|
|
 You get what you give
Posts: 13030
   
Location: Texas | HotbearLVR - 2013-12-02 9:41 AM
It seems to me that certain "drugs" such as Legend and Adequan shouldn't be banned. Neither should NSAIDS like Bute or Banamine. In fact, I'm not sure certain bronchodilators should be banned, provided a vet is willing to provide documentation that a horse has reactive airway disease. Clearly, certain stimulants and anabolics have no place, though.
Those drugs are not banned. I am not sure about the regulations with adequan and legend, but the NSAIDs are not banned. You have to follow rules when administering them- you have to give the label dose of the drug, and you can't give multiple types of NSAIDs at the same time.
I'm on the fence with bronchodilators. I know several people who were giving clenbuterol without a diagnosis and just did it because they fire harder. We've had to use it on horses diagnosed with cicatrix, even though I am not 100% how much its actually doing since the cicatrix is on their pharynx…we've also used it on bleeders every once in a while..
Ventipulmin is a beta agonist, which I know you know all that. So with horses not only is it increasing their airways, it's also ramping up their sympathetic tone- increasing heart rate, contractility,conduction velocity, skeletal muscle strength, skeletal muscle vasodilation, etc.
Just a fun side note- the reason why horses sweat when given ventipulmin is because they are adrenergic sweaters.
Edited by casualdust07 2013-12-02 11:59 AM
| |
| | |
BHW's Simon Cowell
 
Location: The Saudia Arabia of Wind Energy, Western Oklahoma | They aren't going to tell the public if someone tested bad. No way. I don't think that not hearing about someone testing for a banned subject proves there hasn't been any bad tests because you would never hear about it because of legal ramifications. | |
| | |
 Extreme Veteran
Posts: 488
Location: torrington, wy | Drug testing rules only have as much bite as the big dog allows. | |
| | |
 On the Countdown
Posts: 2934
Location: Texas | Does WPRA just test blood or do they also do urine?
I drug test at a world show every year, and we are known to get the same horses throughout the day, and the 2 weeks. If we bleed them once, we will not request blood after that, it is only urine, for that day. But the NFR and rodeo are different playing feilds and the schedule is a little more hectic.
But also, not everything shows up in urine or blood. I have had to follow my fair share because they did not want blood pulled, or others that are pushy and want a blood test.
Edited by scamper 2013-12-02 1:28 PM
| |
| | |
Mrs. Troy
Location: western Nebraska | The only year they drug tested at the nfr was l989 and they did the winner and a random draw. They followed us out of the alley and someone stayed with you until you cooled your horse out. They took urine and then we went to the drug tent and they took blood. My horse was the random draw the first go and the winner the 2nd so he got tested twice. THey took 40ccs of blood which I thought was a lot.
This only lasted for maybe 5 go rounds but maybe only four I can't remember until it was stopped because of a lawsuit. Sherry Cervi's grey horse Troubles was not having any part of the blood being drawn and nearly tore the tent apart. It was endangering him and everyone around him so that was the main reason it was stopped. Someone or some horse was going to get hurt. They didn't find anything illegal then either but of course that was a long time ago and I don't think we had that many drugs we knew about or at least I didn't! haha
| |
| | |
  More bootie than waist!
Posts: 18425
Location: Riding Crackhead. | doglady - 2013-12-02 1:36 PM The only year they drug tested at the nfr was l989 and they did the winner and a random draw. They followed us out of the alley and someone stayed with you until you cooled your horse out. They took urine and then we went to the drug tent and they took blood. My horse was the random draw the first go and the winner the 2nd so he got tested twice. THey took 40ccs of blood which I thought was a lot.
This only lasted for maybe 5 go rounds but maybe only four I can't remember until it was stopped because of a lawsuit. Sherry Cervi's grey horse Troubles was not having any part of the blood being drawn and nearly tore the tent apart. It was endangering him and everyone around him so that was the main reason it was stopped. Someone or some horse was going to get hurt. They didn't find anything illegal then either but of course that was a long time ago and I don't think we had that many drugs we knew about or at least I didn't! haha
Holy cow 40 ccs is a lot! | |
| | |
Cat Collector
Posts: 1430
| My opinion is that if someone gets tested and its positive then i think it should be made public, I do not agree with some of the drugs on the list.. but hey frog juice has worked wonders for "some"" | |
| | |
 Over Informed
Posts: 5372
Location: West Tennessee | ozcancrasher13 - 2013-12-02 11:08 AM I will, again, say no problems have been found when tested. A positive test does not mean a problem.
