. If you abuse any drug, or overdose horses of course you are asking for trouble. No you can't say anti-inflammatories cause injury, and there have been better studies since the Kentucky study. More often catastrophic breakdowns are associated with smaller injuries that are undetected and untreated and compound until something gives. For example, microfractures that eventually weaken the bone to the point of larger injury.
I wonder why these smaller injuries are undetected? Rampant, indiscriminate use of anti-inflammatories perhaps?

You sound a lot like an ex-trainer I knew who couldn't make it against all those other trainers who pump their horses full of drugs.
What's your point? The mob rules?

lamboguy
12-23-2016, 03:48 PM
the major thing that irks me about the MASOCHISTIC travesty is that the stewards knew there was a chance that he was going to come back with a positive. had this been another horse that was going off at 20-1 i believe there would have been no hesitation to scratch the horse. MASOCHISTIC was always going to be one of the top 2 choices in the race and was going to get $3 million or more in total action while a longshot would not have gotten 10% of that.

HalvOnHorseracing
12-23-2016, 04:05 PM
the major thing that irks me about the MASOCHISTIC travesty is that the stewards knew there was a chance that he was going to come back with a positive. had this been another horse that was going off at 20-1 i believe there would have been no hesitation to scratch the horse. MASOCHISTIC was always going to be one of the top 2 choices in the race and was going to get $3 million or more in total action while a longshot would not have gotten 10% of that.
I've certainly not defended Ellis nor suggested Masochistic shouldn't have been DQ'd from purse money. I would agree the stewards need to answer the question of why he was allowed to run, regardless of whether we all agree the medication was at levels too low to say the bettors were cheated.

HalvOnHorseracing
12-23-2016, 04:46 PM
That is a fool's errand. If a horse is found to have been administered a medication in an illegal fashion before the race, appropriately, it would be scratched and therefore unlikely to be tested. This is one of the reasons why this whole Masochistic fiasco is important.
Nice you finally got back to the point of the thread. Masochistic was dosed outside the withdrawal guideline. It wasn't administered the medication in an illegal fashion, and apparently Ellis had done this on a number of occasions without violation. It's important because of the failure of the stewards to be appropriately protective.


So will repeated racing and training on inflamed joints.

One area where you "fall down" in your blog is that you say flunixin is to help the horse "recuperate", yet when discussing the multiple violations of the Colorado trainer, you mention his painstaking efforts to titrate the dose of flunixin before all his horses' races so that he doesn't get a violation. Was each horse still "recuperating" 24 hours before their next starts? Or was he simply trying to get 19 ng/ml in his runners since the cutoff was 20 ng/ml? It's called "toeing the line". You get burned very easily with that behavior.
Horses, like humans, metabolize substances at differing rates, and they have different efficacy. I don't fall down anywhere. I reported exactly what the trainer did. I explained why you should appropriately treat horses for inflammation, and it does help in recuperation. Treating horses with phenylbutazone or flunixin is a common pre-race practice and you know that. In defense of the trainer, his vet did what he had done thousands of times over his practice - same dose, 24 hours out - without seeing positives. When the vet went to the pre-season meeting with track officials there was agreement that the standard dose at 24 hours out would not result in violation. This turned out to be wrong, and the trainer did what any smart trainer would do - reduce the dose (which would still provide some benefit) or extend the withdrawal time, or both. You make it sound nefarious, when it was just a guy who was not a pharmacologist trying to treat his horses right and not violate the standard. Especially when the dose and withdrawal time were part of the RMTC standard. You totally mischaracterize what I wrote. His vet's choice of banamine as opposed to the other available NSAIDS was based on his experience with horses for 30 years. Remember that when he adjusted the dose and withdrawal time that a number of his horses did not come back with positives? That sounds like a responsible trainer. By the way, that article was reviewed by both a top Kentucky racetrack veterinarian and one the nation's leading equine pharmacologists.

