BloodHorse.com

Search Blood-Horse.com

All Things Medication: Q & A With Dr. Rick Arthur

 

The use of steroids and medication in horse racing is one of the biggest problems the industry is facing right now. Based on the congressional hearings last month in Washington D.C., there are likley to be major rule changes in the near future. With so many different steroids and medications being duscussed recently - mostly because of the Eight Belles tragedy and violations of top trainers - it is important for people to be informed about the different drugs in the news. Many times, all steroids and medications are lumped togehther into the same category, which can be confusing to fans. What better person to help clear up some of the misinformation being thrown out there than Dr. Rick Arthur, equine medical director for the California Horse Racing Board. An expert in the field of veterinary medicine and an advocate for equine health, Dr. Arthur has been with the CHRB since the mid-'80s and was also in private practice for many years, working for top barns such as Bobby Frankel, Richard Mandella and Ron McAnally, just to name a few.

For many working inside the racing industry, some of the information below may already be well known. But based on comments and questions I have received from for general racing fans over the past few months, there is a lot we can all learn from Dr. Arthur.

 

JS: What is Winstrol and how it is used in horses?
RA: Winstrol is a manufactured pharmaceutical anabolic steroid that mimics testosterone. Some stables use it routinely, as much as once every week or two. Other trainers use it when a horse is off its feed from rigorous training, or to pick up appetite or attitude. It’s used a little different by everybody.

JS: There is a lot of debate as to whether Winstrol, and steroids in general, are performance enhancing for horses. Are they?
RA: The short answer is we don’t know. There is no scientific information to say it makes horses run faster, just as we don’t know if it makes a batter hit more home runs or a pitcher strike out more batters. Anecdotally and from surveys we have conducted, we do know that roughly 60% of all horses have evidence of steroids in their systems. If it was proven that it was performance enhancing, all trainers would probably use it.
In my opinion, performance enhancement is not the primary issue with steroids. The other aspect is, do they allow horses to train at an intensity level that is good for them? Do they make horses train harder? If they do, it is possible that horses are training at an intensity level that is an increased catastrophic injury risk to them.

JS: Discuss the current rules regarding steroids and what direction the industry is moving towards in regards to banning them.
RA: The consortium allow horses to train with them, just not use them within a ceratin amount of time before race day. I believe within a year all states will have rules in place that will prohibit steroids. In Europe, steroids have been prohibited since the mid-1970s.

JS: In your opinion, do steroids give horse an advantage to run faster?
RA: I don’t know. But I can’t say that they don’t give an advantage. I think the public assumes that they do.

JS: Are you in favor of a ban on all steroids in horse racing?
RA: Yes I am.

JS: Although it has been around for a while, recently, lidocaine has come into the public spotlight because a horse trained by Steve Asmussen tested positive for a metabolite of it, hydroxylidocaine. Explain what lidocaine is and what it is used for.
RA: Lidocaine is a local anesthetic. It blocks nerve conduction so that they don't feel pain. It is in the same group as novocain and mepivicane.  It is used very frequently by trainers – for castration, wound heeling and diagnostic nerve blocking. It is a routine part of equine health care. It is absolutely necessary for things like suturing up a horse, castration or diagnostic nerve blocks. In my opinion, you can’t properly practice without it. It just can’t be there on race day.

JS: What are the rules regarding the uses of lidocaine and mepivicaine?
RA: The rules read differently in every state. In California there is a threshold level. In other states, there is no threshold level. If it is detected, it is a violation. The bottom line is there is no justification for having lidocaine or mepivicaine in a post race sample. If there is, something is not right. They are drugs that you cannot find (in a horse’s blood) outside of 96 hours (of being administered), so it’s hard to be real sympathetic when it shows up in a post race sample.
Now, mistakes always arise and the intent might not be malicious, but it still should not be there. The reason is, it can be a real serious safety issue. If a horse runs and an injury is being blocked, they are at risk.

JS: Why are there so many drug positives with this drug in particular?
RA: Many trainers say it’s a mix-up. It’s a drug that is very prevalent. It can be found in almost every barn and many say it was given to the wrong horse (by mistake). Many trainers are adamant in their denial. One thing I’ve learned in my years is that there has never been a trainer who knows anything about a drug violation.

JS: Let’s move onto another drug that has been in the news over the past couple weeks – clenbuterol. Recently, Rick Dutrow was suspended 15 days for using this incorrectly.
RA: Clenbuterol is also very commonly used. It is a bronchial dilator that can be very beneficial in treating small airway disease. Horses are very prone to this problem. Let’s face it, horses live in dirty environments and they are in a profession where there is a lot of pulmonary hemorrhage bleeding. It is a drug that has been available for 25 years and we hardly ever use to see it. Now, it is the No. 1 drug in California that we deal with. The reason? The penalty structure is not enough of a deterrent.

JS: You said lidocaine is needed in treating horses. Is clenbuterol a drug that horses need as well?
RA: Do they need it? No. Do they benefit from it? Yes. Many horses function very well with it for a long period of time. But it is also a drug that a threshold level is needed. Unlike lidocaine, it shows up in the system for long periods of time. But with that being said, it is a relatively easy violation to avoid. I have found that it is not a drug that many trainers use to beat they system. It is often a mistake in the barn.

JS: Is it performance enhancing?
RA: That is open to debate. My opinion is that if given very close to a race, it can influence performance.

JS: There are many other classes of drugs out there that we don’t have time to touch on. But let’s talk about testing for a minute. How advanced is drug testing in horse racing?
RA: You can never test for everything out there, but (in California) our lab screens can test for about 800 pharmaceutical drugs and can detect for a much wider variety of drugs than most human tests, which usually only look for steroids and recreational drugs such as marijuana and cocaine. We test for things like local anesthetics, stimulants, depressants, tranquilizers and many other things. As far as testing goes, horse racing has a very good story to tell.

JS: Who decides which horses are tested and how often?
RA: In California, the first, second and third (finishers) and stakes (races) are tested, and we do about six to nine randoms every day. I would say about 20% of all (race) horses are tested.

JS: Who pays for it and is it cost efficient?
RA: Who pays for it is a real issue right now. Testing is state funded and pretty much all states are broke. California is a relatively well-funded state and dollar for dollar our budget is less than it was 16 or 17 years ago. It is a serious problem right now.

JS: Recently, there has been talk of having a zero tolerance drug policy implemented. Is this realistic?
RA: Zero tolerance really depends on which ones you are talking about and at what levels. Let me start by saying that drug testing has improved dramatically over the last 20 or 30 years. For example, lasix was introduced in the early 1960s before any test could detect it. Now, virtually every test in the world can identify it. When you’re talking about clenbuterol, we can trace it in levels as low as 25 parts per trillion. So with some of these drugs we are talking about very, very low levels. There needs to be specific guidelines for each drug.

JS: In regards to drugs, what changes do we need to make for horse racing to be safer and better?
RA: We need a unified governing body that sets rules and drug violation penalties. Something similar to WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency). WADA would be a great model for horse racing to follow. It would solve a lot of problems. All rules would be standardized and all labs would be of the same quality. The RMTC (Racing and Medication Testing Consortium) has been working on this for a lot of years (if and when the rules are changed), so it was already in place before all the brouhaha with Eight Belles.

JS: Do penalties for violators need to be stricter?
RA: Absolutely. In England, they go 25 years without a violation. The reason? It is a nine-month suspension. A nine-month suspension would clean up a lot of sloppy practices. This is the direction that we need to be moving in. It would solve a lot of problems. The industry needs to start policing itself better. Nobody wants federal regulation.

 

 

 

 

 

92 Comments:

Nine months is a great deterrant IF the trainer actually has to serve the time.  Now these large outfits such as Dutrow and Assmussen, just go on business as usual.  They need to stop these guys cold.  Trainers are training too many horses!

R.D. 02 Jul 2008 3:20 PM

Jason,

That was a very good interview and very interesting.  Thanks so much for providing it.

Monica V 02 Jul 2008 3:32 PM

Dr. Arthur,

Thank you for taking the time and trouble to educate fans like me who have much to learn about this issue.

shamfan49 02 Jul 2008 3:53 PM

Jason, good job. He addressed it from his point of view and didn't try to say that it's his way or the highway. Being in the game, I have heard all of these points of view, my vet has a little different take on Clenbuterol, being a bronchodialator, but also an anti-inflammatory and I asked my Dr and Druggist (old timer speak for Pharmacist) about it and they said that is true, that it aids in breathing because it reduces inflammation of the bronchii (I think that's the way the Pulmonary doc put it)etc and the Druggist said it didn't come into use as in veterinary medicine until sometime in the 90's. I like Dr. Arthur's 9 month deal but would take it further and say NO economic benefit to the suspended trainer, quite a few of us say that but it's kind of Heresy. I don't really think ALL trainers would use steroids, some of us want to do what's in the best interest of the horse and do the right thing, an unlevel makes it hard but some of us do have compassion for the horse and just hope we get enough good ones to keep going.Since he didn't really address complications and so forth that still has a lot of folks wondering about the long term effects of a shot a month, maybe nothing but who knows.

