Can Drug Testing alone catch or stop DRUG cheats? - Richard Freedman on TripleM Radio

This is also interesting. From a pdf on a US based racing medications website.

Of the four substances, namely testosterone, boldenone, nandrolone, and stanzolol, the first three are naturally occurring, also known as endogenous, in the horse.
Testosterone is present in intact males, gelded males, and fillies while nandrolone and boldenone are naturally occurring in both intact and gelded males. As with all drugs, withdrawal times are specific to the formulation.
As a group, anabolic steroids stay around for a long time, longer than any other group of drugs used in racing. Trainers should be looking at a minimum of 30 days with the water-based anabolic steroids, such as stanozolol (Winstrol) and aqueous testosterone.
The oil-based anabolic steroids, such as Equipoise

boldenone), Durabolin (nandrolone) and testosterone, will need a minimum of 45 days.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aussiebreno

Dizzy, if you do prematurely cut VVVs manhood off make sure to check if he is still producing testosterone. You will find even though he is now gelded he would still produce testosterone, just like a gelded horse.

Brenno I have no interest in VVV testosterone levels gelded or not, my interest is in his claim that trainers across the country are administering boldonone to geldings right across the country with impunity from the rules. Testosterone is not Boldonone, and the Boldonone threshold in the rules for geldings is zero

More of NO SUCH THING AS

HKJK
Prohibited Substances

Rule 136.(1) For the purposes of these rules the following are prohibited substances:-

(i) Substances capable of xxxxxxxxxxx
etc

(iii) Masking Agents

(2) Prohibited substances below the following thresholds are not actionable:-

Boldenone................0.015 microgram free and conjugated boldenone per millilitre in urine from MALE HORSES ( other than geldings)

Testosterone............0.02 microgram free and conjugated testosterone per millilitre in urine from geldings, or
0.055 microgram xxxxxxxxxxxx from fillies & mares (unless in foal)
As an aside~ Horses Don't Inject themselves.

Rule 139. Any person commits an offence against these Rules if found to to have administered or caused to be administered a prohibited substance in a horse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dizzy

Brenno I have no interest in VVV testosterone levels gelded or not, my interest is in his claim that trainers across the country are administering boldonone to geldings right across the country with impunity from the rules. Testosterone is not Boldonone, and the Boldonone threshold in the rules for geldings is zero

[VVV] Geeze, you sure know how to hurt a guy Dot.
I don't think I've ever felt more rejected than I do right now. I offer you your very own pair of Jatz crackers, namely mine, & you turn around and knock me back. :(
Seriously though, can you point to the section of/words within the HRA rules where it actually says that the Boldenone threshold for geldings is in fact zero? I can't find it.
I just went and cut and pasted and posted what appeared to be the applicables from the HRA website. Is there a further piece there that applies to geldings which I have missed?
All I can see is that it says, in male horses other than geldings?
Is that perhaps a rule by inference as opposed to it being stated in black & white...you know, what the reader happens to read into it as opposed to what it actually says? What am I missing?
The school of thought here is that if it is as the rule states 'at a mass concentration of 15 micrograms per litre in urine' then, a by default a gelding...sans his Jatz, could still be be given a dose of boldenone that comes in under that 15 micrograms & effectively it skates because no threshold appears to have been mentioned anywhere.
All it says as far as I can see is 'other than geldings'.
If it is as you suggest and this is simply another example of a badly worded rule ala the inspired blood versus cardiovascular system defence mounted by Geoff Small's Law Talkin Guy then I can hear Lionel Hutzs across the country who's practices defend such racing transgressions already writing that one down on their memo pads.

Hey Look, we just earned a $1

Quote:

Originally Posted by mark diegutis

Hi Greg . I was told that the horse was given to a prominent trainer out west and couldn't get hot . He was spelled after the pony trot . Pony trots are run every month at Newcastle , so we might see you there and boldenone is used if you want an improved performance . It achieves an increased level of natural EPO and gives the horse an increased appetite as well as building muscle . You can work them harder than would be normal therefore achieving a much higher level of fitness . Steroids are prescribed to help a horse heal after a severe injury or to pick them up when ill and won't eat . Not when they're winning races .