I wonder why these smaller injuries are undetected? Rampant, indiscriminate use of anti-inflammatories perhaps?
Nope, that's not the sole explanation. It's trainers who don't have owners who can afford x-rays or MRI's after every race without a good reason and they don't find the microfractures. It's tracks (certainly not all tracks) that are not maintained as well as they should be to prevent injury. You think it was anti-inflammatories that caused the spate of breakdowns on the Del Mar Turf Track a couple of years ago? If the answer to break downs was as simple as banning Bute, banamine and ketoprofen that's what we'd be talking about.

What's your point? The mob rules?
You just sounded a little bitter to me.

lamboguy
12-23-2016, 05:15 PM
I've certainly not defended Ellis nor suggested Masochistic shouldn't have been DQ'd from purse money. I would agree the stewards need to answer the question of why he was allowed to run, regardless of whether we all agree the medication was at levels too low to say the bettors were cheated.
i don't think you understand the main thing here, the levels don't mean a blessed thing. long before the race ever runs that horse becomes a more powerful faster race horse because of the substance that makes him eat better than other horses. even though its legal, its still not right. that junk puts holes in the stomach and ruins kidney's automatically. there are still lots of horsemen that refuse to subject their horses to this bitter treatment, and those trainer's can't win against this powerhouse substance.

i am a former owner that basically gave up this game when i ran second to the same trainer 8 times in a row at Philadelphia Park. the trainer was Juan Carlos Gureareo. eventually he got plenty of positives for other things, but i never got put up after the races he destroyed me in. i have nobody to blame but myself for this, i never belonged in the same game as all these guys.

HalvOnHorseracing
12-23-2016, 07:42 PM
i don't think you understand the main thing here, the levels don't mean a blessed thing. long before the race ever runs that horse becomes a more powerful faster race horse because of the substance that makes him eat better than other horses. even though its legal, its still not right. that junk puts holes in the stomach and ruins kidney's automatically. there are still lots of horsemen that refuse to subject their horses to this bitter treatment, and those trainer's can't win against this powerhouse substance.

i am a former owner that basically gave up this game when i ran second to the same trainer 8 times in a row at Philadelphia Park. the trainer was Juan Carlos Gureareo. eventually he got plenty of positives for other things, but i never got put up after the races he destroyed me in. i have nobody to blame but myself for this, i never belonged in the same game as all these guys.
I appreciate your point, but as long as the substance is legal, some trainers will use it. If you don't want to compete against trainers using something like stanozolol the answer is to ban stanozolol. As I said, there are two discussions. One about what should or shouldn't be legal, and one about how to enforce against legal drugs. Respectfully, I believe all legal substances should have de minims levels especially when the trainers use them as intended. I can only say what I've said consistently. The bad guys should be run out of racing, but in the zeal to nail them all you shouldn't cast the net so wide you get the good guys too.

Spalding No!
12-23-2016, 07:53 PM
Nice you finally got back to the point of the thread. Masochistic was dosed outside the withdrawal guideline. It wasn't administered the medication in an illegal fashion, and apparently Ellis had done this on a number of occasions without violation. It's important because of the failure of the stewards to be appropriately protective.
Talk about confusing and confused. You are all over the place. A couple of posts ago, you said there was no withdrawal guideline for stanozolol. So how was it dosed "outside" the non-existent guideline?

Clearly, the barn was trying to exploit a policy that the vast majority was unwilling to take. Now, more than likely, a drug that does have some therapeutic purpose will be removed from use under all circumstances as a result of this decided edge-taking.

Horses, like humans, metabolize substances at differing rates, and they have different efficacy. I don't fall down anywhere. I reported exactly what the trainer did. I explained why you should appropriately treat horses for inflammation, and it does help in recuperation.
You ignore the obvious. You cannot treat inflammation effectively in the face of continued racing and training. Recuperation implies rest and decreased training activity. Giving a horse with a chronic bad ankle or knee flunixin or bute every time it trains or races is not humane. Never mind the fact that the vast majority of horses are given these substances when entered to race, not when they are "recuperating".

Treating horses with phenylbutazone or flunixin is a common pre-race practice and you know that.
Does that make it appropriate? No, it doesn't, hence this discussion and the current trend in horse racing that focuses on strict medication regulations in an effort to minimize injuries.