R.D., I agree with you completely. I think every trainer should have 50 horses in his barn, no more no less and if they'd let me hand pick the ones I want to fill out my roster, that'd be even better, line em up Todd I'm on my way. This is still the USA, you can't limit the # of bank customers a bank has, the # of restaurants a guy owns (you get my drift)they just hire more employees to help them run the places and take care of the customers. I don't condone it it's not my way and it's really hard to monitor everything but as the trainer of record you take the hit if someone messes up, it called free enterprise. I like more hands on, that's why I like mornings best or time at the farm but that's me. You get to a certain age and you want to be able to work with the folks you want to and tell the ones that irritate you to death, to just find someone else (nicely of course). Plus a guy has to eat, pay car,house,send the kids to college and pay wages and most of them are good horsemen even though they have a whole herd of them.

Atthebarn2 02 Jul 2008 4:57 PM

Thank you Dr. Arthur, your words regarding Winstrol sound VERY familiar.

I love it when I'm right !

draynay 02 Jul 2008 4:59 PM

If Winstrol was "proven" to enhance performance, not all trainers would use it...some are concerned about side effects (of which there is a number) and some plain prefer not to cheat.

There is no need for any horse to "perform" with drugs...it means there's something wrong with the horse, and not 100% healthy/sound horses should not be engaged in the grueling sport of racing...and should not be retired to the breeding shed to pass on their weaknesses.

Rachel 02 Jul 2008 5:14 PM

Jason, the folks that left the blogs tried to tell you. Maybe you should get the other perspective just to have a counter point. Although I didn't see that he backed up the guy who thinks he has to be right about everything. If that guy could really read and not just pick out what he thinks backs him up he would have seen that the good doc said he didn't know if it was performance enhancing, and that he was giving his opinion and well most of us actually read the Q&A. I don't think a fine gentleman like Dr. Arthur would want to be used to prove a point for someone like Draynay. Especially when he didn't say what Draynay has been preaching. (read the part about the homers for Doc's own counterpoint). I can't believe I'm ignoring my own advice and arguing with the witless wonder.

Atthebarn2 02 Jul 2008 5:31 PM

There is something regarding steroid use that I haven't seen addressed. It is shown in humans that steroid use has a great chance of making a man infertile. Does it do the same thing in horses? When I hear of horses like Cigar and recently Boundary, Big Brown's father, being sterile, it makes me wonder.

Karen 02 Jul 2008 6:49 PM

Exactly Atthebarn2,Re:"just as we dont know if it makes a batter hit more home runs"..Come on Doc,we ALL know Winstrol gives batters "leverage" in hitting more homers!..just ask Mcgwire,Conseco,Sosa,Bonds,Palmeiro and All the other roid' users.So in that sense,I would think it does have an impact in performance enhancement for horses,dont you? To what extent?who knows..other than that,good job Jas...hey draynay,get over yourself,read the whole article for once,and not take bits & pieces for your benefit you Salty Sasquatch...lol..hoo-rah!

Slew.em.All 02 Jul 2008 6:54 PM

JASON:

THANKS FOR THE GREAT INTERVIEW. I TOTALLY AGREE W/ ATTHEBARN2,THIS INDIVIDUAL draynay IS A COMPLETE BRAINLESS IDIOT! I PERSONALLY OWN 2 RACEHORSES AND I BET THIS CLOWN DOESN'T KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A STICK HORSE AND A REAL ONE. HE'S ALWAYS RUNNING HIS MOUTH AND ALL HE DOES IS SHOW HIS COMPLETE LACK OF KNOWLEDGE. I ONLY WISH FOR ONCE WHEN I VISIT YOUR BLOG THAT I COULD AVOID SEEING HIS STUPID COMMENTS!

MIKE RELVA 02 Jul 2008 7:00 PM

Atthebarn2,

It's impossible, you can't help it.  I was surprised to see his comment in here but in his mind he has been vindicated in his beliefs when in fact the Dr said nothing to prove Draynay correct.  When asked if steroids enhance performance the DR said "We don't know"  That doesn't mean no they don't, it means they don't know!

Isn't it amazing how he has selective reading? Oh, well, to each his own.

Whether or not it is a performance enhancement or not it is still an artifical means to build muscle and make a horse eat better.  It's going against nature to give this to a young horse to make him appear more muscular at a sale.  It's not right.  If  horses need drugs to help them run for any reason, if it is to dull pain or to dialate  the bronchial tubes to make breathing easier, it's just wrong.  If the horse needs any drug to run, he shouldn't be running.  That's my thought.  I can see giving a horse medication to make him rest easier or help him to heal but if they need that to run it is a again, against nature and endangering the horse.  The most important thing in this sport is the horse.  Without the horse there is no sport.

Monica V 02 Jul 2008 7:04 PM

Super article thanks so much again Jason for having this blog. This is what is happening in this sport. We don't turn horses out any more when they have issues we just give them more meds and keep our fingers crossed they don't test.

Wanda 02 Jul 2008 7:20 PM

Karen, he said that 60% of horses or so are on a form of steroid. If those are the only 2 infertile stallions in the bunch then I'd have to say it's not that big of a deal.

On an aside, if infertility was a side effect (with horses) with steroids, they'd whip 'em off it immediately! Stud deals mean big money ... they won't risk racing into their 4yo year, why would they risk their fertility totally?

jj 02 Jul 2008 9:04 PM

Earlier I talked to my pharmacist about this article. This is an older guy who was the top of his class and scored the highest score ever recorded on his States Pharmacy board. He's been called out of retirement 3 times to work for hospitals (he told me this when I asked why he was still working and if he was qualified to fill my Prescription) and such and even at an advanced age is much in demand. He said that Anabolic steroids definitely build muscle mass. He related that anabolic steroids were originally used on humans to fight the effects of diseases like TB, they used them to build strength, stamina, energy and combat wasting diseases. He also said it hasn't been that long that horses have been receiving the drug (course at his age that could've been 20 years ago but I sure don't remember it then.) He did say of course being testosterone it could make males more macho, thus the reason for giving it to mares. He seemed to think that the reason Kent had no horse was the horse had lost his source of energy without the testosterone/anabolic steroid.Then reminded me of the bicycle guy  Landis who lost his title due to the presence of excessive amounts of testosterone (I bet the Tour de France could make you tired). He said usually a corticosteroid is given as an anti inflammatory. (wonder why Draynay was given anabolic steroids with testosterone, explains his agressive behavior). The one thing he asked that I didn't know was if Dr. Arthur is a clinical research scientist or a practicing veterinarian and I admitted that I didn't know but thought he had some good insight and he stated multiple times it was his opinion and couldn't give any definitive answers and had no clinical documentation for or against the Winstrol. the others he said he was against.

Atthebarn2 02 Jul 2008 9:07 PM

Atthebarn, the hole in your post is the fact that your pharmacist is comparing horses to humans.

A 1 ton horse to a 200 pound human and the various effects to both is not at equal measure. This is comparable to giving toddler allergy medicines to an adult.

It's the same as the ongoing anti-whip deal. People think it would hurt! But that's because they're measuring it by human terms, not horse terms. Horses often treat eachother like worst enemies in the field with teeth and hoof. You know that.

The winstrol was not Big Brown's losing factor. I mean, if he was 'coming down' from steroids, he would've done that in the Derby and the Preakness, right? His last dose has been documented over and over to have been April 15th.

I would like to see a study on how prevalent steroids were in the 60s , 70s and 80s, vs. today. I've been told by a few people it was at a much heavier usage rate.

jj 02 Jul 2008 11:11 PM

good stuff from B-H...like the good Dr. said get busy as we don't want or need the fed in our BIZ...thank's to you also Dr. Arthur for the straight scoop...LLTK!!!

Bellwether 03 Jul 2008 2:40 AM

JJ, I agree he was talking about humans, but part of the reason I like him so much is he also is a horse owner, former race horse owner and like a lot of much older folk was raised on a ranch. He said steroids are fairly new to racing, but I'm not sure when that is exactly,you're right it would be interesting to know. Maybe the reason he asked if Dr. Arthur was a research scientist or practicing vet was so he could be asked about things like that. The other thing I failed to mention is he told me that Testosterone derivatives are harder to detect, wish Dr.Arthur would have addressed that. As far as the come down from it, we were told that was his last dose and whereas I'm no expert, just my personal view and what the experts have told me, just like a body builder doesn't get skinny in 3 weeks the cumulative effects don't wear off that fast either. Alos if the colt comes back and wins big, hooray for him. But his trainer has ruined the view of the horse with nearly every race fan and his owners have finally realized that.I agree with you on the whip issue, and have said as much on the blog about Jeremy, the only thing on that is the eye is comparably sensitive, agreed? And like a lot of things we do, some things are ill advised.

Aththebarn2 03 Jul 2008 7:58 AM

jj.

Big Brown was given steriods monthly.  Last shot was April 15 so the next shot would have been May 15.  He had already run the Derby and the Preakness was right around the time for the next shot.

3 weeks late on an injection would have meant he was coming down off them I would think.  I don't know how long it takes to clear the system but I'm pretty sure it was gone by then.  Just my opinion of course.