Thank's Mark for your info much appreciated and i looked that horse up Steve Turnbull had him i think.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lethal

Hey Look, we just earned a $1

[VVV] You're writing your own jokes again I see. :rolleyes:
An inability or an unwillingness to express oneself beyond the extent of that which is unfortunately displayed weekly on 'The Footy Show' is no great claim to fame, Lee.

Another $1

Hey Lee , thats a dollar each , remember we're going halves and Jaimie I've just sharpened up the old Joseph Rogers and I wanna knock out those jatz crackers REAL BAD !!!

Is it just me or is the constant reference to Triple's "niagara falls" becoming a tad scary...... Lol

Quote:

Originally Posted by doinmabest

Is it just me or is the constant reference to Triple's "niagara falls" becowing a tad scary...... Lol

Scary for triple thats for sure, Mark sounds fair Dinkum!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by doinmabest

Mark,

I am sorry if you found my comments in relation to Luke Mccarthy driving 3 group 1 winners as offensive.
Under the rules, whether they be right or wrong, he was permitted to drive and participate in that day on a stay of proceedings. In the excitement of calling group one races I may of gone off in saying what I did but they were not designed to offend you or anyone else....

Didn't offend me Fred i nearly fell off the chair laughing. Keep up the good work.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Triple V

[VVV] Geeze, you sure know how to hurt a guy Dot.
I don't think I've ever felt more rejected than I do right now. I offer you your very own pair of Jatz crackers, namely mine, & you turn around and knock me back. :(
Seriously though, can you point to the section of/words within the HRA rules where it actually says that the Boldenone threshold for geldings is in fact zero? I can't find it.
I just went and cut and pasted and posted what appeared to be the applicables from the HRA website. Is there a further piece there that applies to geldings which I have missed?
All I can see is that it says, in male horses other than geldings?
Is that perhaps a rule by inference as opposed to it being stated in black & white...you know, what the reader happens to read into it as opposed to what it actually says? What am I missing?
The school of thought here is that if it is as the rule states 'at a mass concentration of 15 micrograms per litre in urine' then, a by default a gelding...sans his Jatz, could still be be given a dose of boldenone that comes in under that 15 micrograms & effectively it skates because no threshold appears to have been mentioned anywhere.
All it says as far as I can see is 'other than geldings'.
If it is as you suggest and this is simply another example of a badly worded rule ala the inspired blood versus cardiovascular system defence mounted by Geoff Small's Law Talkin Guy then I can hear Lionel Hutzs across the country who's practices defend such racing transgressions already writing that one down on their memo pads.

Not so fast VVV I said I'm not interested in your testosterone levels but your nuts ARE mine, though you will be disappointed no doubt to learn that they will not be taking pride of place in my collection. It's quite extensive you know after 30 years in a male dominated industry, I have left and rights and more then a few pairs. Mark I'm happy for you to complete the task, though a tad disappointed that you have chosen to sharpen your implement of choice.

VVV the rules are quite clear if you actually choose to read them.

188A (1)The following are prohibited substances...
(b)Substances falling within, but not limited to, the following categories.....
then 7 down is "anabolic agents" ( NB Boldonone is an anabolic agent)
then further down
(2) the following substances when present at or below the levels setout are excepted from the provisions of sub rule (1)
then 9 down is
(i)Boldenone in male horses other then geldings,(including both free boldenone and boldenone liberated from conjugates) at a mass concentration of 15 micrograms per litre in urine.
190(1) A horse shall be presented for a race free of prohibited substances

So that means if your horse is a gelding then Boldenone (an anabolic agent) is a prohibited substance. The threshold level for ALL prohibited substances bar those that are listed in sub rule 2 as being excepted from sub rule 1 is ZERO.

