Admin wrote:The benefit of increased muscle mass still exists 60 days later regardless of whether any trace of the drug is found in a drug test.
The therapeutic use of steroids is irrelevant in this discussion as Ellis not only admits he didn't use it therapeutically, the horse continued to train and breeze on it.
The horse received 3 doses of steroids in the preceding 6 months. Perhaps that's why it didn't clear his system in time.
Each time Ellis gave this horse and the 4 others steroids, he was risking the horse coming up with a positive test, and he was taking that risk despite not needing to give it to the horse for a therapeutic reason. He knew 3 days out from the BC that his horse tested positive yet still took the risk. He knew the BC had punishment with teeth to it for horses who test positive in their races yet he risked his horse, his owner, and himself. I'm failing to see how Ellis is an innocent who was just taking care of a previously sick horse but got unknowingly and unfairly snagged in unfair drug testing.
We finally have one entity who hits hard for illegal drug positives and we have half the folks not wanting the results to stand. Yet we blame and criticize the sport for not being tough? Looks like the fans would do no better if they were in charge.
You're just inventing a strawman here. I'm also not sure where you got Ellis' intentions from, because he literally said "it was done therapeutically because he's a small horse and we have trouble keeping weight on him." You don't have to believe it, but there's no point in denying what he said.
I can't speak for everyone, but I'd much rather see a governing entity that is consistent and informed instead of posturing and bloviating. Ellis shouldn't have run the horse, obviously, but this situation appears to have been brought about by a clash between the CHRB and Breeders Cup rules. The intersection of different jurisdictions results in the same problems we see with the NFL- reactive, inconsistent, and unpredictable punishments that are crafted in accordance with perceived public response. I'm not even certain that we know
that there are effects 60 days out- where did that time limit even come from? (EDIT: I see now that it is double the amount of time estimated for it to clear the system)- but the funding and research focus has shifted towards chasing vanishingly small amounts of these products instead of analyzing their safey. Moreover, if a substance is considered so anathema that mere picograms of it are grounds for severe punishment, why is it legal to use in the first place? If this is frustrating for the fan, it must be far more alarming for the horseman. Now we have the Breeders' Cup patting itself on the back because it nailed a horse for having a borderline-undetectable amount of an ostensibly legal substance, which accomplishes little besides making people feel good while smoothing over the serious policy problems that led to this situation in the first place. Meanwhile, perhaps an entity that genuinely cares about these things would make standardized testing available to horsemen before
the race? Or perhaps the CHRB should have had rules in place that allow the disclosure of pre-race positives to the BC? It's a terribly messy situation, but now it's been boiled done to a pat on the back and a "we got 'em!" That isn't productive.
Somnambulist wrote:There will also probably never be funding to figure out the drug situation in this game because to do that would probably mean someone, somewhere, makes less money and doesn't benefit from it. I don't know when I got this cynical.
Nah man check out all this research: http://rmtcnet.com/research/rmtc-funded-research/