MonicaV 03 Jul 2008 9:19 AM

Atthebarn2... aggressive behavior ? Me? No... I am just getting weak from your constant BS... and boy do you shovel the BS. Tell me Atthebarn2, do you read what you post?  How do you manage to use so many words and not say anything? Have we learned nothing...KAREN !!! "It is shown that steroid use in men has a GREAT chance of making them infertile." What ? Huh ? Where did you get that crazy stuff Karen??? Please please stop making silly, crazy statements like that.  You know anything about steroids in humans and fewer of you know about steroids and its effects on horses so just stop with the CRAZY statements.  There is no proof whatsoever that Winstol or any other steroid makes a horse run faster and since you do not know how much is given and how often any comment at all is just plain nuts.

Karen... before making crazy statements remember few people on earth have taken more steroids than the California Governor and how many kids does he have ???

draynay 03 Jul 2008 9:47 AM

Do steroids affect  performance?? Well I don't have any scientific proof but I do know this: Home runs have drastically declined since steroid testing begantwo years ago! I know certain players seem to have lost "power" since drug-testing was introduced! I see that some young fire ball, throwing pitchers just don't seem to be able to throw the mid-90's fastball since they had to have their unrine tested.So, I just don't know if steroids affect performance( and, if your interested, I can give you a real good deal on a bridge in Brooklyn!)

Gee, I wonder why so many trainers use steroids? Maybe the horses just like the taste of it. Or, the needle feels so good!

This issue has to be confronted -Now. Get rid of steroids, lasix, and bute. The sport thrived for years without any of the aforementioned!

Introduce severe penalties for misuse of drugs. Invoke a "three time" loser penalty: If you are caught three times trining horses you are on illegal or banned substances, you history; done; gone; finished. In other words, for you,"the fat lady has sung!"

RD is right. Some trainers have too many horses. Are they able to do this because of steroids, and other drugs? Probably.

wista 03 Jul 2008 10:22 AM

I don't see why for the overall good of racing, all tracks and states can't unite and have a no drug policy for all horses all the time while racing. New York was like this for around 100 years without any problems. I can't see why it's so hard today for people to realize, overall it would be better for the horses,  by not masking any pain during a race therefore preventing some breakdowns. The only drug horses ever ran on in years past is 'Bute.' I know Vets wouldn't like this policy since this is how they make a living however I didn't say vets shouldn't administer drugs (as necessary) between races. I think horses could be administered drugs for example lasix AFTER a race if needed, but not steroids. I think trainers should be punished more severely. If a horse needs steroids to compete then they should be running at a different track or if a trainer has to resort to using steroids to win races then they should find another profession, because their horsemanship isn't cutting it. I think being ruled off one year mandatory sentence for a first offense and a three year sentence for a second offense and ten years for a third offense would be more effective than say a 30 day suspension, besides the monetary fines, hence quell the number of  positves tests. As long as the penalties are enforced of course and adhered to by all states would this work. Some people might think this sounds harsh, perhaps it is, Otherwise you'd have a situation for example, Pat Valenzuela where if ruled off in California can apply for and get a license to ride in Louisiana. What problem is this solving? None, thank you. Nothing worthwile is ever easy. Non enforcement of a suspension only enables Valenzuela to continue putting more Jockeys' and horses lives in danger and doesn't help Valenzuela or his fellow riders. I read in another blog where I agree with the person who said after 30 years, trainer Oscar Barrera couldn't catch a cold, then all of a sudden he's winning everything in sight? Barrera turned claimers into stakes contenders virtually overnight? C'mon, Everyone knows this isn't right. I'm only shocked there wasn't an investigation. If you eliminate the source, you eliminate the problem.

Billy D. 03 Jul 2008 12:01 PM

Even though I've been ruled off of this blog by my better half I want to make one last comment.Draynay I misguidedly defended your position on Curlin's owners, I UNLIKE YOU,do READ others posts and try to think about what I write.My spelling may not be perfect but my thoughts are clear. They are my opinion. No insults are thrown at people who don't throw them in the first place. YOU really need some help. Bash me and everyone else if you will, it doesn't make any of us a lesser person, just you.

Billy D. I beleve it was Richard Dutrow Jr. who threw that comment out there about Oscar and about some others when he was explaining his own pending suspension and I believe this is #9 for him, don't put too much credence into what he says.

Atthebarn2 03 Jul 2008 12:27 PM

Atthebarn, thank you for responding in a cool manner. :]

Of course, you're right, the eye is a sensitive area. At the same time, jockeys throw the whip up towards the head many times during a race but not to actually hit the horse; just so the horse sees it and accelerates a little. I admit I haven't read too much into that but I would tag that on an honest mistake. I don't think Mr.Rose needed anger management sessions, at least.

As far as owners go, some are very informed and some know everything about their horses. Others, in comparison, know that they're paying the bills and that their horses are racing. Not to offend owners in any way, but they are not typically not as knowledgeable on these things as trainers themselves.

As far as people saying that these trainers have too many horses; that's what they have assistant trainers for! Pletcher has them, Motion has them, etc. Mistakes happen, people can get sidetracked;

'Time to give that horse his clenbutrol.' 'Hey, I think this horse's leg hot come look at it.' The supervisor walks off, the administrator gives just a bit too much clenbutrol. I mean, I'm not saying that's what happened, I'm just saying it can happen and it shouldn't be criminal! That's just my angle.

jj 03 Jul 2008 1:46 PM

Draynay,

Once again, whey do you have to be so nasty and insulting?  You have a right to think whatever you like and you do but so does everyone else.  

Monica V 03 Jul 2008 1:58 PM

Monica...Monica... who was I nasty or insulting too?  Karen ? Because I asked her to stop making silly "STATEMENTS" or crazy "STATEMENTS".

"men that use steroids have a great chance of becoming infertile". Monica...that is what Karen said... that statement is nuts and you know it.  That's not being nasty that is being truthful.

draynay 03 Jul 2008 2:42 PM

I asked a question wanting a factual answer because I haven't heard anything about it and champion horses breeding rights are being sold for millions of dollars. And Draynay, this is directly from the DEA's website on steroid abuse: In men, use can cause shrinkage of the testicles, enlargement of the male *** tissue, and sterility. So I think it was a valid question.

Karen 03 Jul 2008 2:57 PM

I do not administer any drugs to my horse during the show season or afterward,  just vitamin supplements in his feed that I purchase from a local feed store.  My question is,  Why does a healthy race horse need any type of medication to do what they are supposedly bred to do naturally, run. This Lasix bothers me. I have heard that it is not performance enhancing, however does it need to be administered to a healthy animal.  I understand is opens their airways or something to that effect. If mother nature did not provide a horse with the ability to breathe properly then shouldn't that horse have no business on the race track.  In other words, that horse should be declared unable to perform due to physical incapability. If they need Lasix to perform, they are not fit to be a race horse. Does anyone else feel that these breathing deficiencies should be reason to eliminate a horse as a potential race prospect and breeding prospect as well.?  I strongly do.

FormerFan 03 Jul 2008 3:03 PM

FormerFan: You're right. Horses shouldn't need anything to run.

jshandler 03 Jul 2008 3:06 PM

HEY DRAYNAY:

YOU ARE ALWAYS MAKING STUPID INSULTING REMARKS TOWARD THE OTHER READERS. WHAT IS WORSE IS YOU DON'T HAVE A CLUE WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. LET ME ASK YOU THE MILLION DOLLAR QUESTION? HOW MANY RACEHORSES DO YOU OWN? I OWN A COUPLE AND I'LL BET I KNOW MORE THAN YOU WILL EVER KNOW. I DON'T ENGAGE IN THIS BUSINESS FOR A MEANS OF MAKING A LIVING. I DO IT FOR THE SPORT. YOU HURL YOUR IDIOT REMARKS,BUT WHEN YOU GET IT BACK,YOU CAN'T TAKE IT. JUST LIKE A SCHOOL YARD BULLY! YOUR COMMENTS IN LAST WEEKS BLOG REGARDING BRASS HAT BEING A "HAS BEEN" WAS UNFOUNDED. THAT HORSE HAS MORE HEART THAN YOUR TINY MIND CAN FATHOM. HE'S LUCKY JUST TO BE ON THE TRACK CONSIDERING WHAT PROBLEMS HE'S FACED. YOUR BEHAVIOR IS ABSURD,LIKE AN INMATURE KID ALWAYS TRYING TO DRAW ATTENTION TO YOURSELF.WHY DON'T YOU GROW UP AND PUT ON YOUR "BIG BOY" PANTS? YOU TALKED ABOUT SOMEONE THROWING BS AROUND? MY ADVICE IS DONT THROW STONES WHEN LIVING IN A GLASS HOUSE.

MIKE RELVA 03 Jul 2008 3:17 PM

FormerFan; I've been told that EIPH developed back in the 60s or so, and before then bleeders were once in a blue moon. Then we gave them lasix, which was also marketed beginning in the 60s, and bleeders became one in the pack, so people bred to them. Now many more horses are bleeders. For me, this cites the need to import horses from Germany or Europe who don't need lasix, and who don't run on it, to fix out EIPH prone horses.