The only thing you are missing VVV is your NUTS, as I said previously they are MINE!

Quote:

Originally Posted by dizzy

Not so fast VVV I said I'm not interested in your testosterone levels but your nuts ARE mine, though you will be disappointed no doubt to learn that they will not be taking pride of place in my collection. It's quite extensive you know after 30 years in a male dominated industry, I have left and rights and more then a few pairs. Mark I'm happy for you to complete the task, though a tad disappointed that you have chosen to sharpen your implement of choice.

VVV the rules are quite clear if you actually choose to read them.

188A (1)The following are prohibited substances...
(b)Substances falling within, but not limited to, the following categories.....
then 7 down is "anabolic agents" ( NB Boldonone is an anabolic agent)
then further down
(2) the following substances when present at or below the levels setout are excepted from the provisions of sub rule (1)
then 9 down is
(i)Boldenone in male horses other then geldings,(including both free boldenone and boldenone liberated from conjugates) at a mass concentration of 15 micrograms per litre in urine.
190(1) A horse shall be presented for a race free of prohibited substances

So that means if your horse is a gelding then Boldenone (an anabolic agent) is a prohibited substance. The threshold level for ALL prohibited substances bar those that are listed in sub rule 2 as being excepted from sub rule 1 is ZERO.

The only thing you are missing VVV is your NUTS, as I said previously they are MINE!

Hey Mark and Lee,
forget your other stuff at $1 a go, you can sell tickets to this event and with the right marketing........geez a few bob to be made,of course triple will want HIS CUT!

Dot...I'm starting to get a rather uncomfortable twinge in my crotch area :eek: so I hand on heart promise to call the Stewards in the morning and clarify this. Your reading of those rules doesn't make much sense to me because nowhere does it specifically state in black & white the obvious, spelt out. Call me a simpleton who's looking to save his Jatz from an all out assault if you must. Allow me one last roll of the dice.
On that general score, I do wonder, as things pertain to your reading of that rule....has anyone given any thought to the horses currently racing that are officially noted as being colts/entires but are actually geldings and have been for some time?
How, if at all, are they ever identified at point of testing in order to allow for systemic vs additional boldenone?
Does anyone show up and with a warm & gentle hand reach in underneath in order to locate...or conversely make note of the lack of that...which, in my case, both Dot and Mark seem so very keen to get their mits on? :confused:
Does the Swabbing Steward 'go the grope' in order to confirm Jatz or sans Jatz?
Another reason I ask is that now and again out at Menangle I've seen Dennis Wilson standing quietly in cross ties and with a rug over him and that in and of itself makes me think that maybe there is someone who does actually does do this and that from time to time there is some level of intentional Jatz handling involved. :rolleyes:

Sorry Jaimie . No stays or appeals for you . Dot will have her trophy's and , Ok , Dot I'll ditch the Joseph Rogers and we'll just pop em out like 2 festered pimples

As stated last night, I rang this morning. Stewards confirm Dot's reading of said rules. Further he suggested that I hang my keyboard up which wasn't very supportive of him. My bad one for thinking boldenone and testosterone were pretty much one & the same.
Mark, that's a bit harsh. They're more like a couple of sizeable rockmelons have a fight under a chaff bag so you'd best bring a machette...and make sure your hands are warm. :p

Thanks for putting your hand up on that one Jamie. I felt like it was another red herring from you anyway. There's not much that you don't have expertise or an opinion on.
Dots reading of the rules is the way that most people interpreted them. You seem to be missing the point on a few things and getting really upset. I think that you could be letting your emotions get in the way of your judgement and that's a good example of same.
You took a crack at Richard Freedman at the start of this thread, however his comments seem to be true that drug testing is not catching or stopping the cheats. Luke cheated with Boldenone and is still operating and will continue to do so directly or through his associates. It was introduced endogenously and it raises more questions when Karloo Kix goes on it at the same time.

