Masochistic DQed from BC Sprint

[o_crunk]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

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]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

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]

Originally Posted by cj

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]

Originally Posted by Dahoss9698

...And I still see bettors defending them. Amazing

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

[Tom]

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]

Originally Posted by o_crunk

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]

Originally Posted by cj

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]

Originally Posted by lamboguy

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!]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

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]

Originally Posted by Spalding No!

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]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

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!]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

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]

Hell of a thread

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by Spalding No!

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.

Originally Posted by Spalding No!

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

Originally Posted by Spalding No!

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]

Originally Posted by cj

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.