I think lasix is nessecary, however. I wouldn't want my horse coming back to the barn, after a race, gushing blood. I would prefer my horse to have the right medication to prevent *discomfort*. Lasix, the answer, shouldn't be the target. The reason we need lasix to begin with should be the issue.

Horses don't need anything to run, bleeders will run without lasix. You just won't like how they come back.

jj 03 Jul 2008 3:17 PM

Gotta love the way the Doc tiptoed around the question about Winstrol. He should be on McCain's staff. The "we don't know " answer says nothing about performance enhancement. The fact of the matter is that any steroid whether in humans or animals allows for bigger appetites and prolonged energy.  That is where the performance enhancement comes in play. It aids in the things that allow one to stretch there limits which leads to the enhanced performances. That's why steroids are banned where they are in humans. It isn't doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

As for Karen's comment on steroids possibly leading to impotence in humans she is right on. Contrary to Draynay's close minded thinking this is a proven fact.

As in all things the use of these drugs has a larger effect on some then others. Draynay seems to believe it is all or nothing. That goes with the side effects as well. Just because the Gov. of Cali. has kids doesn't mean steroids don't lead to impotence in others.

This interview was weak. Ask the broad question and let the vague answer go unchallenged. You should have demanded the answers go deeper. The Doc talked about using steroids to enhance appetite and touched on questions about whether or not it allows horses to train at a higher level. He posed them as questions and that says to me he either doesn't know much about the effects or doesn't want to tell.

You then asked if he thought they should be banned and let him off the hook when he said yes and you failed to ask him why in his opinion they should be.

This interview answered nothing for the common observer. All it did was leave the door open to those close minded Draynay's of the world to read it any way they want.  

thw wiz 03 Jul 2008 3:21 PM

This is a Bloodhorse blog, for heaven's sake, not 60 minutes or freakin' Meet the Press.

jj 03 Jul 2008 4:00 PM

Everyone who is upset by Draynay: Treat 'em like PETA and ignore 'em! It's that easy.

jj 03 Jul 2008 4:07 PM

Thanks JJ. I had about 15 minutes to interview Dr. Arthur and did the best I could in the allotted time. The purpose of the interview was to educate people about certain drugs, not to put Dr. Arthur under the microscope. Can't please everyone.

jshandler 03 Jul 2008 4:21 PM

I'm in the clear the Mrs. went home, now I'm a secret poster. Wiz, about Draynay, that's what some who've left the board had said before the Q&A. In fairness to Jason, it would take an intensive interview to find out all the answers that's one reason I took the Q&A to someone who is an expert in medicine and knows horses too. I'm sure Draynay will say he's not an expert but if so the Druggist can let him fill his next prescription for Winstrol or Prozac since he isn't taking it anymore, obviously. Jason, an article in the Bloodhorse with both sides would be interesting or maybe a two part interview with pro and con (although I didn't read it as too pro or con, surprisinly objective if you actually READ it.)

Atthebarn2 03 Jul 2008 5:31 PM

Wiz... what are you talking about ?

Karen said "If men take steroids there is a GREAT chance it will make them sterile".  THAT IS NOT TRUE !!!

THERE IS NOT A "GREAT CHANCE" it will make you infertile.  MY COMMENT was for her for using the words GREAT CHANCE which you can look up ANYWHERE ... do a google search and show me documents or any data that says using steroids has a GREAT CHANCE of making you infertile. YOU WON'T FIND IT !!!

If it were true very few Olympic or Sports Athletes would have any children.  Making a statement like that is just plain reckless. It would be like me saying...Taking drug XYZ has a "Great Chance" of causing nausea, vomiting, epigastric distress, diarrhea, and black, hairy tongue. The hypersensitivity reactions noted are skin eruptions (ranging from maculopapular to exfoliative dermatitis); urticaria; reactions resembling serum sickness, including chills, fever, edema, arthralgia, and prostration; laryngeal edema; and anaphylaxis. Fever and eosinophilia may frequently be the only reactions observed. Hemolytic anemia, leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, neuropathy, and DEATH.  What drug is XYZ ??? Its Penicillin and its side effects....

draynay 03 Jul 2008 5:46 PM

MIKE RELVA ... WHAT? Please show me what stupid insulting remarks I have made to anyone on this forum... I'll wait.....please show me my "stupid insulting remarks." Huh...? When I get it back I can't take it ? LOL... please please give it to me. Polish off your best narrative and give me your best shot.  Show me how I have gone astray or how I have slipped off the wagon. Use my own words and bury me with your articulate and poetic tongue. Do your worst Mike..... I'll wait....

draynay 03 Jul 2008 5:55 PM

jj... if its too hot in the kitchen for you.... If your verbal and literary skills are not up to par send in Monica or Slew they may be able to help you. I wouldn't want to spare with someone who is handicapped.

draynay 03 Jul 2008 6:02 PM

GOOD INTERVIEW. I KNOW THIS IS A VERY ACTUAL THEME NOW A DAYS BUT STERIODS AND OTHER DRUGS HAVE BEEN AROUND FOR ALMOST 80 YRS. AND BACK THEN THERE WASN'T MANY TEST FOR THEM.I KNOW OF MANY STORIES FROM BELMONT AND AQUEDUCT THAT MARIJUANA AND SOME SORT OF COCAINE COMPOUNDS WERE VERY COMMON IN THE 60'S AND 70'S.NOT TO MENTION BATTERY SWITCHES ON HORSES AND OTHER "ENHANCING" ARTIFACTS,THE ONLY DIFFERENCE FROM THEN AND NOW IS...WE ACTUALLY HAVE TESTS TODAY

DANYLSON 03 Jul 2008 6:33 PM

To jj I've seen this pattern with Draynay before,like in April and May. My advice is state your opinion and do not respond to his rant.He will not read the whole of what you wrote but will pick one thing out and ignore the rest.Good luck and Jason it was a good thing to get Dr.Arthur on even if people didn't get what you were trying to do.

Wanda 03 Jul 2008 7:43 PM

Dany, go to steroid.com, it tells all about the history of steroids, you'll see your timeline is off.  Draynay might want to go there too and find out why in the heck his Dr was giving it to him for a shoulder injury.

brdgm 03 Jul 2008 8:00 PM

Arthur mentioned that they can only detect 800 drugs.  So, if someone knows (and there are those who can get the information )what they are testing for, they can drug their horses around what they are testing for...  They need to give the trainer a lot more than nine months for a positive test to deter the cheaters.  

Something like first offense, you get one year, and second offense, you can't train anymore.

Steve Goodwins 03 Jul 2008 9:30 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't I comment about a google on steroids way back and was shot down. Didn't a couple of others copy the google or the inserts from the drug? Now because Draynay has finally done it and chose the parts he wanted to stress it's right? I'm going to go back to training and tending horses and listen to the wife.

Atthebarn2 03 Jul 2008 9:41 PM

Karen, I understood your question, hope you get an answer. I can only say that I hope Winstrol does cause infertility since Draynay took it, we wouldn't want him to reproduce little hate mongers. Jason, the pick six is at 150 some million tomorrow at Belmont. Simulcast here I come, you too? Good luck.Do you go to the sales? July sale in a little over a week.

Atthebarn2 03 Jul 2008 10:58 PM

Atthebarn: I do not go to the sales but I will be taking a shot at the pick 6 tomorrow. Should be fun, but I think you meant to say 150 thousand, not million.

jshandler 03 Jul 2008 11:02 PM

Jason, you're right my blunder, if it were 150 million there'd be no empty spots at any race track in the country. Wishful thinking, tiredness , exhaustion from fighting Draynay and being chewed out by the Mrs. Is that enough excuses, well I still hope one of us hits it, me more than you though, sorry bud.

Atthebarn2 03 Jul 2008 11:10 PM

Wow... I had to double-check my browser to make sure that I was still on bloodhorse and that I hadn't gotten sidetracked onto myspace.  ;-)  Just teasing, the sport needs folks with passion and zero tolerance for BS.

I think that sport would do well to ask if there is a bigger issue than just using/abusing drugs?  Do we need to make changes to address why there seems to be a "need" for them whereas other countries may not have such a problem?  Maybe change would be more effective if we figured out the root of the problem.  I don't know the statistics off the top of my head, but if other countries don't have the problems with violations that we do and their horses still race... clearly something is different.

-Is the airquality at the tracks or in barns too poor and thus the need for clenbuterol? (Or does the national epidemic of kids with asthma tell us that something else may be at work... such as overall poor air quality).  The same for lasix... I have heard a lot of folks over the years say that bleeders are genetic, but a lot of articles that I have read indicate an environmental trigger.

-Has the race to the breeding shed and the financial gain of precocious speed undermined the ruggedness of the breed?  If so, how do we reduce the value of racing fast and young and make allowing horses to mature at their own rate a viable thing?  Could we institute a program with similar attributes to the keuring that is done in warmbloods to improve the soundness while preserving the speed in our breeding stock?

