brlracerchick - 2017-01-17 11:57 AM I feel like we've already had this discussion on here. I think there was a big discussion when we had that one about snake venom being used. It's been a few years.  

brlracerchick - 2017-01-17 10:57 AM I feel like we've already had this discussion on here. I think there was a big discussion when we had that one about snake venom being used. It's been a few years.  

IRunOnFaith - 2017-01-17 11:07 AM Honest question: If you bump the price of each entry up by say $5 and have 500 entries could you test without much cost to the producer?

Then again you have the who to test and how....  

smmthbr - 2017-01-17 12:04 PM I have seen some events where they just announce, randomly, the "x place" horse in this class will be met at the gate by the drug testers and will be tested....". I don't see why a random draw couldn't be pulled during each session of a barrel race and when a horse was about to enter the arena, announce, something to the effect: "A random drug selection was made and the horse competing at this time will be drug tested." (etc to make sure there were no aspersions cast on that particular horse/rider/trainer/owner.) Then a drug tester would meet the horse at the gate upon exit and stay with them until the time that horse could be taken to a stall reserved for drug testing, whether to collect urine or a blood sample. All exhibitors would have to sign a document upon entry that they were aware that a random selection for drug testing was going to be made and their horse(s) were automatically subject to and they were willing to participate. Most associations that require drug testing will not allow ANY argument, you go with drug tester and cooperate or you don't show/don't get an award, etc etc. I've seen shows where horses all of a sudden disappear when the drug testers show up.....:-) Random, last minute announced testing may be more effective than selection by specified winners. If EVERYONE entering knew there was a chance their horse was going to be selected for drug testing, regardless of the time they ran or how they were going to place, they might be less inclined to have their horse injected. It also would void the possibility of the argument that so and so big time often winner's horse was drugged by a jealous competitor to make sure their placing was null and void. It often takes a long time for the results to come back, so if a show pays "on the spot", you'd have to pay regardless of the test results and you'd have to include ramifications on if a horse tested positive, what the consequences were going to be.

smmthbr - 2017-01-17 12:04 PM

I have seen some events where they just announce, randomly, the "x place" horse in this class will be met at the gate by the drug testers and will be tested....". I don't see why a random draw couldn't be pulled during each session of a barrel race and when a horse was about to enter the arena, announce, something to the effect: "A random drug selection was made and the horse competing at this time will be drug tested." (etc to make sure there were no aspersions cast on that particular horse/rider/trainer/owner.) Then a drug tester would meet the horse at the gate upon exit and stay with them until the time that horse could be taken to a stall reserved for drug testing, whether to collect urine or a blood sample. All exhibitors would have to sign a document upon entry that they were aware that a random selection for drug testing was going to be made and their horse(s) were automatically subject to and they were willing to participate. Most associations that require drug testing will not allow ANY argument, you go with drug tester and cooperate or you don't show/don't get an award, etc etc. I've seen shows where horses all of a sudden disappear when the drug testers show up.....:-) Random, last minute announced testing may be more effective than selection by specified winners. If EVERYONE entering knew there was a chance their horse was going to be selected for drug testing, regardless of the time they ran or how they were going to place, they might be less inclined to have their horse injected. It also would void the possibility of the argument that so and so big time often winner's horse was drugged by a jealous competitor to make sure their placing was null and void. It often takes a long time for the results to come back, so if a show pays "on the spot", you'd have to pay regardless of the test results and you'd have to include ramifications on if a horse tested positive, what the consequences were going to be.

1DSoon - 2017-01-17 11:16 AM I can see you put some thought into this, but a complete random at a Barrel Race would be an almost complete waste of time and resources. a vast majority of BR's are going to be clean, and with the threat of testing even more will be clean. The ones that are going to cheat are the ones that have the most to gain, those alpha dogs are probably still going to risk it knowing that the chance of them being pulled in a random out of a big sample size is very small.

smmthbr - 2017-01-17 11:11 AM Depends on how many you want tested....I was trying to get an event tested that I manage (not barrel race) and the cost was going to be between $800.00 and $1000.00 per entry (including the cost of the drug tester/collector, lab work, shipping, etc., and that wasn't even for any of the designer drugs.  I haven't done any more investigation in the last year or so, perhaps the cost has gone down some..... 

IRunOnFaith - 2017-01-17 11:25 AM Wow. So just to test would be 8 to 1k out of the gate per entry and then all the added costs?

