Quote:
|
Originally Posted by parsixfarms
I'm not speaking about how it will be played out in the circus that is likely to take place in Washington this week, and it's neither a question of outrage nor good guy/bad guy (although I do believe that one of the trainers scheduled to testify this week is a "very bad guy.") I'm more focused on the question of whether the proposed restrictions on steroid use - as set forth in the RMTC recommendations (adopted by the Jockey Club's Safety Committee today) - should move forward. Based on your prior posts on this site, I am assuming that you are opposed to adoption of the model rule. That is your prerogative.
However, there are many horsemen that "know" the game that believe the RMTC's restrictions should be adopted. I have had one trainer whose opinion I respect tell me point blank after Bob Baffert made comments last summer bemoaning the possible "loss" of steroids and how that would have a negative impact on field size: "If the guy doesn't know how to train horses without steroids, then he shouldn't be training horses." He believes that steroids are being badly abused and that the game would be much better off without them.
Furthermore, I asked our trainer this weekend his thoughts on the speculation that Big Brown's performance in the Belmont had something to do with him allegedly being off Winstrol. He stated that it would be hard to know if BB was suffering from "withdrawal," but he did state that horses on a steady regimen of steroids do become "addicted" to them and that when they are taken off them, they will "crash." (I've also had a discussion with a prominent NY owner who had a horse claimed away from him [his trainer uses anabolics] by a trainer who doesn't. The horse lost 100 pounds in the new trainer's care, and the owner re-claimed the horse in the subsequent [dismal] start. Back in his trainer's barn and back on steroids, the horse put the weight back on and aired when entered back.) Every once in a while, our horses have been given Winstrol to aid appetite, but our trainer, too, believes that the game would be better off without the steroids.
Some of us have tried to educate ourselves on these issues and may have come to a different conclusion than you. We can agree to disagree. What I don't appreciate is the insinuation that, because I reach a different conclusion, I don't know what I'm talking about.
|
All good points, but is this the same 'ol same 'ol? One trainer says "performance enhancing" another trainer says "not performance enhancing" -- both believe they are right. The former because of weight, appetite, being able to tighten the screws so to speak, etc. The latter because it doesn't make them "go faster" per se and doesn't do anything for the pain, or whatever the arguement is. OK, I got that.
However, and perhaps this is too simplistic -- what's the difference? Who cares already. My point is, either allow it or don't. Clenbuterol . . . some guys use it as "program" and others do not. Same I am sure with other drugs. So, it's either legal or it's not. If the states want to -- well, forget about that -- it is now to the point where they HAVE to -- join together, develop a national guideline and get everyone to follow it.
Sure, I know, easier said than done. So what putting a man on the moon. I think you brought up some excellent points. It's just now time to "do something" about it.
Eric