In defense of the trainer, his vet did what he had done thousands of times over his practice - same dose, 24 hours out - without seeing positives.
You continue to ignore the obvious concern, racing-related injuries, and instead worry about positives. Look at the bigger picture and see what would happen if efforts focused on reducing "good guy" positives by being permissive with medication.

Don't you question why a vet would be dosing thousands of runners 24 hours out? Is this to say that all horses are suffering from inflammatory conditions right up until the day of the race?

When the vet went to the pre-season meeting with track officials there was agreement that the standard dose at 24 hours out would not result in violation. This turned out to be wrong, and the trainer did what any smart trainer would do - reduce the dose (which would still provide some benefit) or extend the withdrawal time, or both.
How about eliminating the dose entirely for the horses that didn't need flunixin to begin with?

You make it sound nefarious, when it was just a guy who was not a pharmacologist trying to treat his horses right and not violate the standard.
Is that to say that ignorance is bliss? You bring up another problem in racing, in many instances, its the trainers who are deciding the way the horses are treated, not the veterinarians. Is this logical?

Nope, that's not the sole explanation. It's trainers who don't have owners who can afford x-rays or MRI's after every race without a good reason and they don't find the microfractures. It's tracks (certainly not all tracks) that are not maintained as well as they should be to prevent injury. You think it was anti-inflammatories that caused the spate of breakdowns on the Del Mar Turf Track a couple of years ago? If the answer to break downs was as simple as banning Bute, banamine and ketoprofen that's what we'd be talking about.
Firstly, the threshold levels for bute, banamine, and ketofen have all been lowered (at least in CA) in the last 5 years, so to some degree, these drugs are considered a factor in the injury rate in racehorses.

Secondly, if the tracks are a problem, who is forcing the trainer's to use them for training purposes? Although, the quality of a surface certainly influences the injury rate, that convenient blanket excuse doesn't hold much water.

Thirdly, if owners and trainers financially cannot manage the physical condition of their horses (beyond loading them up with anti-inflammatories) then perhaps these people shouldn't be in control of those animals. Racing injuries are fairly predictable in terms of anatomical location. The formula for significant injury is likewise simple:

injury = the rate of microdamage accumulation > the rate of tissue repair

When not used in conjunction with rest, the indiscriminate use of anti-inflammatories as a pre-race treatment heavily influences this equation towards the side of microdamage accumulation by reducing signs of injury and by allowing continued racing/training despite active injury.

You just sounded a little bitter to me.
No, you were trying to minimize my position by suggesting I have a personal grievance to air, rather than backing your own assertions with something relevant beyond "if it's technically legal, it's appropriate".

HalvOnHorseracing
12-23-2016, 10:13 PM
Talk about confusing and confused. You are all over the place. A couple of posts ago, you said there was no withdrawal guideline for stanozolol. So how was it dosed "outside" the non-existent guideline?
The RMTC hasn't published a withdrawal guideline for stanozolol. California requires a 60 day withdrawal. Ellis says he dosed the horse 68 days before the race. That's been clear throughout the thread. You don't win by misquoting me.

You ignore the obvious. You cannot treat inflammation effectively in the face of continued racing and training. Recuperation implies rest and decreased training activity. Giving a horse with a chronic bad ankle or knee flunixin or bute every time it trains or races is not humane. Never mind the fact that the vast majority of horses are given these substances when entered to race, not when they are "recuperating".
Like most when who have an agenda, you change the argument to fit your preconceived opinion. I'm not ignoring anything. The horror of antiinflammatories seems to be your crusade. This is not about trainers who abuse their charges by overmedicating or running horses with serious physical problems. I've said I don't know how many times that trainers who abuse legal medication should be identified and sanctioned. The other thing is that you simply can't follow the logic. You treat a horse with inflammation to encourage recuperation. Ask a vet. I know I have, and some pretty good ones too. Many trainers also treat the horse prior to racing. I've taken no position other than if they keep the drug legal, they should set a fair and protective standard. If you want to campaign against overuse of NSAIDS, go at it. If you want to argue for a better way of determining the healthiness of a horse to race, have a blast. But my concern is setting standards for legal medication, and doing proper enforcement.


