Gene Doping: Who Needs Steroids?

re: Gene Doping: Who Needs Steroids?

pandora — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:14:26 GMT

Right on Andyod! Does anyone see the irony in the fact that The Blood-Horse has featured Lexington on its stallion register cover for decades? Lexington was 16 times leading sire in the 1800s, I believe, without checking to be sure. As a racehorse, his specialty was 4-mile races. According to written accounts of his exploits, this spectacular son of Boston ran the last mile the fastest. Not only was he a prime source of the X-factor for the large heart in the Thoroughbred horse in America [thanks to his dam], he was stamina, speed and soundness personified. The Blood-Horse has it right in continuing to honor his powerful legacy, despite the fact that many breeders, whether intentionally or in ignorance, now ignore his significance. The synthetic tracks are just a stopgap and some of our best horses don't like to run on them. The quality of the bone in many bloodlines leaves much to be desired. It will take years to breed better bone, but perhaps some research could produce treatments or supplements [several are currently being promoted as bone-builders for people, just watch your TV commercials] to improve the bone in our current generation of youngsters prior to their being stressed by training.

re: Gene Doping: Who Needs Steroids?

andyod — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 10:34:24 GMT

Why would anyone want to buy a horse bred to break down with excessive mass on the body and frail legs?With a massive national Hunt program in Ireland-England the legs are the most important thing when purchasing a racehorse not the massive body.Racing people but legs.

re: Gene Doping: Who Needs Steroids?

pandora — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 16:34:10 GMT

Oh yes, let's definitely do whatever we can to build excessive muscle mass and thereby put more weight on those fragile legs! Let's have more breakdowns on TV in front of millions of people and put the racehorse business OUT of business! Anyone indulging in practices that put excessive weight on a horse should be banned from the business for cruelty to animals. Note the use of the word "excessive" - theraputic uses of steroids in certain cases can be life-saving. Full disclosure does not excuse the endangerment of an animal's life by adding more weight than the legs can safely carry. How about developing something that will strengthen legs? Better breeding practices, maybe?

re: Gene Doping: Who Needs Steroids?

Al — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 21:21:38 GMT

Purists can argue against progress and even what exactly is progress. Changes invented by man are an outgrowth of man's ingenuity. Some have been around so long that we just naturally accept them, for example, horse shoes made of aluminum.

We have to accept change and adapt to it or be left behind. Do you want to stop breeders from using sonorgrams in their breeding efforts? How about chip removals with special high tech tools so a horse can get to training in 3 weeks?

The negative steroid arguments are stupid and simply an attempt by the establishment to make a public relations statement to impress the impressionable.

If gene therapy can improve the breed why not?

What is needed, is full disclosure for all treatments, medications and procedures. Then the public, whether bettors or buyers can know the facts and make their own judgments of how to bet or what to buy.

Does anyone believe an intelligent handicapper will quit the sport to stand in front of a slot machice programed to separate you from your money while flashing colored lights and loud ringing bells?

re: Gene Doping: Who Needs Steroids?

Bryce Be Quick — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 14:36:23 GMT

First, with respect to Winny and the like, I am a "hay, oats, water" kind of guy, so please do not misunderstand what follows: (1) with respect to Big Brown, unless Dutrow's vet was injecting massive doses, it is highly unlikely it had much if any performance impact, seeing how the once-a-month regime at most probably helped his groom keep his coat with a nice shine and maybe improved his appetite. That said, I with the likes of HG Motion, who says any 'roid (inclusing the three naturally occuring ones, performance enhancing. (2) At least as big a problem are the 'roids given two-year olds prior to the sales to give them the apperance of more flesh than they would otherwise have. More evidence this industry is eating itself alive, with its flawed economic model which results in breeding for early brilliance, so the horse can be raced off the breeding shed at the conclusion of the 3 YO season-- breeding for breeding as opposed to breeding for racing, because that is what the economics of the industry dictate. (3) In terms of long term 'roid effects, there is little by the way of research to know. What we do know is many 3YO once leaving the track and heading to the breeding shed show up with shrunken reproductive organs and frequently exhibiting strange non-stallion-like behavior, and it typically takes six months or so for this to abate as the 'roids are flushed out of the system over time.

In sum, and pivoting off point 2, above, unless and until there are incentives to promote racing as opposed to breeding in the abstract, there will be even greater incentive to inject one of the 70 or so designer 'roids already available for which they are no readily available tests to detect, and developments such as so-called "gene doping", as reported here. Friends, this industry is a class one mess, and hopefully the post-Eight Belles trend to greater self-policing will continue before Congress steps in to "fix" the problems.

re: Gene Doping: Who Needs Steroids?

comman sense — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 06:20:33 GMT

if you want four furlongs in 43 seconds and a halter class physique, they're called quarter horses.

re: Gene Doping: Who Needs Steroids?

BIGBADBROWNFAN — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 00:02:16 GMT

This is absolutely true of Big Brown, anyone can tell from the Haskell that he did not have the muscle mass as he did previously earlier on in the year.

re: Gene Doping: Who Needs Steroids?

Ben Nadel — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 13:52:24 GMT

The interesting thing is that some animals have this "gene doping" occuring naturally. If you look at the Belbian Blue Bull, it is born with the gene that causes "double muscling":

www.belgianbluesires.com/bbbbreed.htm

The question is, if this gene (mutation)? can occur naturally, can it be banned at all? It seems like if it ever started to occur naturally in other breeds of animal, it would completely destroy the ability to compete without laboratory-induced gene doping.

I think this is all very interesting.

re: Gene Doping: Who Needs Steroids?

winston — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 13:17:39 GMT

Integrity at the sales?

Come on.

re: Gene Doping: Who Needs Steroids?

The Deacon — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 05:41:55 GMT

What are the long term effects steroids wou;d have on these beautiful animals. Do they camoflauge injuries, or do they make a horse bounce back faster?

re: Gene Doping: Who Needs Steroids?

da3hoss — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 21:07:43 GMT

There is no end to mankind's ingenuity...which is a good reason for transparency in the chain of ownership.

I know in Europe, with the dog breed registries there is a chain of ownership, with original signatures, recorded right on their registration papers plus a medical book that includes everything ever done to them. Both of these items must constantly be with the animal.

Of course, it can't possibly totally eliminate deceptive practices, but when you are in an industry long enough you know when you see certain names what's behind them.