-Has the sport (as all others seem to be) become so efficient through scientific study that there aren't any truly stand-out superstars anymore... that many horses are achieving their full potential for speed and therefore every advantage counts if you're going to win and therefore the temptation is to push to the point of breakdowns?

Everyone is screaming "no drugs", but other than proposing laws and penalties (a good starting point), I am very interested in seeing what else needs to be done.  Maybe I'm really naive, but I don't think that just setting thresholds is enough to ensure safe racing and long careers.

Racefan66 03 Jul 2008 11:39 PM

Racefan,  good point about the clebuterol, notice Arthur said the #1 drug they deal with is clenbuterol, the #1 problem with Cali, polution. Also if steroinds are okay, why did he want a total ban and praise England for banning them in 70's. The other thing that struck me was the lidocaine, California has a thrueshold and every other state is a positive if it's found at all? Sounds like California has a few more problems than most. One of the things I didn't understand was a warmblood, what the heck is that? I've never heard it in racing. Are you in racing or another type of horse business. Whoever knows the answer please feel free but doesn't England allow training with certain meds but no race day meds?

bradgm 04 Jul 2008 12:26 AM

Right on Racefan...

Let's look at every angle. The horse IS the sport, and the industry is under INTENSE scrutiny right now (and it's about time). Any horse who has been chemically enhanced must not race. Trainers need much, much more severe penalties for infractions--and thier ENTIRE operations need to be shut down--and not simply be allowed to continue with surrogate "assistant" trainers. The whip issue?

Maybe it doesn't hurt the horse (have you asked him? and did he answer?), but what gives US the right to hit them? Gimme an answer!

Folks, this is the question that laymen race-viwers are asking, and we need to take this seriously. I also agree that there are no standout superstars anymore, although I'm still pullin' for Curlin, who is the best I've seen in years. The last true superstar in my mind was Spectaculer Bid. John Henry, and Sunday Silence & Easy Goer (because of thier rivalry) might also make my list. It's really hard these days to get any kind of gage on stardom when only a smidgeon of horses even make it through the Triple Crown--much less a FULL career. The Europeans have been complaining that the breed (Kentucky-breds) are getting soft for years. It's because we are allowing unsound horses to breed prolifically. This entire drug issue is a "no brainer". It's gotta stop. Maybe our racehorses will begin to run faster again, and we can all be happy.

Brian in California 04 Jul 2008 3:09 AM

Atthebarn2 we are fighting?  What are we fighting about? Is it possible that because I have taken Winstrol I might know a little something about it. Or are you of the thought that all steroids are alike and any user is an abuser?  First of all let me tell you NO ONE looks forward to a Winstrol shot because it burns like hell going in.  Second the shots helped me continue my workouts and I did not gain water weight while using it. That is the reason bodybuilders use Winstol... they use it as a CUTTING drug.  NO ONE uses it to build muscle mass there are Deca's for doing that.  In the early 1980's I roomed with a body builder and he used every steroid you could name. He did it for years and I even gave him his shots at times....mostly the Winstol shots because they hurt so bad. I have seen the drugs used hundreds of times by dozens of people and have been shot with the stuff myself over the last nearly 30 years... am I qualified to talk about it ? Do you think its possible I may know a little bit about the stuff ?

draynay 04 Jul 2008 9:24 AM

Draynay,

You're talking to a self admitted older guy in Atthebarn. If you have a father or older relative, yes he is fighting with you. You've insulted him and hit him where it hurts the worst, questioning his knowledge about his 45+ year profession (yes I read that in his postings). You are questioning his values, his posts show him to be old school upstanding, not approving of steroids, abuse by whip or abuse of the horse in any way. This guy stated he loves his horses, his posts are at all hours of the day and night, taking care of horses at the track and his farm.I hope he doesn't mind me defending him I've made a connection to him, Monica and a few others because of their passion for the horse and horse racing,me I'm just a handicapper and gambler and general sports fan. You said you took Winstrol, I said go to steroid.com and then find out why your Dr gave you that instead of a corticosteroid for inflammation and pain. Dr.Arthur, the druggist and others have said it's for wasting diseases, improve appetite etc. If you didn't go to the site here's an excerpt

" the legitimate use of anabolic steroids for a variety of medical problems also continues, ranging from the treatment of Andropause or Menopause, and ranging from speeding the recovery in burn victims to helping improve quality of life in Aids patients, to helping fight *** cancer and stave off osteoporosis.

Thus, the history of anabolic steroids is not something that has already occurred and been written, but rather it is a continuing history being written every day by scientists, lawmakers, doctors and of course, athletes."

bradgm 04 Jul 2008 2:01 PM

Brian;

It doesn't seem fair, or right, to the owners OR horses to take them out of training just because their trainer screwed up. If the assistant trainer is familiar with the horse, and is keeping them in a familiar barn, wouldn't that be better than switching trainers who has to learn everything about them - and putting them in a different barn or different track? Like communism, it might look good in theory, but when it's played out it just ain't right. ;)

As far as the 'what gives us the right to hit them' comment - What gives us the right to put saddles on them? To ride them? To keep them in stalls? To ask them to run 6 furlongs, a mile, a mile and a half? I mean if we're going to play that angle, we might as well just give up now and let animal activist s run the sport.

Ah, how soon we forget. Azeri, Tiznow, Ghostzapper, Bernardini, Lost in the Fog. They're all great in their own right, but just not by everyone's standards.

As far as our 'far superior' European foes. Are they over there declaring that they've got the next great champion horse, either? No. No Red Rum or any of that. Makybe Diva was nice, but she's Australian. Until they have a out loud world dominating horse they shouldn't be directing us on how to run our races.

The horses you listed. How do you know they didn't have steroids in their system? They'd already been around for a decade or so by then. (The steroids/lasix, I mean.)

jj 04 Jul 2008 2:45 PM

jj--

Owners take risks. Horses who have been administered illegal substances would be better off in more responsible barns.

It's not just animal activists that are influencing this movement. MILLIONS of casual race fans and observers have witnessed many catastrophic injuries on world stages. WE ARE LOSING FANS. When we lose fans, we lose bettors. If we lose bettors--the sport is dead. We have to attract new blood (fans/bettors), and the status quo ain't gonna do it.

I considered Azeri,  

Ghostzapper, Go for Wand, and Personal Ensign in my comments earlier, but they,in my mind were not SUPERSTARs--with the exception of Azeri, they simply did not race enough to claim that honor, and none of the horses you mentioned compare to the thoroughbreds that pre-date 1990.

I did not say that Europeans are in any way superior, but they have been shopping in our "far superior" Kentucky-bred market for decades. Many comments have come from across the pond that the current product is far less resilient than in the past. I did not say that they bred better horses. We do breed the best horses in the world, from a sales-ring standpoint, but they aren't as sound OR as fast as they once were. Humans continually break speed records in sports... often multiple times in a single year. Thoroughbreds are not getting faster, they are getting more fragile. Spectacular Bid was the last horse that continually broke track, American, and world records at classic distances.

I didn't say that the horses I mentioned were or were not on steroids--all I know is that they were faster and generally more sound.

Viva Revolucion!

Brian in California 04 Jul 2008 5:05 PM

Brian :)

Owners often don't know what is all going on at their barns. Some are. Others just pay the bills and watch the horses run. They might be updated on their horse's condition, but that doesn't mean they know down-to-the-dose medications that their horses are getting. Owners shouldn't be penalized. They are the people financing the horses and the trainers! If you fine the owners for something that may not have ever known about, then why should they continue to pay thousands of dollars per horse? That's the quickest way to lose support in horse racing is to screw with the owners.

Everyone is saying that racing is losing fans. I would like to see a study on that. It would be trivial, I admit, but make you guys chill out. After a performance like Big Brown's, just like Smarty Jone's or Funny Cide's, little girls flock to the sport. Dutrow received fan letters. 'Gaining fans' shouldn't be the main priority here. Keeneland's attendance went up this year. I would be willing to say Saratoga's will, too.

Who bets and who doesn't has nothing to do with the quality of horses we have out there. I would put that blame on the economy!

People are not willing to risk losing as much as they were before. "5 dollars on a horse that might not win, or 5 dollars towards a tank of gas...hmm. What a tough decision."

Lawyer Ron broke a track record last year at Saratoga, didn't he? Regardless of fast track or not. Smarty Jones almost broke a record with his dominating win in the Preakness.

Just because this year was tough doesn't mean the whole ship is sinking!

jj 04 Jul 2008 6:03 PM

Saratoga is always one of the most well attended meets. The short meet makes it as close to a vacation for all of us lucky enough to have ever trained there.

Owners usually pay the Vet bills. lots of legal meds out there.

Atthebarn2 04 Jul 2008 8:43 PM

jj,

I truly appriciate your comments. It's enjoyable to debate with an intelligent adult (unlike the interactions of some of the bloggers above).

Again, I never suggested that owners be penalized in any way. I agree with you that they are part of the life blood of the industry, but TRAINERS need to be held accountable, and the cheaters need to be flushed out. If owners have to switch barns when trainers cheat, than so be it. It would clean things up really fast. Those trainers would have trouble finding new owners, wouldn't they? GOOD!

