Pedigree Query

What year do you regard as the beginning of the steroid era in horse racing? Are you suspicious about the likely stud performance of horses that may have excelled on the track with help from steroids?

While the modern history of steroids is still relatively young, the complete history of steroids can be traced back to ancient Greece. This part of the history of steroids is when Olympic athletes were thought to have used plant derivatives, all meat diets and animal testicles as performance enhancers.

The more modern history of steroids begins in the 1930's. This part of the history of steroids is when anabolic steroids were born, but they didn't really take off as a phenomenon yet. In the 1950's at a World Weightlifting Competition,people noticed the Soviet team taking pills and this is the part of the history of steroids where people started taking notice of the drugs' true abilities. Apparently, the Soviet's ruled the competition and the United States team and trainer came home wanting to be able to be competitive with them.

As long a man is competing, he will always be looking for a competative advantage, it may be steroids or a new advantage unknown to the masses until well after the fact.

As for being suspicious of a stud that excelled on the track, that is something that we must be, with steroids or no steroids.

barbfool wrote..........

"The more modern history of steroids begins in the 1930's"

thats when it began in TB racing.............

So what greats of the past took steroids. Did Secretariat, Seattle Slew, and Spectacular Bid? Did Kelso, Forego, and Dr. Fager?

oliverstoned wrote:So what greats of the past took steroids. Did Secretariat, Seattle Slew, and Spectacular Bid? Did Kelso, Forego, and Dr. Fager?

This is a great question! I think that they most likely did get them. They were legal and most evidence indicated no lasting effects on the reproductive system.

oliverstoned wrote:So what greats of the past took steroids. Did Secretariat, Seattle Slew, and Spectacular Bid? Did Kelso, Forego, and Dr. Fager?

Excellent question, was Secretariat a steroid user or was it a oversized heart that made him great?

That would explain why some of the super runners were duds at stud and maybe why some of them only became "great broodmare sires" because of the quality of the female families they bred into. Seems to me most top sires are also top broodmare sires and the "great broodmare sire" may be no great sire at all.

Altanbarr wrote:That would explain why some of the super runners were duds at stud and maybe why some of them only became "great broodmare sires" because of the quality of the female families they bred into. Seems to me most top sires are also top broodmare sires and the "great broodmare sire" may be no great sire at all.

Stop confusing this argument with logic. The cheating steroid users needs defenders to continue to robbing from the honest. Eventually, chemical warfare will get us down to about 5 starts per average runner. Maybe when the super trainers have sucked out the money, and the vets ave padded their wallets enough, and the honest owners are forced out of the game, THEN we can discuss the benefits of drugs. In the meantime, warm your hearts on the "strict" medication laws only PARTIALLY enacted in the state of Florida (this, I remind you, is where Wolfson and Dutrow just won runaway races with their horses).

Here is two stories to enjoy:

http://www.drf.com/drfNewsArticle.do?NI ... bs=0&arc=0

Isn't that sweet? A horse that NEVER ran an 82 beyer, just ups n' runs a 117, for the highest in the history of Beyer record keeping! Wonders of wonders! It's a miracle!

Oh, here's the Florida tidbit I mentioned, in case anyone wondered if drug use is being properly addressed:

http://news.bloodhorse.com/article/48512.htm

I don't mean to throw water on a party that's been going on for 30 years, especially since so many of us defend the practice, so I will close with this:

http://www.jockeyclub.com/factbook.asp?section=10

Enjoy the state of the sport, thrown under the bus by the same people we hold as heroes.

Hey dray did you catch Dutrow's explanation for that 82 to 117, some blabber about getting his teeth done and worming him. LOL. There's link on equidaily.com

You know as much as I dislike what the guy stands for, he has been the most honest of the bunch, and his mouth certainly added "focus" to the problems at hand. What's sadder to me is, he's right... why not cheat? $500 dollar fines? Stiff warnings? Reminds me of a quick story:

I was driving back from dinner in Hawaii (vacation) with the wife and friends, long time ago. Cop pulled me over, I was doing 60 in a 40, something like that. He gave me a ticket. $5.00. FIVE BUCKS! I said to him "If I had known that, I woulda done 80". He laughed and said "that's everyone's reaction".

And THAT is exactly what Florida is doing. And what's worse is the people: fans, horsemen, bettors... who actually defend these guys, and the practice of drug use. The claim it's for "helping" the horse, the coat, or to get them in the feed tub. Whatever. It's for advantage. I mean really, how stupid, how insulting is that. They take us all for clowns... and for years they have been right. They still are. Until we stand up and say STOP, it continues, with the support of those out there that don't get it. The excuse makers. The guys who need to make themselves feel better, so they use "doing what's best for the horse" as a deflection of the facts. They take advantage NOW regardless of the damage to the breed, later.