They tested for everything...legal drugs, illegal drugs or narcotics.
The people accused of winning due to doping, were not when tested, and they are still winning.
Had I been tested, my horse would have tested positive, but NOT OVER THE LEGAL LIMITS, on LEGAL DRUGS. Still, I would have a positive test.
This is what the tests have shown.
I know it's unlikely, but it seems like it would hush some of the gossip & speculation if results were released?
Out of curiousity, how do you feel about that? | |
| | |
10D Crack Champion
| Wonder if they would ever test the contestants? | |
| | |
Miss Southern Sunshine
Posts: 7427
Location: South Central Florida | ozcancrasher13 - 2013-12-02 12:08 PM I will, again, say no problems have been found when tested. A positive test does not mean a problem.
They tested for everything...legal drugs, illegal drugs or narcotics.
The people accused of winning due to doping, were not when tested, and they are still winning.
Had I been tested, my horse would have tested positive, but NOT OVER THE LEGAL LIMITS, on LEGAL DRUGS. Still, I would have a positive test.
This is what the tests have shown.
When you say "no problems have been found" are you speaking with authority? Is that from the WPRA? Or because you have not heard of any? I'm not sure I understand your post. I'm not being sarcastic, I'm just curious what your statment is based on. If your do know, for sure, do you know if they are testing at the NFR, and if not why not?
I have 'heard' of some big names being accused of druging their horses. I would have no idea (and probably would not pay attention) if it was true, or jealousy or just whinners that got out run. But I can say several of the names I heard are Not still running, and Not still winning, so that part of the statement isn't really accurate. I would have no idea if the were ever tested because it's not published.
But I can say the LEGAL LIMITS ON LEGAL DRUGS can test all over the place under certain circumstances. Like not drinking enough water (as some horses on the raod), not technically dehydrated but lower water intake can of set half life by a lot.
But my original post was just asking and I'm still curious. | |
| | |
 Did I miss the party?
Posts: 3864
| ksjackofalltrades - 2013-12-02 11:13 AM They aren't going to tell the public if someone tested bad. No way. I don't think that not hearing about someone testing for a banned subject proves there hasn't been any bad tests because you would never hear about it because of legal ramifications.
Exactly.
The results are private.
Fines vary depending on class of drug. | |
| | |
Miss Southern Sunshine
Posts: 7427
Location: South Central Florida | casualdust07 - 2013-12-02 12:58 PM HotbearLVR - 2013-12-02 9:41 AM It seems to me that certain "drugs" such as Legend and Adequan shouldn't be banned. Neither should NSAIDS like Bute or Banamine. In fact, I'm not sure certain bronchodilators should be banned, provided a vet is willing to provide documentation that a horse has reactive airway disease. Clearly, certain stimulants and anabolics have no place, though. Those drugs are not banned. I am not sure about the regulations with adequan and legend, but the NSAIDs are not banned. You have to follow rules when administering them- you have to give the label dose of the drug, and you can't give multiple types of NSAIDs at the same time. I'm on the fence with bronchodilators. I know several people who were giving clenbuterol without a diagnosis and just did it because they fire harder. We've had to use it on horses diagnosed with cicatrix, even though I am not 100% how much its actually doing since the cicatrix is on their pharynx…we've also used it on bleeders every once in a while.. Ventipulmin is a beta agonist, which I know you know all that. So with horses not only is it increasing their airways, it's also ramping up their sympathetic tone- increasing heart rate, contractility,conduction velocity, skeletal muscle strength, skeletal muscle vasodilation, etc. Just a fun side note- the reason why horses sweat when given ventipulmin is because they are adrenergic sweaters.
I appreciate your response. In the case of Adequan and Legend, I think it came up because I was using them as an example of what "could" be called a Performance Enhancing Drug, only because it does enhance the run of a horse that is in need of that particular treatment. Same for hock injections.