I am very glad that attendance was up at Keenland this year, but was handle up? Serious question--I don't know. I do know that the property that Bay Meadows stands on in Cal was sold and has closed--because there was not enough fan base to support the previously existing NORCAL tracks. Even our state fair cancelled racing--not enough interest (or handle) to make it cost-effective.

The priority here is the horse, I agree, but without the confidence of the attendees and bettors, the RACING is in jeapardy. The economic state of the industry has been a topic for years, not just since the current recession (I forgot, It's NOT a recession--George Dubya has told us so) lol.

Lawyer Ron broke one track record at a major venue--kudos! Almost doesn't count for Smarty--who never raced again after the triple crown. Frosty the Snowman broke a world record several years ago, but it was a random, freak performance (I believe it was six furlongs--a major accomplishment. I don't believe anyone can make a case that these horses can be even marginally compared to the SUPERSTARS of the past--Secratariat, Affirmed, Spectacular Bid, Ruffian (who was also obviously fragile). C'mon, they simply are not as brilliant as they were for DECADES before 1990.

The ship is not sinking, but's takin' on a lot of water! If we continue with the status quo, it will eventually push that ship under. We must get over our fears and embrace change.

Brian in California 04 Jul 2008 9:13 PM

Bradgm,

 Sorry to be vague in my comment about warmbloods and keuring.  Warmbloods are a bunch of breeds of European origin that are specifically bred for sport.  In order to keep the breed characteristics and optimize performance, they have horse trials for breeding stock (keurings).  In order to be bred, the horse goes to a keuring and must meet conformation standards and movement/performance standards.  I was wondering if the concept could be applied to try and improve the quality of the breeding stock in the racing industry and to reduce the three-race-and-off-to-the-shed issue.

As for me, I've been in thoroughbreds for a long time... there isn't another breed that compares to them in my heart.  Part of my operation is to take retiring racehorses and retrain them for other purposes.  Eventing is my second passion (racing being the first) and it's a great second job/market for racehorses... so I've learned dressage (thus the warmblood/keuring comment).

Racefan66 04 Jul 2008 10:25 PM

I don't know if the racing ship is sinking or not, but sometimes it's awfully hard not to feel that way.  There's minimal coverage of racing news in the regular papers... and it would appear that most of those writers know little about horses or racing.  The only major publicity outside of the Triple Crown and Breeder's Cup is when something bad happens.  For those of us who remember regular quality coverage of races in papers, watercooler talk about the various races, thrilling rivalries throughout the year... the way things are now makes it feel like the end of an era.  I really do hope that you're right JJ and that we're just in a rough spot.

 Maybe it's just because I love horses, but for the life of me I can't figure out why so many people watch NASCAR instead of horseracing.  Both are racing, but to me the challenges of getting everything right to win a horserace is so much more interesing... and you can bet on horseraces!  That's got to be way better than spending an afternoon in the noisy heat watching cars make left turns.

Racefan66 04 Jul 2008 10:49 PM

Race, ok thanks for that, I was just kind of curious how it tied into Thoroughbred racing. But as far as the conformation standards, Maybe one of our horse people can say, but I think they breed for, speed, conformation, gait etc or buy the one fitting that criteria, not many buy for breeding alone from what I've heard and read, if the horse is back in the knee or off in any way and has royal breeding they won't touch them. The only bad thing is the steroids used to bulk them up and make them grow and the surgery they do to straighten them out but they're trying to do away with that, just read it that's all. Also, do you mean three year old or just 3 races? Also, Brian I keep hearing you saying 'we' is this an owner or trainer perspective?

bradgm 04 Jul 2008 11:07 PM

Brian,

In a different comment you stated  that "It's time for US to Be realistic and start punishing ANY behaviour(sic) that can be perceived IN any way as a lack of propriety. This goes for jocks, trainers, owners, grooms, starters, etc."  I asked you exactly what you meant by that, you chose not to answer. Do you mean in every facet of our lives, since they are so closely intertwined with each other? Now you’re talking about ’we’, are you involved in racing as an official, steward, what?  And I guess it’s only intelligent discourse because you are involved? Well a lot of us are passionate about the sport and a lot of us live it every single day so of course we’re going to defend it. And while you’re speaking of adult discussion, like him or hate him, I find the reference to a political figure in a Frat boy manner, extremely juvenile, distasteful and out of place on a horse racing board discussing medication issues. That part of your post I happen to agree with. I don't approve of just moving horses to an assistant and things just keep humming along, plus I'm from the Jack Van Berg school of thought that it isn't a level playing field for us who try to medication free. But, if you read Dr. Arthur in another story, he stated as the vet for CHRB that 80% of the tests were honest mistakes by the trainer. I don't exactly agree with that, but maybe he's right.

Atthebarn2 04 Jul 2008 11:45 PM

Giving a trainer days for the use of illegal drugs is fine, but IT does NOT work because the trainer puts the horses in another trainers name and the barn run anyway. A law has to be passed that if a trainer is fined he can't transfer the horses he has into another trainers names.

This is the only way illegal drugs will be eradicated in racing

Just Speaking 05 Jul 2008 8:02 PM

I would like to thank Dr. Arthur and Jason Shandler for this Q & A interview.

As for the PETA comments, many of us who are involved in the business (owners, racing managers, etc.) that love our horses and want the sport to go in the right direction appreciated the involvement of PETA.  They might be radical at times, but they were not wrong to put pressure on the industry and the thing that they have going for them is sheer numbers and power.  It spooked the "leaders" in the industry a bit so people like me will finally start seeing the changes that needed to be made years ago. The CEOs that have been largely in charge of the industry have had enough time to do what needed to be done a long time ago, and the reasons that the changes that need to be made have not been implemented so far is because each TB organization wants to be the one that saves racing.  They are more out for personal glorification than they are for the good of the industry as well as the safety of the jockeys and horses.  Federal government regulation may be the only way to go because the organizations and states haven't gotten their act together, and they have had a long time to do it.  Something to think about is the changes that you will now see would not have come about as swiftly or drastically as they will now if not from all the pressure the industry was recieving.  TB racing safety has not been a number one priority until recently.        

Filly 05 Jul 2008 9:51 PM

Bradgm... you're killing me.  ;-)  Maybe I'm just too tired to put thoughts together at the end of the day or something.  Although trying to think of a better way to phrase my idea just lets me know that it's a clunker anyway.

What I was thinking was that there would be minimum standards for performance, conformation, and soundness in order to qualify a thoroughbred to become breeding stock.  Currently, they just need to be fast and decended from two thoroughbreds... and folks are saying that the current system promotes weakness and unsoundness.  If there were performance standards in order to (for example) qualify as a breeding stallion, perhaps then it would become more financially advantageous to keep horses running.  This would change the current pattern where horses race only briefly and in just a few races a year.

Clearly I'm WAY off track on this one.

Racefan66 05 Jul 2008 11:03 PM

Filly,

WHAT??? Horse racing appreciates PETA? Did you read the Q&A by Larry Jones, do you know what they want to do with horse racing? Maybe a true racing horseman out there might want to weigh in on this. Everything I have read has said racing is trying to come up with something in addition to working on all of the other problems with economics.  Jason, tough beat today, Jersey Joe, uh oh chalk man.

bradgm 05 Jul 2008 11:41 PM

Filly, Maam, you are obviously not connected with racing in any way, if you are, keep your identity a secret because PETA is not just radical at times they are out to totally destroy horse racing. Saying they are a bit radical is like saying Shaquille O'Neal is not very tall.  I too love all of the horses in my barn and at my farm but don't buy into this for a minute. Poly track has been under research for years and a lot of tracks are converting to it. Will it be the saviour, who knows. There have been a lot of us who have been calling for a ban on a lot of different drugs and a lot of us are not running horses on Lasix, or other things, yes a lot are but there are more of us calling for tougher suspensions and no transference of horses to assistants.  Most Racing Authorites work with each other, if you are suspended in one jurisdiction the others almost always follow suit.  If anyone believes this lady for one minute, watch the interview with Larry Jones, who by the way loves his horses just like the rest of us, getting death threats, be there when they protest you. Best of all go to www.peta.org and see what they really think.Here's just a small excerpt from their media center:

"What You Can Do

In a commentary on the racing industry, a reporter for the Philadelphia Daily News remarked, “It is not something they talk about much in their advertising, but horses die in this sport all the time—every day, every single day.”(35) Help phase out this exploitative “sport”: Refuse to patronize existing tracks, work to ensure that racing regulations are reformed and enforced, lobby against the construction of new tracks, and educate your friends and family members about the tragic lives that racehorses lead."

And it is worse than that in other parts of their site. Yes we need change, yes we need a governing board but we don't need PETA calling for government intervention because they have an agenda with anything that involves animals in any other way than just sitting there looking at them.

Atthebarn2 06 Jul 2008 12:07 AM

Anyone who would support PETA on a horse racing blog is only doing so because they are under the secret veil of these boards. What PETA wants to do is end any sport that has any kind of animal involved. They particularly target racing and rodeo and a lot of the people in those sports interconnect with each other. You want to talk about what PETA wants for horse racing?

