Originally Posted by Cannon Shell (Post 893152)

Oh that's right, I forgot that you already know everything about the subject and all us trainers are just too biased to discuss it.

You make statements like "Lower level horses dont run as much as they used to" and I am supposed to take that as proof that somehow "drugs" are the chief cause ignoring all of the other changes that have occured in the game?

The irony of your "impossible to discuss drugs with trainers" insult is that you come off as a typical internet troll who would rather gossip with other likeminded rumor mongers as opposed to trying to educate yourself on the topic. Suit yourself but people who are willing to not look at other points of view especially coming from trainers who you know are credible on the subject and have a far greater knowledge base are as much of a problem in this sport as the issues themselves.

I am probably as conservative in use of meds as most trainers but understand that racehorses have plenty of issues that must be dealt with especially with the lower level type of horses with which I often have in my barn. There are several owners here that could attest to that. This topic is so warped in the publics view because of misinformation and false innuendo that is taken as fact. Congrats on following the company line. I'm interested in finding out after all is said and done and this big crackdown on "drugs" fails to stem the tide on all the negative trends in the sport what will you blame then?

Originally Posted by cmorioles (Post 893208)

As for the drug thing, did you notice nobody here posted the Bloodhorse article about 2yo horses racing without Lasix? I'm quite sure you didn't miss it. Turns out a very small percentage of those horses showed the slightest trace of bleeding.

Originally Posted by freddymo (Post 893295)

Yeah Chuck you made an awesome case again. That guy is a complete lack of talent hair brain, probably doesnt bet or even follow racing much.

BTW if you double up on the adequan and the Clen in Pa. they will never catch you. Clen works really well and that adequan mixed in with some steriods bute and "canes" is a terrific cocktail.

Originally Posted by cmorioles (Post 893263)

This all started because I mentioned about using clenbuterol every day without knowing for sure it would be beneficial.

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 893312)

That statement above doesn't have much basis in truth, yet you state it, as if it is.

Your constant insult of those that know more than you is beyond tiresome. You should listen to Chuck. Believe me, you'd learn something about horses and drugs.

Originally Posted by cmorioles (Post 893313)

I will say that you are the only person here that questioned the report. The consensus, even among those skeptical like Steve Crist, is that the study was well done and the report unbiased. I mean, even Chuck said he stopped doing it because it didn't do anything positive.

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 893314)

I did not question the report. Your statement was generalized, and not an accurate reflection of what we know about clenbuterol. That was my point.

You have demonstrated a repeated inability to read sentences, and glean an accurate meaning, without veering off into assumption. For example, your not understanding how your obvious insult to all horse trainers could possibly offend Chuck.

Just. Stop.

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 893314)

I did not question the report. Your statement was generalized, and not an accurate reflection of what we know about clenbuterol. That was my point.

You have demonstrated a repeated inability to read sentences, and glean an accurate meaning, without veering off into assumption. For example, your not understanding how your obvious insult to all horse trainers could possibly offend Chuck.

Just. Stop.

Originally Posted by cmorioles (Post 893315)

How can a supposed vet possibly condone giving clenbuterol to a horse every day without even knowing if there was a benefit?

Originally Posted by cmorioles (Post 893315)

How can a supposed vet possibly condone giving clenbuterol to a horse every day without even knowing if there was a benefit? And according to the report there isn't, though some negatives were cited. Oh wait, to pad your income, right?

Originally Posted by freddymo (Post 893316)

I tell you what I know about Clenbuterol, the biggest cheats in the game use it daily and without question it is used to enhance horses ability to run faster. Now they all bleed and they all suffer from hay and dirt in their lungs.

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 893318)

What I said is that your statement about "not even knowing if there was a benefit " is superficial, shallow, generalized, and doesn't reflect what more knowledgable people than you do know about clenbuterol.

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 893321)

If you are in Lexington in Tuesday (tomorrow), you may want to stop by and learn something:

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 893321)

If you are in Lexington in Tuesday (tomorrow), you may want to stop by and learn something:


Tuesday, October 2nd — 4:00 pm

Furosemide and EIPH: Efficacy and Controversy: The American Horsemen’s Story.

Thomas Tobin, MVB, MSc, PhD, MRCVS, DABT
Professor, Department of Veterinary Science, Gluck Equine Research Center
Professor, Graduate Center for Toxicology
University of Kentucky

Veterinarians seeking Continuing Education credits must sign the CE book and request their CE certificate at the time of the seminar.

Auditorium of the Gluck Equine Research Center

-- refreshments will be provided --



*************************

Diane Furry

Gluck Equine Research Center

Department of Veterinary Science

University of Kentucky

Lexington, KY 40546-0099

(859) 218-1117

dfurry1@uky.edu

Originally Posted by cmorioles (Post 893325)

What a crock of bull. It either has benefits from using it every day, or it doesn't. The report says it doesn't and can cause harm. What say you?

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 893336)

I say it doesn't help the sport to repeatedly read comments about drugs in horse racing that are shallow, superficial and unbiased by empirical reality.

Originally Posted by cmorioles (Post 893338)

Duck. So you do disgree with the report. And, by the way, that wasn't "media" written.

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 893339)

Nope. I didn't say that. What I have already said to you, posts ago, was, "I did not question the report."

Continue talking to the empty chair containing the imaginary Riot saying imaginary things ... I'll just watch you continue to prove my point (and Chucks point too) - thanks. Have a great day.