I agree with you totally on the statement about NSAIDS, and I'm kind of the same way on the brondhodilators. We have used Ventipulman and other than not coughing did not see any sweating, or jitters or any extra speed, just a more comfortable horse that didn't bleed. So are Ventipulmin and Clenbuterol the same thing? Somehow I thought Ventipulmin was clenbuterol but I don't know if I heard that or read it or made it up in my own little mind. I would struggle using Ventipulman regularly just because of the price. That's probably true for all those medications though, legal or illegal, banned or not banned.
| |
| | |
Miss Southern Sunshine
Posts: 7427
Location: South Central Florida | barrelracinbroke - 2013-12-02 10:31 PM ksjackofalltrades - 2013-12-02 11:13 AM They aren't going to tell the public if someone tested bad. No way. I don't think that not hearing about someone testing for a banned subject proves there hasn't been any bad tests because you would never hear about it because of legal ramifications. Exactly.
The results are private.
Fines vary depending on class of drug.
But Why? They are published on race horse trainers, and owners. They are published on Baseball players, football players and every sport I can think of.
Sorry, I posted a bunch all at once. Been gone most of the day and heading to bed. Thanks for the responses, but I guess we still don't know if they are testing. | |
| | |
 BHW Resident Surgeon
Posts: 25352
Location: Bastrop, Texas | I am just guessing here, but I think if barrel racing was a sport where there was a LOT of money to be won and often, drug testing would be taken more seriously. There just aren't very many people who make a whole lot of money even if they do well. Sure, some do OK and a few even do real well, but I think someone touched on the cost of a widespread drug testing program, and they made a valid point. Realistically, if there is going to be drug testing, a lot of careful planning has to go into the implementation, starting with the determination of what constitutes a PED. Then a decision would have to be made about the policy. How many would be tested? Urine versus blood? Confirmatory testing? Costs and how they can be offest? Consequences of a violation? I think something should be done, but it's no easy task, that's for sure. We are talking about a sport where probably close to 99% of contestants lose money in the long run. Now if there was an "upper eschelon" where the very top competitors made 6-7 figures, then there would be more pressure to do drug testing. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if at least half the ladies at the NFR actually lost money getting there. | |
| | |
Did I miss the party?
Posts: 3864
| Swannranch - 2013-12-02 7:43 PM barrelracinbroke - 2013-12-02 10:31 PM ksjackofalltrades - 2013-12-02 11:13 AM They aren't going to tell the public if someone tested bad. No way. I don't think that not hearing about someone testing for a banned subject proves there hasn't been any bad tests because you would never hear about it because of legal ramifications. Exactly.
The results are private.
Fines vary depending on class of drug.
Sorry, I posted a bunch all at once. Been gone most of the day and heading to bed. Thanks for the responses, but I guess we still don't know if they are testing.
A professional football, baseball, type of athlete is employed on a contractual type of basis. They're paid whether they play or not for the number of years their contract is in effect. It can also be part of their contract that certain drugs are banned. Barrel racers are not under contractual employment by the WPRA (but some sponsors do have conduct as a cause for termination). It is a private choice to compete under their rules as they apply if you choose to make a living that way. Their rules, as of right now, are that the results are kept private and fines are imposed as written. That's going to take a long time and a lot of money to change if it ever does (meaning change to make them public). It is highly doubtful.
As far as race horses, I have no idea. I can't answer that. Sorry. Hope that helped a little?
Edited by barrelracinbroke 2013-12-02 10:51 PM
| |
| | |
Did I miss the party?
Posts: 3864
| And no, it hasn't been "announced" as to whether or not there will be testing. 
But, I'm sure the world will know the first night if it does happen. Cuz someone's Cousin's, Aunt's, Sister's, Best Friend Leo told Suzy who said she saw it happen. LOL. :) | |
| | |
 Saint Stacey
| Does anyone honestly believe the drug testing policy was put into place to catch people using high levels of bute and banimine? Because if so... I have a gold brick I would like to sell you.
I also find it ironic that so many hold rodeo girls in such high regards that they swear up and down those girls would NEVER do anything wrong. I have a gold brick to sell you too, btw.
I know girls that have no problem stacking drugs for just about every run. I also know those that don't have a problem with using the knockoff Redbull in high doses because of the steroidal type properties. That's exactly why race horse people started using it when Winstral and Equipose got banned.