I wasn't have a crack at his comments...for the most part I think he is probably right about a lot of what he says...rather I was having a crack at the credibility person who made them, at him apparently seeking to take the moral highground especially so post his brother's/their stable's saga with Encosta De Lago & that in the years prior to that Lee had also been done for substituting a horse at an official barrier trial. It was the old living in glass houses and throwing stones routine for mine.

We all might might wonder why it was so important to 'Shoot the messenger' rather than discuss the message.

John 8:7 my friend.

I'd have thought it obvious Lee.
"Let him who is without sin cast the first stone"...or something along those lines.
For old mate to claim the moral highground on this one is pretty rugged for mine.
Maybe he's just got early onset dimentia and his memory is not what it used to be ?
I'm getting to know what that's like myself.

You said it 'dimentia' sic

Indeed. Proof Reading eh? Who'd have thought? Looks like you've finally found something you're good at Lee.

Going back to what Freedman said (although I didn't hear the interview)...was it really ground-breaking at all?
Did anybody really think that drug testing alone would stop each and every drug cheat. Still, it does make a big difference and we are better off doing it than not doing it at all as the OP suggested.

Hi guys its Trish using Marks site.
I found this.... To me & how its written, says that steroids are banned. I thought they were. Im sure VVV or VOR will explain...... Its on a site called The Jockey Club.

One last comment on a happier note: Treve Williams is an Australian veterinarian. He is of similar stature in Australia as Gary Lavin or Bobby Copelan are in the U.S. Until about 15 years ago, Australia allowed anabolic steroids and then moved, as we are doing today, to ban them. Right after John Kimmel made his comments Treve stood up and described to the same audience how he had fought the Australian anabolic steroid ban tooth and nail. He was sure racing couldn't survive without anabolic steroids, but when anabolic steroids were banned in Australia, Australian racing and the horses never missed a beat. Thank you for your attention.

Trish, one of the reasons that racing progressed after the ban, was because horses were able to race on for many for more years than with steroids.
It was because the damage to their bone structure (calcium deficiency) was no longer present. Prior to the ban it was most unlikely that a 14yo horse was still able to race and be competitive. You now see many of them not the least Mustard and one other old timer you might remember RTR.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mark diegutis

Sorry Jaimie . No stays or appeals for you . Dot will have her trophy's and , Ok , Dot I'll ditch the Joseph Rogers and we'll just pop em out like 2 festered pimples

Obviously a lover of great cutlery,got the castrating model of course.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mark diegutis

Hi guys its Trish using Marks site.
I found this.... To me & how its written, says that steroids are banned. I thought they were. Im sure VVV or VOR will explain...... Its on a site called The Jockey Club.

One last comment on a happier note: Treve Williams is an Australian veterinarian. He is of similar stature in Australia as Gary Lavin or Bobby Copelan are in the U.S. Until about 15 years ago, Australia allowed anabolic steroids and then moved, as we are doing today, to ban them. Right after John Kimmel made his comments Treve stood up and described to the same audience how he had fought the Australian anabolic steroid ban tooth and nail. He was sure racing couldn't survive without anabolic steroids, but when anabolic steroids were banned in Australia, Australian racing and the horses never missed a beat. Thank you for your attention.

Trish

Steroids are a prohibited substance on race day no debate there .....my point earlier is and remains their use is not banned, vets can and do still prescribe their use in both harness and thoroughbred horses in racing in Australia and are neither in breach of any laws or racing rules. There were some calls earlier in this thread calling for more out of competition testing to help control steroid use, simply that will not happen because their use is permitted just not too close to raceday.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thevoiceofreason

Trish

Steroids are a prohibited substance on race day no debate there .....my point earlier is and remains their use is not banned, vets can and do still prescribe their use in both harness and thoroughbred horses in racing in Australia and are neither in breach of any laws or racing rules. There were some calls earlier in this thread calling for more out of competition testing to help control steroid use, simply that will not happen because their use is permitted just not too close to raceday.