Well the sissified fines are a joke. The issue has fallen off the main stage for right now so some are slinking with these petty fines. jmo..when the next showcased breakdown, and there will be another, happens that is when that will tighten up. Shame really ......

also imo, I am guessing steroids were not being used with the greats referred to above. Look at how many starts they averaged and how hardy most of them remained. Sorry but 20 starts cut in half to 10 tell me steroids is good for the wham bam thank you ma'mm effect in racing, but not much else.

dray33 wrote:

Altanbarr wrote:That would explain why some of the super runners were duds at stud and maybe why some of them only became "great broodmare sires" because of the quality of the female families they bred into. Seems to me most top sires are also top broodmare sires and the "great broodmare sire" may be no great sire at all.

Stop confusing this argument with logic. The cheating steroid users needs defenders to continue to robbing from the honest. Eventually, chemical warfare will get us down to about 5 starts per average runner. Maybe when the super trainers have sucked out the money, and the vets ave padded their wallets enough, and the honest owners are forced out of the game, THEN we can discuss the benefits of drugs. In the meantime, warm your hearts on the "strict" medication laws only PARTIALLY enacted in the state of Florida (this, I remind you, is where Wolfson and Dutrow just won runaway races with their horses).

Here is two stories to enjoy:

http://www.drf.com/drfNewsArticle.do?NI ... bs=0&arc=0

Isn't that sweet? A horse that NEVER ran an 82 beyer, just ups n' runs a 117, for the highest in the history of Beyer record keeping! Wonders of wonders! It's a miracle!

Oh, here's the Florida tidbit I mentioned, in case anyone wondered if drug use is being properly addressed:

http://news.bloodhorse.com/article/48512.htm

I don't mean to throw water on a party that's been going on for 30 years, especially since so many of us defend the practice, so I will close with this:

http://www.jockeyclub.com/factbook.asp?section=10

Enjoy the state of the sport, thrown under the bus by the same people we hold as heroes.

The Jockey Club graph and chart were interesting, Surely you are not trying to imply that the loss of almost half the number of starts is due to steriods. A guy can't win around here, some of you anti steriod folks say we used them to get too many starts and broke down horses and now you are saying that we get half the starts because of them. We really do need to know why the average number of starts has declined. Could it be that horses increased in value in the late seventies and people retired them after they proved them and sent them to the stud? Could it be that we are concerned with breeding sales horses and not race horses? Could it be that we are breeding more horses and therefore; they have less opportunity. I'm just guessing that in the 1960's there was something like 15,000 foals compared to the late 1990's when there were almost 50,000 foals. Could it be advent of mega trainers striving to win training titles?The point is, blaming the fewer starts on steriods alone is silly. Someone mentioned that maybe we had fewer good sires of sires because of steriods escapes me "How" If you think that the greats did not run on them, what do you base your opinion on. I was in the business back then and nearly everyone used them from my experience.

Roger wrote:A guy can't win around here, some of you anti steriod folks say we used them to get too many starts and broke down horses and now you are saying that we get half the starts because of them.

Drug users are not drug abusers. Don't call me an anti-steroid folk, should I label you pro-cheating folk? So judgmental. You've asked some simple questions, I'll try to answer them. Of course, you'll probably accuse me of starting a unrelated topic, or stealing a thread (as you have several times before), but I will try anyway.

Roger wrote:We really do need to know why the average number of starts has declined. Could it be that horses increased in value in the late seventies and people retired them after they proved them and sent them to the stud? Could it be that we are concerned with breeding sales horses and not race horses? Could it be that we are breeding more horses and therefore; they have less opportunity.

I'm sure they ALL have something to do with it. When we say "steroid use", remember, there is associated related drug use... but of course I don't need to tell you about that. Let's address plain old steroid usage (I won't get into steroid abuse, which we TOO know goes on). Could it be all those things you mention? Yep. Could it be the steroids you so staunchly defend? Yep. Let me explain how:

Try this: Regardless of "when", we know steroid usage was rampant in the sport (albeit legal) for over 30 years now. With improvements the "how-to's: over the past three decades, the vets have become expert in this type of chemical warfare, but let's take that out of the equation. I contend that steroids are used to enhance performance. You contend they are simply used to "help the horse". You might argue it "get them into the feed tub" or even the hilarious "it improves the coat". Whatever improvement you want to use, let's discuss the facts we ALL agree on. It helps horses perform at the peak potential. It builds muscle mass. It helps horses recover faster. Forget ALL the other "helps". Just the fact that it "helps" in that way begs the question: If these horses are being "helped" artificially, and as you say "without adverse effect on reproduction", how then can we trust the talent, class and race record of the stud we are buying? How do you ignore the deception? Now, that's not too damaging with one foal season. Or two. But then, let's talk about generation after generation, after generation. Then lets add that the horses that run on steroids are also running on the other "medications" that "help" bleeders, or Bute, or whatever have you. How about helping them run when sore? Add it up. Propped up stallions, with propped up race records, masking pain and imperfections, even injury, going off to the breeding shed in droves. Add to THAT the speed to speed breeding (which is smart, these china dolls only get 5-6 lifetime starts) and mix in a bit of the old greed and lack of integrity the sport has embraced, and what's left? A muscled-up thick-necked fragile horse. Mares trying to mount colts, and dwindling starts per horse average. Steroids have muddied the waters, we don't know WHAT we have any longer.

