Masochistic DQed from BC Sprint

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Track Phantom

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]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

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]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

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]

Originally Posted by Track Phantom

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]

Steve Byk, ATR, Tuesday, Hour #1 - Ron Ellis the guest, explains the whole incident.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by Spalding No!

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.

Originally Posted by Spalding No!

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.

Originally Posted by Spalding No!

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.

Originally Posted by Spalding No!

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]

Originally Posted by Tom

Steve Byk, ATR, Tuesday, Hour #1 - Ron Ellis the guest, explains the whole incident.

http://stevebyk.com/broadcast/hour-1-ron-ellis/

[Spalding No!]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

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]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

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.

[bobphilo]

Originally Posted by Spalding No!

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]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

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]

Originally Posted by lamboguy

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]

Originally Posted by bobphilo

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!]

Originally Posted by lamboguy

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]

Originally Posted by Spalding No!

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.

Originally Posted by Spalding No!

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.

Originally Posted by Spalding No!

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.

Originally Posted by Spalding No!

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.

Originally Posted by Spalding No!

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

Your opinion. Perhaps the full story will emerge.