You continue to ignore the obvious concern, racing-related injuries, and instead worry about positives. Look at the bigger picture and see what would happen if efforts focused on reducing "good guy" positives by being permissive with medication.

Don't you question why a vet would be dosing thousands of runners 24 hours out? Is this to say that all horses are suffering from inflammatory conditions right up until the day of the race?
Racing related injuries are your issue. Setting and enforcing standards is mine. I'm not unconcerned about racetrack injuries, but you don't tie the hands of trainers and vets who are doing things the right way. If the right therapeutics are on the list, and the standards are set properly, horses will be protected. If you've been a racetrack vet for 30 years, you figure out how many horses you've treated. Hey, are you a PETA plant? You know, just enough knowledge from slanted publications to sound credible?


How about eliminating the dose entirely for the horses that didn't need flunixin to begin with?
I've often heard how there are all these vets out there juicing horses willy nilly. I just haven't met them, but I hang out with a classy crowd. The fact is they are the exception. Their job is to keep the horse healthy enough to race, not to figure out how to run them into the ground. In my experience, vets are not giving horses that don't need a medication that drug.

Is that to say that ignorance is bliss? You bring up another problem in racing, in many instances, its the trainers who are deciding the way the horses are treated, not the veterinarians. Is this logical?
I can tell you the vast majority of trainers I've talked to let the vets make the medication decisions, with concurrence. I'm sure there are vets and trainers in cahoots. I'd be fine with sanctioning them. No trainer is allowed to have syringes in his possession, and at many tracks medications are more tightly controlled than they used to be.


Firstly, the threshold levels for bute, banamine, and ketofen have all been lowered (at least in CA) in the last 5 years, so to some degree, these drugs are considered a factor in the injury rate in racehorses.

Secondly, if the tracks are a problem, who is forcing the trainer's to use them for training purposes? Although, the quality of a surface certainly influences the injury rate, that convenient blanket excuse doesn't hold much water.

Thirdly, if owners and trainers financially cannot manage the physical condition of their horses (beyond loading them up with anti-inflammatories) then perhaps these people shouldn't be in control of those animals. Racing injuries are fairly predictable in terms of anatomical location. The formula for significant injury is likewise simple:

injury = the rate of microdamage accumulation > the rate of tissue repair

When not used in conjunction with rest, the indiscriminate use of anti-inflammatories as a pre-race treatment heavily influences this equation towards the side of microdamage accumulation by reducing signs of injury and by allowing continued racing/training despite active injury.
The standards change when the RMTC publishes new guidelines. Very few jurisdictions do not follow the RMTC recommended rules. As I said, since 2013 the RMTC standards have not changed for the NSAIDS

Don't misquote me. I've blamed the tracks for not preventing more violations, and instead focusing almost all their efforts on catching violations after a race has been official and the bettors screwed. I've blamed the tracks for not conducting more complete investigations, and I've documented such. I've also said that catastrophic injury is a function of many things, including track condition, but I do not maintain it is solely related to track condition. The breakdowns at Del Mar had a lot to do with the surface. Every catastrophic incident has its own cause, and the biggest contributor is not always the same.

The racing game is full of marginal owners and trainers. Baffert can spend as much as he wants on the vet because he has owners who can afford it. If you want to set minimum standards for who can own and who can train, you start lobbying. Maybe you can make it the sport of Kings again. If you want to go on a crusade against NSAIDS, be my guest and best of luck to you. If you have the answer to how we can prevent catastrophic injury through rest, horsemanship, and denial of medication, by all means write a paper, lobby the CHRB, and get these things changed. Stunning they haven't figured all this out by now.

My job is to ensure jurisdictions are not setting inappropriate standards, and that the enforcement of standards is reasonable and fair. If you're looking for a partner on your PETA campaign, sorry, it's not me.

No, you were trying to minimize my position by suggesting I have a personal grievance to air, rather than backing your own assertions with something relevant beyond "if it's technically legal, it's appropriate".
I've got pages and pages of research and documented cases to back my assertions that I've written up, and the people familiar with my work (some the top trainers, HBPA folks, vets and pharmacologists in America) will similarly back me. I think two things. I think you have an axe to grind, or else you've been co-opted by the animal rights folks. In any case, you have your crusade and I hope you convince important people to listen to you - or not. It's not my crusade. I've already told you what mine is. The one thing you don't know is that if you want to become Hong Kong, I'm fine with that as long as you don't mind the consequences.

cj
12-23-2016, 11:40 PM
I've said I don't know how many times that trainers who abuse legal medication should be identified and sanctioned.