Hi Bill . Just as a matter of interest , is there a period before race day that they are not allowed to be present or is it Ok as long as the're clear race day . If thats the case then some trainers would base their training regime around the use of steroids and what about EPO . Does EPO come under the same restrictions or lack there of . Thanks Mark

Quote:

Originally Posted by mark diegutis

Hi Bill . Just as a matter of interest , is there a period before race day that they are not allowed to be present or is it Ok as long as the're clear race day . If thats the case then some trainers would base their training regime around the use of steroids and what about EPO . Does EPO come under the same restrictions or lack there of . Thanks Mark

@TripleV. It's going to be one long haul before everybody firstly understands the difference between therepautic and performance enhancing and then accepts it.

I'll think you will like this bit though. Ray Hadley gave a great analogy on the footy show last night (a show you've previously bagged!!). In harness racing terms his analogy was that a therepeutic drug only allows Oscar Lane to run like Oscar Lane, but a performance enhancing drug allows Oscar Lane to run like Christian Cullen.

Off the point of the topic, but Mark's comments reminded me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mark diegutis

Hi Bill . Just as a matter of interest , is there a period before race day that they are not allowed to be present or is it Ok as long as the're clear race day . If thats the case then some trainers would base their training regime around the use of steroids and what about EPO . Does EPO come under the same restrictions or lack there of . Thanks Mark

Mark

Go to www.harness.org.au on the right is a heading "search", click on search, then rules, type in 188 and it will take you to the relevant section

Quote:

Originally Posted by aussiebreno

@TripleV. It's going to be one long haul before everybody firstly understands the difference between therepautic and performance enhancing and then accepts it.

I'll think you will like this bit though. Ray Hadley gave a great analogy on the footy show last night (a show you've previously bagged!!). In harness racing terms his analogy was that a therepeutic drug only allows Oscar Lane to run like Oscar Lane, but a performance enhancing drug allows Oscar Lane to run like Christian Cullen.

Off the point of the topic, but Mark's comments reminded me.

Brenno that will help out some but the problem is the same substance can either be therapeutic or performance enhancing depending on the circumstances of its use. For example if the vet had given Franco Stalker boldonone after he returned from Randwick Equine Centre an emaciated wreck after they surgically repaired (and excellently) his fractured pastern then the use would definately have been therapeutic, but if I'd used it without an appropriate script from a vet in the lead up to a race, particularly in conjunction with a banned masking, sorry "interference" agent, then there is little doubt its use would be described as performance enhancing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thevoiceofreason

Trish

Steroids are a prohibited substance on race day no debate there .....my point earlier is and remains their use is not banned, vets can and do still prescribe their use in both harness and thoroughbred horses in racing in Australia and are neither in breach of any laws or racing rules. There were some calls earlier in this thread calling for more out of competition testing to help control steroid use, simply that will not happen because their use is permitted just not too close to raceday.

And my question to you Bill remains that if Boldonone had been prescribed to Karloo Kix and Machwiper by a vet why has no vet come forward to take responsibility for as VVV calls it a "therapeutic overage" and both trainers publicly claimed they didn't know what Boldonone was?

I can think of 4 likely explanations for this
1/ the boldonone was obtained and administered without veterinary advice by someone connected to the respective stables.
2/ the boldonone was obtained from a dodgy vet but better to have the trainer take the fall with HRNSW then identify the vet and risk them loosing their veterinary licence thus putting an end to further supplies.
3/ an unknown person entered the stable and administered the boldonone, but neither trainer has suggested that to my knowledge.
4/ the positive was the result of a contamination issue with a feed supplement, don't think either camp has put that forward-worked for a trainer in India last year but not for the other 2 caught with him!