Am I saying all the girls are druggging their horses? No. But I am realistic enough to have seen that a lot of these girls don't deserve to be put on a pedestal because they win. Winning does not make a person a Class Act. Intregrity is what makes a person classy and a lot of girls are severly lacking that. JMHO. | |
| | |
BHW Resident Surgeon
Posts: 25352
Location: Bastrop, Texas | I wonder if there is actual proof or data out there somewhere that proves which of these so-called PEDs actually "enhance" performance.
I'd love to see some real data. Take EPO for instance. If a quarterhorse has a normal hematocrit of 40% (range 38-47%) then will raising the hematocrit to 45-50% actually make any significant difference when you are talking about a 16 second sprint. I bet that would be a very difficult thing to prove, especially when you are talking about a race where 0.1 - 0.2 seconds would be a significant improvement. I can see it when you are talking about thoroughbred racing, but what about a quarterhorse in a sprint? If a person wanted to "naturally" increase endogenous EPO and thus increase oxygen carrying capacity, then keeping them at higher altitudes (say in Colorado, for instance) can achieve the same effect. Do quarterhorses raised at higher altitudes really perform measurably better in a sprint? | |
| | |
 Own It and Move On
Location: The edge of no where | HotbearLVR - 2013-12-03 7:51 AM I wonder if there is actual proof or data out there somewhere that proves which of these so-called PEDs actually "enhance" performance.
I'd love to see some real data. Take EPO for instance. If a quarterhorse has a normal hematocrit of 40% (range 38-47%) then will raising the hematocrit to 45-50% actually make any significant difference when you are talking about a 16 second sprint. I bet that would be a very difficult thing to prove, especially when you are talking about a race where 0.1 - 0.2 seconds would be a significant improvement. I can see it when you are talking about thoroughbred racing, but what about a quarterhorse in a sprint? If a person wanted to "naturally" increase endogenous EPO and thus increase oxygen carrying capacity, then keeping them at higher altitudes (say in Colorado, for instance) can achieve the same effect. Do quarterhorses raised at higher altitudes really perform measurably better in a sprint?
Quarter horse racing has gotten really dirty over the last 6-8 years. Not that drugs on the track haven't always been a problem, but with the influx of cartel money it's gotten insane. It ABSOLUTELY makes a difference. Now that the racing commissions have a test for 'frog juice' or dermorphine (sp?) they've simply moved onto the next thing. I don't know the name of it, but it's bad. The frog juice was compared to being 40 times stronger than morphine and it made horses feel 10 feet tall and bulletproof. It also causes heart issues and there were several unexplained deaths.
| |
| | |
Nut Case Expert
Posts: 9305
Location: Tulsa, Ok | barrelracinbroke - 2013-12-02 10:49 PM Swannranch - 2013-12-02 7:43 PM barrelracinbroke - 2013-12-02 10:31 PM ksjackofalltrades - 2013-12-02 11:13 AM They aren't going to tell the public if someone tested bad. No way. I don't think that not hearing about someone testing for a banned subject proves there hasn't been any bad tests because you would never hear about it because of legal ramifications. Exactly.
The results are private.
Fines vary depending on class of drug.
Sorry, I posted a bunch all at once. Been gone most of the day and heading to bed. Thanks for the responses, but I guess we still don't know if they are testing.
A professional football, baseball, type of athlete is employed on a contractual type of basis. They're paid whether they play or not for the number of years their contract is in effect. It can also be part of their contract that certain drugs are banned. Barrel racers are not under contractual employment by the WPRA (but some sponsors do have conduct as a cause for termination). It is a private choice to compete under their rules as they apply if you choose to make a living that way. Their rules, as of right now, are that the results are kept private and fines are imposed as written. That's going to take a long time and a lot of money to change if it ever does (meaning change to make them public). It is highly doubtful.
As far as race horses, I have no idea. I can't answer that. Sorry. Hope that helped a little?
The answer as to race horses = PARIMUTUAL BETTING.
It becomes a whole different game when the public becomes part of the equation. Potential bettors have a right to access (should they so choose) all relevent information before placing wagers. | |
| |
| |
Folks on-line