This is exactly what I think Ellis was doing, and so do many others.

Spalding No!
12-24-2016, 12:19 AM
California requires a 60 day withdrawal. Ellis says he dosed the horse 68 days before the race. That's been clear throughout the thread. You don't win by misquoting me.
No. Once again, the 60 day period is not a withdrawal time. It is the time required for a horse to be placed on the Veterinarian's List (so that it is ineligible to race) if it is administered anabolic steroids.

It's amazing that with this many posts, you still do not get this. I have read every word you have posted in this thread, and yet you have not extended the same courtesy to me. Clearly you are simply posting to spout whatever it is you think you're an expert on.

And yet I'm the one with the agenda.

Like most when who have an agenda, you change the argument to fit your preconceived opinion. I'm not ignoring anything. The horror of antiinflammatories seems to be your crusade. This is not about trainers who abuse their charges by overmedicating or running horses with serious physical problems. I've said I don't know how many times that trainers who abuse legal medication should be identified and sanctioned.
What percentage of horses entered to race do you think have an anti-inflammatory present in their system at race time (i.e., how many are treated with an NSAID the day before the race)?

The other thing is that you simply can't follow the logic. You treat a horse with inflammation to encourage recuperation. Ask a vet. I know I have, and some pretty good ones too.
You're good at focusing on a single detail and ignoring the entire picture. Treating an animal with anti-inflammatories in order to encourage "recuperation" may be valid conduct in a vacuum. But any benefit derived from such treatment goes out the window if the horse continues to be trained and raced (things that are the exact opposite of recuperation). In a crude manner, you are essentially treading water (if not exposing the horse to greater injury).

Racing related injuries are your issue. Setting and enforcing standards is mine. I'm not unconcerned about racetrack injuries, but you don't tie the hands of trainers and vets who are doing things the right way.
Why is toeing the line and pre-racing to as close to the thresholds as possible the "right" way?

Hey, are you a PETA plant? You know, just enough knowledge from slanted publications to sound credible?
More personal digs in order to deflect. The only slanted publications I've referenced in this thread is your work.

I've often heard how there are all these vets out there juicing horses willy nilly. I just haven't met them, but I hang out with a classy crowd. The fact is they are the exception. Their job is to keep the horse healthy enough to race, not to figure out how to run them into the ground. In my experience, vets are not giving horses that don't need a medication that drug.
Again, what percentage of horses entered to race are treated with a "legal" NSAID the day before their race?

You know, the answer. It would be the same answer if this thread was about Lasix.


I can tell you the vast majority of trainers I've talked to let the vets make the medication decisions, with concurrence. I'm sure there are vets and trainers in cahoots. I'd be fine with sanctioning them. No trainer is allowed to have syringes in his possession, and at many tracks medications are more tightly controlled than they used to be.
It's cute the way you twist what I was saying in order that you can feign a response. I didn't mention any issue with trainers having syringes. I said that the trainers were dictating (to the vets) what the horses are treated with. This reality is a direct result of the "pre-race" mentality.

Why don't you ask about it the next time you're rubbing elbows with a sanctioned trainer.

The racing game is full of marginal owners and trainers. Baffert can spend as much as he wants on the vet because he has owners who can afford it. If you want to set minimum standards for who can own and who can train, you start lobbying. Maybe you can make it the sport of Kings again.
So you're OK with "marginal" owners and trainers infesting the sport? I guess we don't need to talk about unwanted or abandoned horses or any of the other eyesores this creates. We'll just continue to Runhappy.

Actually, come to think of it, if we just banned the BC Sprint, maybe a lot of the sport's problems would go away.