You see Roger, I see the ENTIRE problem with our sport stemming from lack of integrity. Not steroids. I am PRO-steroids. As long as the horse is off the racetrack, and off it when racing. But you can mark my words: If administering steroids required a 90 day off-track turn-out, all those people who use it to "help" the horse would suddenly be the same people who claim "horses don't need the stuff, it's ridiculous". All driven by greed, plain and simple.

Roger wrote:The point is, blaming the fewer starts on steriods alone is silly. Someone mentioned that maybe we had fewer good sires of sires because of steriods escapes me "How" If you think that the greats did not run on them, what do you base your opinion on. I was in the business back then and nearly everyone used them from my experience.

Lovely. Why so obtuse? No one has said lets blame the fewer starts on steroids alone. Why should they? We all know much much worse is happening. We would have to be idiots to claim its only the steroids, when the abusers for the past three decades have given us so many good examples of other offenses. Forget the institutional use of Bute and Lasix! You see the results and revert back to the "I help my horses and your taking it away from me". How's this: The way super-magic-trainers "help" their horses have resulted in stolen money from the fair trainers/owners, damage to the breed, corruption rampant in the sport.

The response by horse racing has been a very weak one. Cheat in other sports and they hang you out to dry. Try cheating in Vegas and see how they "slap your wrists". Nero fiddled while Rome burned, and no amount of excuses and false intentions can make homes out of ashes. Our beloved sport has been left in the wake of decades of abusers, takers. We are now reaping what they have sewn. These takers exist now, the defense of "it helps the horse" is not smoke screen enough. The damage is real. They are not MY heroes. I hold in much higher regard the honest guy trying to make a go of it fairly, doing whats truly best for the horse.

That was a very thoughtful post. I would not have posted had your earlier post been that clear. Perhaps, I read that steriods was the cause of fewer starts in your post when you meant something else. I think we are disagreeing only to the degree of use. I've found that aloe vera juice seems to help my mares ulcers would you consider me using that cheating. Is it cheating when one uses legal means to train a horse? You seem to feel that I want to hurt my horses to achieve a profit and I am offended by that attitude more than anything else. I am paying off a vet bill for colic surgery on one of mine that would sale for maybe $1,000. I have three old cripples that most people would put down, but as long as they enjoy life, I'll feed them. So you see when you indicate that I'm a mercenary and cheating type because I have a different opinion about things, it T'ss me off. I called you reactionary in an earlier post because your tone of writing is inflamatory. Back to your wanting to barf post that ran a new comer off this site as proof to my opinion. Its great that you want horses treated humanly, but you don't have the right to dictate your defintion of humane to the world.

Personally, I wouldn't know how to classify Aloe. If it helps ease pain, does nothing to enhance performance, and does nothing to hurt the horse (helps the horse)... to me that IS the definition of good horsemanship. If someone said "aloe is being used to enhance muscle growth, used to make a horse train better" I would need to see proof, and factual indication of harm. Should ice be made illegal? It "helps" horses. Of course not. There is "common sense" law.

What bothers me is the support of continued steroid use (drug use for that matter), when we KNOW the indication is clear: many (most?) user/abusers are less interested about the welfare of the horse than they are getting a horse onto the track in some position of advantage, and into the winners circle, and into the breeding shed as quickly as possible. To defend it's continued use, or lack of restriction by our splintered jurisdictional attempts at control, is fantastically illogical: i.e opposite of the common sense laws. To deny the damage of steroids/drugs inter-generational effect is equally as illogical/frustrating.

As for you and your horses, again... I haven't a clue. My guess, you are probably a wonderful horseman. But you should know, better than I, that steroid use, and drug use, is incredibly unfair. Unless of course, you believe that every single race horse should be administered identical dosages of steroids to level the playing field. I would never suspect you are that foolish. I don't know you, and yet I know you would never support that. I would say steroids in the sport has done more to harm YOU than even you realize or are willing to admit.

Let's say steroid misuse/use caused just one horse to win over another. Please consider this. You are the owner of the second place horse. Multiply that by 3 decades. How do you feel now?