This statement on their web site sums it up "Racehorses are the victims of a multibillion-dollar industry that is rife with drug abuse, injuries, and race fixing, and many horses’ careers end in slaughterhouses" Oh yes they definitely sound like an objective party who wants to help racing fix their problems. No they want the total abolution of it. This is a horse racing blog we support racing, if a person wants to give us the positives of PETA go ahead but be ready for the reprecussions.

They also make blanket statements about every single person in horse racing and if any of you have seen the HBO special on their founder, you get a perfect picture of what they are like. Horse racing has problems, yes, so do a lot of other sports. What we need is a neutral entity or a pro racing entity that wants to make the sport all it can be, not an entity that would be happiest if it was destroyed.If anyone of you reading this Filly believes what she says, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I want to sell you.

BIGHORSEFAN 06 Jul 2008 12:52 AM

Filly,

I believe that you are a horse racing person who supports PETA.

I also know that Pat Day retired from being a jockey because he was offered a contract as a defensive lineman for the Chicago Bears. And I know for a fact that there really are space aliens here in Roswell.

Horse Racing + PETA= Oil+Water.

Go ahead Filly, pull the other leg.

katsan 06 Jul 2008 2:07 AM

Thanks, Jason, for doing what the Congressional hearing did not-- ask some better questions of an informed "witness" and promote a dialogue which serves to inform and hopefully, lead to some solutions.

Comment 1 from R.D. and the last one when I came in, No. 62 from Just Speaking bracket this nicely: unless and until we have a national sanctioning body enforcing uniform standards and penalties, this industry will continue to be under an increasingly dark cloud of general public suspicion. These suspensions are a cruel joke when all trainers like Asmussen, Dutrow, Biancoine, Pletcher do is turn the operation over to an assistant. Now, if we had a uniform set of rules with a governing body having authority to order dispersal of the gulity barn to compliant stables, then I can ensure you trainers would clean up their acts very quickly.

Have warned in the past about applying what we know about 'roid effects on humans to our equine friends, so let me just observe here Rick Arthur NOT being evasive in his answers, but rather is being a good scientist: we have little knowledge about the effects of 'roids on horses generally, and with respect to performance in particular. The "evidence" is much more antedotal than it is empirical.

To cite but one example, Karen talks about possible infertility issues. Interesting speculation. As no studies done that I am aware of, what we have is representations from the likes of Don Rosenberg, who for 25 years managed operations at Three Chimneys, BB's next home. Rosenberg observes seeing smaller than normal testicles in fresh-off-the-track horses, as well as aggressive. stallion-like behavior in the fillies, to include highly irregular menstral cycles. Rosenberg has said after 4 to 6 months, once the four-legged chemical factories have returned to an apparently more normal body chemistry, things likewise return to normal. However, among the fascinating questions are-- HAVE things REALLY returned to normal, and what impacts might there be on breeding? ANS: we don't know, as there are no reported scientific studies investigations suggesting an answer.

And to fellow t-bred lover and eventer Racefan66, we need your operation and others to be better financed and more widely available to retired off-the-track t-breds. Yet another arena for a national governing body to take action-- a surcharge collected at time of breeding, with proceeds used to take care of these athletes on the other end of their careers, one of many possible approaches.

Could go on and on, but in conclusion, thanks again to Jason for elevating the discussion. Capital Hill please take note.

Bryce Be Quick 06 Jul 2008 9:04 AM

At the risk of making some of you angry, let me defend Filly's comments. I happen to agree with her that PETA's involvement, while misguided and for their own benefit, may actually give the industry the push it needed to make a few changes. Let me be clear, I in no way support what PETA does and I think their leaders know little if nothing about the racing industry. I do, however, believe that when they became involved after the Eight Belles incident, it forced Congress to get involved, which in turn forced our industry leaders to realize that changes need to be made. Without this happening I dont think Congress would have gotten involved. In short, PETA was way off base, especially when accusing Larry Jones and Gabriel Saez of wrongdoing, but in a backwards way they did wake up the powers that be. Hopefully, long overdue changes regarding medication and steroids are not far away.

jshandler 06 Jul 2008 10:47 AM

Jason, there is an interesting comparison of Animal Welfare vs. Animal rights on the pro rodeo web site in a nutshell: "Animal Welfare-based on principles of humane care.

Animal Rights-organizations that support animal rights philosophies seek to end the use and ownership of animals. Animal rights organizations seek to abolish by law: the raising of fram animals for food, clothing rodeos etc." The prca has been forced to defending their sport at every turn. Living in a small state has one advantage and that is access to our politicians. My understanding is the subject of steroids in racing was on the docket long before PETA started harassing Mr. Jones. I wonder if he'd have done an interview with you knowing your support of people who support PETA?

katsan 06 Jul 2008 11:59 AM

Katsan and those of you who misinterpreted my comment regarding PETA. I thought I was clear: I do not support PETA in any way. They are bad for racing. I thought they were completely off base when they attacked Larry and Saez. They have no place in our sport. Understood?

What I do think is that changes in this industry are long overdue. We need a governing body, we need stricter rules on medicine, a ban on steroids and we need to address the problem of all the unwanted horses in the country. We cannot simply hope for those problems to go away.

When PETA made an outcry it forced Congress to stand up and take notice. That in turn will make our leaders act quicker with changes. In my opinion, these changes were not going to happen fast enough without a push from Congress. The industry has suffered major PR damage recently and we are losing a lot of fans. The people who testified at Congress and the Congressional leaders all agreed that changes are needed. Larry Jones in my interview said the same thing. He went as far as saying that "Even though PETA people were barking up the wrong tree, I would like to think this will be the catalyst that will bring about change." That is precisely what I'm saying. Please do not misconstrue my comments that I am some kind of animal rights activist. I am a racing fan, and always will be. Period. Some of you take offense when anyone has the audacity to admit that this industry needs some change.

jshandler 06 Jul 2008 12:59 PM

Thank you Jason for defending me. You completely understood what I was trying to say.

I do not support PETA in any way either, and in no way shape or form am I a member. And yes, I have been involved in racing for a long time and with horses for my entire life.  Although I don't know the whole story behind Larry Jones, I do know that PETA was way off in blaming Saez for Eight Belle's death. However, just as you and I both stated, PETA's involvement speeded up the changes that needed to occur in this industry a long time ago, which was my point in the first place. We should thank the pressure they put on the industry in that way, but we shouldn't condone any more involvement from them because they do not know enough about horses and horse racing to be any more involved than they are now.  

Filly 06 Jul 2008 2:16 PM

From now on, I appreciate if you all would actually read what I have to say and understand it before you misconstrue my statements. I love horses and horse racing more than any of you know, and the ones that truly do are the ones that welcome the changes that so drastically need to occur because this sport is in jeopardy on many fronts. I am 100% for horse racing. I have never even been to PETA's website.  

And polytrack is not the answer to all of the underlying problems in racing.  Using polytrack is like treating the symptoms of a disease instead of curing the disease itself.  Breakdowns will always happen, but there are a lot of rules that a national regulating body could implement in order to further reduce and prevent them.  

Filly 06 Jul 2008 2:48 PM

Filly, your comments may have been well meant but PETA didn't initiate the congressional activity. In my post I said I had spoken to my Congressman some time ago about this. Here is an excerpt from one of the papers that discussed it Washington Bureau "Posted on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 Congress questions use of steroids in horse racing

By Halimah Abdullah | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — The practice of injecting racehorses with steroids to keep them on their feet during the weeks before high-stakes competitions met tough scrutiny at a congressional hearing Wednesday.

Critics say the animals are exploited through the harmful use of anabolic steroids to boost stamina and power and to mask fatigue......The National Thoroughbred Racing Association and other groups have proposed a ban on steroid use in the month before a race to give horses time to get the drugs out of their systems."

PETA does nothing altruistically, I suggest you try to obtain the HBO documentary on Ingrid Newkirk their co-founder. I sincerely believe horse racing is trying to work on something but when you have all different entities scattered to the four corners of the country it takes time. A National board is an excellent idea, now I fear that horse racing will be spending valuable time fending off the constant attacks of PETA, much like the PRCA does for rodeo, which is a ridiculous loss of funds for an economically struggling entity.

katsan 06 Jul 2008 3:12 PM

I went on vacation and came back to find everyone still fighting with Draynay and another Karen posting. Looks like most of the same arguments going back and forth. I truly enjoyed this interview. There has been so much speculation regarding steroid use and so many unanswered questions. My hope is that someday very soon steroid use will be banned in race horses. I particularly agree with the statement made in this interview regarding pushing a horse to train so hard he has to put on meds to eat. There is something wrong with that picture. The entire industry needs to revamp the way they do things. We need to go back to the simpler times.

Karen2 06 Jul 2008 7:49 PM

Given the title of the hearing, I just assumed that it was called because of the nonsense that PETA has been spouting.  The scary part about the picture that PETA paints is how many people outside of the industry believe it.