If you want to go on a crusade against NSAIDS, be my guest and best of luck to you. If you have the answer to how we can prevent catastrophic injury through rest, horsemanship, and denial of medication, by all means write a paper, lobby the CHRB, and get these things changed. Stunning they haven't figured all this out by now.
That's funny, because that is exactly what is happening, however slowly. For the record, I never suggested that medication be denied to horses. Interesting that this is your follow up to rest and horsemanship. Those too idealistic for you?

If you're looking for a partner on your PETA campaign, sorry, it's not me.
Interesting that my multiple references to racing-related injuries and how they are affected by "legal" medication has left me branded as a PETA member.

My job is to ensure jurisdictions are not setting inappropriate standards, and that the enforcement of standards is reasonable and fair. I've got pages and pages of research and documented cases to back my assertions that I've written up, and the people familiar with my work (some the top trainers, HBPA folks, vets and pharmacologists in America) will similarly back me.
So let's hear it. What specific thresholds or penalties are inappropriate or unfair?

I think two things. I think you have an axe to grind, or else you've been co-opted by the animal rights folks.
Or I just like to see the big picture and keep the actual horses in mind when discussing medication policy. Forgive me if that is out of line or fails to interest you.

The one thing you don't know is that if you want to become Hong Kong, I'm fine with that as long as you don't mind the consequences.
What's that? Transparency? Filled race cards? Full fields? No $3500 claiming races?

lamboguy
12-24-2016, 01:22 AM
this thread has gone round and round. aside from being unfair to the customers of the game, these steroids ruin the insides of the horses. take a look at some of the "better" trainers out there that are very proficient administering these steroids. most of there horses seem not to be able to make it through their 3 year old career and must be retired. i highly wonder how much longer you can fool the fans of this sport and how much longer they will continue to support the big days of racing in North America.

i would say that the majority of people that love this sport would prefer to see slower horses than these speed freaks running around full of substances in their bodies. also understand that if there were no drugs allowed horses would probably run every 7-10 days with less training bills and less quackery administered to the horses. that would probably bring many more owners and fans back to the game. at very worst it would be a good step in the right direction. i honestly think that people are dying to jump back into the racing game, but the game itself is scaring them away from it.

HalvOnHorseracing
12-24-2016, 09:53 AM
this thread has gone round and round. aside from being unfair to the customers of the game, these steroids ruin the insides of the horses. take a look at some of the "better" trainers out there that are very proficient administering these steroids. most of there horses seem not to be able to make it through their 3 year old career and must be retired. i highly wonder how much longer you can fool the fans of this sport and how much longer they will continue to support the big days of racing in North America.

i would say that the majority of people that love this sport would prefer to see slower horses than these speed freaks running around full of substances in their bodies. also understand that if there were no drugs allowed horses would probably run every 7-10 days with less training bills and less quackery administered to the horses. that would probably bring many more owners and fans back to the game. at very worst it would be a good step in the right direction. i honestly think that people are dying to jump back into the racing game, but the game itself is scaring them away from it.
I have no issue with banning stanozolol. I've already offered my solution, if you're going to keep it legal. Allow treatment post surgery (primarily gelding) and if you are going to allow it in cases of failure to thrive, have the condition confirmed by the state medical director.

cj
12-24-2016, 10:03 AM
I have no issue with banning stanozolol. I've already offered my solution, if you're going to keep it legal. Allow treatment post surgery (primarily gelding) and if you are going to allow it in cases of failure to thrive, have the condition confirmed by the state medical director.

I don't think there is any lynch mob wanting Ellis to get a stiffer punishment or anything here. People just want what happened here to stop. Using therapeutic meds for non-therapeutic reasons should not be acceptable. Ellis found a loophole and used it.

no breathalyzer
12-24-2016, 11:12 AM
http://www.paulickreport.com/news/thoroughbred-racing/la-verdad-tests-positive-for-clenbuterol-after-honorable-miss/

Just want to remind you guys of this.... pretty sure i made a thread on this back then and even had it threaten to be taken down... where was the up roar back then??? Guess certain people get a pass on things... i always said perception is the key to success

Spalding No!
12-24-2016, 01:04 PM
http://www.paulickreport.com/news/thoroughbred-racing/la-verdad-tests-positive-for-clenbuterol-after-honorable-miss/

Just want to remind you guys of this.... pretty sure i made a thread on this back then and even had it threaten to be taken down... where was the up roar back then??? Guess certain people get a pass on things... i always said perception is the key to success
The uproar in the Masochistic case is mainly due to the unique circumstance that the potentiality of a positive test was known by the major parties involved (trainer, owner, racing commission) before the race.

