Masochistic DQed from BC Sprint

[lamboguy]

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]

Originally Posted by cj

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 on Maryland racing, regarding Stanozolol overages, trainers, and withdrawl time protocol...

Originally Posted by The Article

"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, trained by Lake, started 22 days before the race in which she tested positive for stanozolol. Joseph Besecker's Kylie's Cozy Kid, 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]

Originally Posted by Spalding No!

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]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

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 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]

Originally Posted by SuperPickle

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]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

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]

Originally Posted by Spalding No!

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]

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!]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

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]

Originally Posted by Spalding No!

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]

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]

Originally Posted by lamboguy

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]

Originally Posted by Spalding No!

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]

http://www.drf.com/news/masochistic-...7-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]

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.