That is nuts....

Bear - 2017-01-17 12:01 PM

I guess the idea would be to get a deterrent effect. We haven't talked about penalties or consequences. That would run the gamut.
If even the top 2-3 in the 1D were to be automatically flagged for testing, I would think the toughest competitors would realize the risk and they'd have to decide whether it's worth it. Testing the top 2-3 in each D would automatically be random. That seems to be the simplest approach. You'll always have clever cheaters who will figure out a way to stay ahead with new cheating schemes, but that's nothing new. Lance Armstrong taught us that, for example. Eventually he was caught.
It's good that this is talked about. I know I've learned a few things.
We'll have to see what happens.

Bear - 2017-01-17 12:01 PM I guess the idea would be to get a deterrent effect. We haven't talked about penalties or consequences. That would run the gamut. If even the top 2-3 in the 1D were to be automatically flagged for testing, I would think the toughest competitors would realize the risk and they'd have to decide whether it's worth it. Testing the top 2-3 in each D would automatically be random, because where you land is fairly random anyway. Winning the 3D just means you were lucky, even though you may have made a good run. That seems to be the simplest approach. You'll always have clever cheaters who will figure out a way to stay ahead with new cheating schemes, but that's nothing new. Lance Armstrong taught us that, for example. Eventually he was caught. It's good that this is talked about. I know I've learned a few things. We'll have to see what happens.

linds - 2017-01-17 1:26 PM

I believe it would have to be random if it would work at all.  If draw #1 wins the 3D - well, you don't know that until hours after they ran.  Depending on the drug, it could be long gone.  If it's a Sunday and I'm draw #1...  I'm outta there by about draw #50.  Then, there are the costs to have a vet on-site, running the test, etc.  Holding up checks until tests clear.

AQHA and racing commissions regulate their testing.  WPRA regulates theirs.  There is no overseeing commission in the barrel racing world.  NBHA maybe?  All the offenders have to do is switch associations.  Or, heck - start their own!

Bear - 2017-01-17 2:13 PM I'm pretty sure all these drugs would be detectable within 24 hours of administration. Of course urine is better than blood for this, because a drug that may be quickly eliminated from the serum can linger in the urine for quite a bit longer. Again, I think the easy way to at least initially set things up would be to look at how organizations and rodeos set up their system. There's no need to re-invent the wheel. If the system is flawed to the extent that someone has already picked up a check, there's still value in drug testing. First, they can be banned. Second, word gets out. One could argue that is the most powerful deterrent. If "Jane Doe" has a dirty test, it's humiliating and even damaging. Even now certain competitors have a reputation for doping, regardless of the veracity, and that's based on rumor and heresay. I would think that would be harmful to any prospects of future business ventures. I know there are a couple out there from whom I wouldn't even consider buying any horse older than 3 years.

Bear - 2017-01-17 3:13 PM I'm pretty sure all these drugs would be detectable within 24 hours of administration. Of course urine is better than blood for this, because a drug that may be quickly eliminated from the serum can linger in the urine for quite a bit longer. Again, I think the easy way to at least initially set things up would be to look at how organizations and rodeos set up their system. There's no need to re-invent the wheel. If the system is flawed to the extent that someone has already picked up a check, there's still value in drug testing. First, they can be banned. Second, word gets out. One could argue that is the most powerful deterrent. If "Jane Doe" has a dirty test, it's humiliating and even damaging. Even now certain competitors have a reputation for doping, regardless of the veracity, and that's based on rumor and heresay. I would think that would be harmful to any prospects of future business ventures. I know there are a couple out there from whom I wouldn't even consider buying any horse older than 3 years.

tebar - 2017-01-17 1:42 PM  Have you ever seen anyone tested at the shows in WY? The deal in drug testing is what you are testing for. The more you want the test to show the more it cost. Just because you are charged a drug testing fee, does not mean that testing will be done. When the WPRA did test years ago they would get a urine sample and alot of the times it never got tested more a scare tactic. At the race track the winner is always tested plus a random, if you claim your running on something it better show up in the test. Frog juice test took awhile to get done. Now that there is a test to show for it. The race track test show more than most. You have to understand you need a vet on grounds to collect the sample and then he sends to the lab for the results. So you the show manager must hire a Vet for this purpose only. What does a Vet charge for a full days service ? It all adds up fast.