Another difference is that the rules regarding anabolic steroids are in effect supposed to deter use in actively campaigning racehorses. This is not the case with Clenbuterol.

Track Phantom
12-24-2016, 02:55 PM
This horse, Masochistic, sure was named appropriately.

Fager Fan
12-26-2016, 11:24 AM
Why not tell the public then? Let them know a horse might very well fail a drug test. What is the point of that out of competition testing leading up to the BC if you can't use it for anything. This whole thing stinks to high heaven.

I 100% agree with you on Ellis. He should be hammered. But we all know he won't be. He'll keep running his horses two or three times a year so he can drug them up in between races. I smelled a rat when he skipped the prep race and commented on it. Something was fishy then, I just knew it.

When he gave the drug, the horse had to go on the vet list for 60 days, right? Isn't the vet list public? But no one mentioned that as the reason why he had no prep?

What really strikes me is curious is why with a horse that had only run two times, he decided to give it a drug that would put it on the vets list for 60 days, and also was cutting it close to the Breeders' Cup. So he made that decision just for a drug that supposedly we put a little weight on the horse? Why not feed him in a manner that the horse would eat up if that was the case? This is what makes no sense to me.

Fager Fan
12-26-2016, 11:28 AM
I really don't understand all the outrage here.

How are the bettors screwed? If you had the knowledge that one horse was going to have 200 picograms more of steroids in his system than the others, does this all of a sudden alter your handicapping of the race? I'm not a chemist, but from what I can gather this sounds like someone ate a poppy seed yesterday & now they're thrown under the bus for a positive opium test.

Considering 60 days lead time is the recommendation for withdrawal and they gave 68, how can you pin anything on the trainer? Seems to me either new lead time guidelines have to be established or a different threshold for trace amounts. All parties involved were put between a rock and a hard place, but don't see why such anger should be directed to Ellis & his owners here. They're the only ones penalized here when all is said & done, spare me the sadness for the bettors in this instance unless you truly really 100% believe this "drugged" horse's performance was moved up in this situation.

How is this hard to understand? All the bettors who had the third-place horse finishing second, which is the official results, but for which they weren't paid, are all the bettors that were screwed.

Fager Fan
12-26-2016, 11:44 AM
i think you miss the point here, Ellis and the others that do this are only part of the problem, the system is rotten to the core.

heres another example on the other side of things, Phipps won't allow Shug to use these PED's and he can't win no more. its not because he's not a great trainer either, the game has a big edge over him and he is no longer a part of the 20%. but the man remains classy and never opens up his mouth even though he knows all about it and tries as hard as anyone. he has gone to being a great dirt trainer into running most his horses on turf against weaker now.

It might not be so much classiness that keeps a trying or from talking, but instead fear. Do you remember the Larry Jones incident? And it was well known that he did not run horses on steroids, including Hard Spun, and demanded the super test to be run on Eight Belles after she died to prove he was clean. Then his owner Jim Squires wrote that book that was sort of an expose on drugs. It wasn't long after that when Jones got his first drug positive in a Jim Squires-owned horse and another one of Jones's horse was found to have a sponge stuffed up her nose.

HalvOnHorseracing
12-26-2016, 11:51 AM
How is this hard to understand? All the bettors who had the third-place horse finishing second, which is the official results, but for which they weren't paid, are all the bettors that were screwed.
The probability that 200 picograms made any sort of a difference is so minuscule as to be irrelevant. Masochistic got his advantage the day he received his shot, 68 days previous. Nobody got screwed by the 200 picograms on race day.

HalvOnHorseracing
12-26-2016, 12:12 PM
The whole thing may have been moot if the results of the pre-race test had been made public. At that point there likely would have been tremendous pressure on the stewards to scratch the horse, especially considering the enormous outcry and bad publicity SA would have received.