And no VVV it isn't Stephen King I read.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aussiebreno

@TripleV. It's going to be one long haul before everybody firstly understands the difference between therepautic and performance enhancing and then accepts it.

I'll think you will like this bit though. Ray Hadley gave a great analogy on the footy show last night (a show you've previously bagged!!). In harness racing terms his analogy was that a therepeutic drug only allows Oscar Lane to run like Oscar Lane, but a performance enhancing drug allows Oscar Lane to run like Christian Cullen.

Off the point of the topic, but Mark's comments reminded me.

I dont know that it is that much off topic.
IMO it is a great analogy and filtering the vast amount of side show comments the real point of the issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by teecee

I dont know that it is that much off topic.
IMO it is a great analogy and filtering the vast amount of side show comments the real point of the issue.

Teecee

The by play on this topic has been rivetting, especially for one member who stands to lose something so near and dear...and if the bloodhounds have their way, there is going to be a lot of screaming, crying and bloodspatter...you are in my prayers VVV.

Quote:

Originally Posted by broncobrad

Teecee

The by play on this topic has been rivetting, especially for one member who stands to lose something so near and dear...and if the bloodhounds have their way, there is going to be a lot of screaming, crying and bloodspatter...you are in my prayers VVV.

Brad I fully expect VVV to stand by his bet, I'm not as forgiving as Jett and believe VVV confession is much like Shannon Wonsons EPO guilty plea, it only came after all other avenues were exhausted. However now that VVV has informed us of their impressive size I'm sure he will actually be relieved to lose them, I imagine the chaffing must be horrendous, and I'll give him the option of delivering them not in a sealed container but mounted where upon I will enter them in Bankstowns inaugarul Art Exhibition next month giving VVV full credit of course.

Jett I do understand what you are saying though, VVV does seem to let his emotions, and what he would like to be, over rule his judgement in many cases posting here. The other option as I see it would be VVV himself at times would return a positive swab-to a mind altering substance!

VVV have I got this right-you have a problem with the "credibility" of Richard Freedman stating publicly, after approximetely 10 years now working in the media, that drug testing alone wont catch all the cheats because his brother 16 years ago had some contoversy over Encosta De Lago TCO2 levels, something that as you have been at pains to point out can be achieved by something from the supermarket, before a race whereby ultimately the horse was permitted to start no doubt by the Chairman of Stewards at the time?

But you don't have a problem with the "credibility" of a current harness trainer who has had a horse return a positive post race swab to a substance that at the very least the trainer should have been using under vet advice yet there is no vet to take resposibility for the "overage". Seems an awful lot like a case of double standards or seeing what you want to see.

As a matter of interest when you say a 1st, 2nd and 3rd test did you mean a test of 3 vials taken at the same time or 3 test on samples taken at different time? (I was in Europe then pursuing other interests)

Quote:

Originally Posted by broncobrad

Teecee

The by play on this topic has been rivetting, especially for one member who stands to lose something so near and dear...and if the bloodhounds have their way, there is going to be a lot of screaming, crying and bloodspatter...you are in my prayers VVV.

Brad.. To some it may be rivetting but others are telling me it is something else. Indeed some are urging Zorro to take some action..if you know what I mean.
My own view really is that some posts are very close to the edge with the chop coming very soon from an unexpected direction and Jaimie wont be the victim.

Hey Zorro...I am sure the light-hearted banter should be taken with a grain of salt as most posters would agree. But alas, I feel you are sharpening your sword as I type. There are definitely two distinct lines of thinking on this subject and all posters know what the boundarys are with their comments. There is still a lot more to be said on this topic. As long as they keep the libel out of it, can we be spared the snip?

Brad, I think you have stated the thinking that occupies the minds of everyone who takes this subject seriously. Without robust discussion, those that are apologists for people who are prepared to push the boundaries of the current rules will try to shout down any opposition. With a loud enough voice change can happen, albeit slowly. Don't give up.