Racefan66 06 Jul 2008 8:08 PM

No sir Racefan. If you look at the posting of the article describing the hearing you will see that it was on Feb 27,2008 and the first hearing was back then It doesn't say why Congress called it but the congressman from my district said it was on the agenda, steroids are being looked at in any sport that involves gambling or big money. What you said about the picture they paint is very true and that is what several of us have been saying. I am involved in rodeo and racing, Ruidoso is very close to us. The trend here in New Mexico is to close tracks, move them 40-100 miles away simply to enlarge the casinos. That was already approved for the track in Albuquerque which has been there for 60+ years and now RD Hubbard wants to move Ruidoso Downs to Las Cruces. Ellis Park finally agreed to stay open and Hollywood for one more year. If PETA has there way the tracks will close and they've called for a boycott of new tracks. Where is the racing industry and race fan outcry about that?

katsan 06 Jul 2008 10:02 PM

I remember a time when horses were TRAINED to be aggressive and trained hard for their races.  The training was taxing because they needed to be able to physically withstand the stress of a race.  I see so many horses now, particularly the "upper echelon" as people like to call it, who gallop 1 1/2 miles and work sporadically and only race once every 3 months--whenever a "big" race comes up.  The focus is all on running for the big purse money and not on keeping the horses fit and READY--REALLY READY for the stress of a race.  Trainers give steroids to help the horses "recover" from serious training--when they should be training seriously and effectively so the horse has the stamina and muscle strength to recover on their own without the help of drugs.  They baby these expensive horses due to the fear of injury and cross their fingers on the "big day" that everything will work out.  An Olympic athlete doesn't coast on light training and then expect to compete at world class levels on the "big day"--they train hard and risk injury daily to be at their best conditioning on the "big day."  That's how trainers used to train their horses--Secretariat didn't jog his way to a Preakness win and sure as hell didn't "slow gallop" his way to the Triple Crown--he trained hard and ran hard!  

Tigger 06 Jul 2008 11:34 PM

I own horses, and compete in shows occasionally so I understand when they are training and competing injuries can happen and it is necessary to medicate them depending on their problem. However,  I've never shown or ridden my horses when medicated. I allow them to heal then get them off the meds. The one question I have to ask is a simple one,  Why does a healthy race horse need anything in their system to race.. For example, if a healthy horse needs lasix to run,  then wouldn't that horse be considered unhealthy or unfit to race, and with that said, an unhealthy/unfit race horse does not need to be on the track,  right? A healthy athlete, period, should be able to perform clean, with nothing in their system.  IMO,  Any other scenerio is cheating.  Clean or unclean,  there should not be any in-betwen.

FormerFan 07 Jul 2008 11:35 AM

Tigger,  I know what you mean about the higher echelon race horses that train sporadically and run once every three months.  Ever heard of Ghostzapper.? there is your example of a horse that trained sporadically and ran once every 3 months,  probably more like every 4 or 5 months.  Put it this way,  Ghostzapper raced for 4 years,  made 11 lifetimes starts which comes out to 2.75 starts per year.  And they gave this mule a Horse of the Year award.  Pathetic. He wins a race at Lone Star Park,  then runs in some $300,000 one mile event in New York as his final start instead of going to Dubai to run for $6,000,000 in the World Cup because his connections were afraid he would lose. His last race he runs a mile in like one minute and thirty three seconds and change.  Big deal,  it has been done many times before, so they give this horse an eclipse award I guess for not breaking down which is what would have happened had he followed Roses in May to the World Cup.  I'm sorry if Ghostzapper is your favorite horse, I really am, but I continue to be flabbergasted that they gave this horse a horse of the year award,  and remember, that is 4 years of racing equating to 2.75 starts per year.  Come on!

FormerFan 07 Jul 2008 11:47 AM

Maybe....just maybe part of the problem is trainers.  Many of them seem to train horses the way it was done 30 to 50 years ago.  Horses have changed ... they are bred for speed and you train speed differently. Can you imagine a sprinter training the same way for the Olympics as a miler would? Where is it written you can only work a horse once a week?  The breed has changed maybe training needs to change with it.

draynay 07 Jul 2008 1:50 PM

Maybe the breed needs to change back, like a lot are saying, breed for stamina and durability again although one equine geneticist says there hasn't been enough time to actually tell if the breed has changed that much. Mr.Draynay, how often do you work your horses? Do you gallop them and then breeze them and how often do you breeze tham from the gate. Are you training yours agressively or do you give them frequent layoffs? What are the majority of horses in your barn? Are they sprinters or distance runners and do you have a lot of 3 year olds or are they older horses? Are you finding that a lot of them lose weight when worked especially hard or have you got a really good supplement that helps keep them in the feed bucket. I know we used to cook their feed with oats and a handmade mixture and they used to do really well on that.

katsan 07 Jul 2008 3:45 PM

Draynay, Training has changed. Look at how many new drugs they have to inject into the horses as compared to yesteryear. Big Brown is a perfect example of that. Without the juice he would be just another nag like he showed in the Belmont. Wait a sec, he WAS without the juice there. The proof is in the juice (or not).

draynot 07 Jul 2008 4:22 PM

Congress has far more important things to deal with than horse racing. Let's worry about the war, the economy, the illegals from the south, the corporate tax breaks, and oh yeah how bout we finally go get bin-laden (got a bit side tracked there GW with the lies and iraq war didn't we?). The racing industry is dominated by the filthy rich just like the policies of this administration. No Bush-McCain Administration is going to go after their rich counterparts. Don't hold your breath on reform unless we get some real change.  

timeforchange 07 Jul 2008 4:38 PM

Draynay, The old time trainers used to RUN their horses once a week sometimes with even less rest on Wednesday then again on Saturday. Dutrow has been known to run on 2 days rest. Public uproar would be unbelievable if trainers still trained the way they used to even if the horses could still do it and if they weren't still doing a good job they would be out of business, doing whatever you or I do. Part of the reason for not working more than once a week, which is wrong because gallops, jogs and untimed works (usually done while it's still dark) all fall under unpublished works. If you're at the track you can watch them if not you don't even know they did them. But anyway the reason for not having two published/fast works per week is just what your argument says, they are bred for speed and not so much stamina and durability. What would you do have the horse train themselves or maybe the fans train? I think some of your epic battles on here with certain people has colored your thinking, we're not so obtuse that we don't know who you're taking your shot at. Everyone should come over to the Breeders Cup Blog and join in, that way we can see who knows more about the handicapping side of the game. I'm working on mine, the Smile Sprint, hmmm!

JordanA 07 Jul 2008 4:40 PM

They have been breeding for speed for well over 50 years.  I keep saying it, Go get a book called "The First 100 years of the Kentucky Derby" by Author Peter Chew.  This breeding for pure speed has been around much longer than you think and when you read this book,  by a very credible author,  you will be surprised, as I was.  

FormerFan 07 Jul 2008 4:44 PM

JordanA: Yes, the Breeders' Cup Chat blog is now up and running - thanks for the plug. Triple Crown Talk will return in January. For now, let's move the discussion over to the BC Chat and yes, test our handicapping skills against one another.

jshandler 07 Jul 2008 4:48 PM

I'm with Jordan, but I'm stumped on the Princess Rooney, see you at the BC blog, and by the way that was sarcasm in my post to Draynay. I've been reading for months.

kkatsan 07 Jul 2008 5:02 PM

timeforachange: This is a blog about horse racing, not a place to spew out your political issues. I agree with your display name though. It is time for a change. Its time to look at the real issues poisoning the industry we love. They may not be as big as the worlds problems but they are big never the less for some of us.

Karen2 07 Jul 2008 7:29 PM

Former Fan: I agree that the goal should be that fit horses should be able to train and compete clean.  But given the strenuous nature of the sport and training, I think that there are appropriate applications for some medications during training.  To me, a horse using Lasix/clenbuterol is along the lines of a kid with asthma using an inhaler while training to allow them to train regularly.  I'm oversimplifying things with that example, but it's not SO far off so in my opinion it's hard to say that there isn't an appropriate application for lasix or clenbuterol during training/racing.  I also think that some anti-inflammitories have appropriate applications during training too (just like human athletes get to have their Motrin for training aches), but with a set withdrawl period before race day.  If you need theraputic levels of anti-inflammitories in your system on race day, you're not fit to race.  

Racefan66 07 Jul 2008 8:45 PM

Thank goodness for the BC Blog.  Lots to talk about like Zenyatta, synthetic racing surfaces, and favorites that get beat.

Householder 07 Jul 2008 10:13 PM

the thing that stuck with me most from the interview was that the great doctor had worked in the past with Frankel, Mandella, and Ron Mac....coincidentally over the last 2 years those three trainers are struggling mightily to win a race...Frankel and Mandella have been reduced to 10% winning trainers, and Ron Mac, its more like 5%

Eli 14 Sep 2008 7:15 PM

Leave a Comment

All comments are moderated and must be approved before they are posted. The blog author reserves the right to edit or omit any comment.

  (Appears with your comment) (required)
  (Will not be published) (required)
  (required)

Triple Crown Talk

Resources

Click Here to download BloodHorse.com Widgets!