Question mark over Black Caviar as steroids saga takes new twist
|
By:
If you are only after a 2% edge they may only have to have small doses weeks before(who knows)?
|
|
By:
I'm inclined to agree with BJT in the fact that no-one knows how widespread this is because testing was non-existent.
But I disagree with him about Black Caviar. There has to be more than a coincidence about the BHA testing and her retirement. It doesn't prove anything but Moody's previous statements only add the the possibility and that is sad. It's all very well BJT saying there is no proof and he is correct but that goes both ways. We should demand to see the declarations made to Royal Ascot before BC and others from Australia have raced here. They have them but refuse to divulge them. Why? Plus we must know what yards have been checked over recent years, since the Aussies started coming. I cannot believe this is an isolated incident. How can we rely upon recent results with this hanging the air? |
|
By:
So the cheat will know from practice the time period needed too elude the testers(trial and error over god knows how many years)?
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
Now you are talking nonsense Bjt!
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
There is not much evidence out there,it is mixed,i am no expert i only give my opinion on the written evidence out there,the cheats will know more than me or you,why do you claim to be a expert,why do you defend?
|
|
By:
I make no comment relating too Black caviar other than i think she was great!
|
|
By:
I am not saying BC was given steroids but even you BJT have to admit this is bad publicity for the mare. The timing and the outspoken nature of her trainer only add fuel to the flames. We, horse racing fans, can do without this type of thing in racing and I do believe this is not merely a coincidence not by any stretch.
|
|
By:
I don't claim to be an expert at all. What I have read is what I have stated. You haven't stated anything at all.
In what way am I talking nonsense? Does it not stand to reason that for the period it takes to get out of the system, the horse needs to remain in work until such time they are "clear" before they can even go to race? To benefit in the first place means you must be in heavy work. To keep those benefits, you must remain in work til it is out of your system. Do you really think a 4 week steroid program, 8 weeks in the paddock, and then 3 weeks in work gives any advantages in regards to speed/stamina? It helps speed up injuries, shortens spell times. Simple as that. Otherwise, prove exactly what it does. metro john • May 1, 2013 10:08 AM BST I make no comment relating too Black caviar other than i think she was great! The post you commented on had nothing to do with BC, so why bring her up in defense of what you said? |
|
By:
|
|
By:
metro john • May 1, 2013 9:04 AM BST
Agree with megsy,just because they allow it in Australia does not make it right. metro john • May 1, 2013 9:14 AM BST It is claimed that the benefits may last for months,the art for the cheat is knowing how long they can use there drugs before a race date without it being detected,and it seems that that may not be a long period,Certify was tested positive. These were my opening comments before you saw fit too ridicule what part of that do you not like? |
|
By:
So your scientific proof is that it not be a long period for it to get out of your system but the benefits last for months?
I counter that by saying Certify has been off for nearly 7 months. It may be still in the system from December, by your reckoning any benefits would be gone. You want to tell somebody about nonsense, then at least have something to back it up. There is nothing at all scientific about this thread, just mudslinging and accusations based on absolute zero. |
|
By:
The fact that Certify was tested positive, and entered to run in a minor classic in just a few weeks, does suggest too me,that the period that the cheats are leaving off the drugs, is a much shorter one than most of the written reports on the drugs would maybe suggest?
|
|
By:
So your argument bjt, seems to be that steroids aren't much use and don't help a horses performance - is a speedier recovery from injury and shorter training times to ready a horse not improving it's performance, esp if that horse is fragile and doesn't take much training - sore joints or muscular problems for eg? Why do pretty much all Aussie trainers support their use if they aren't much use to better a horse?
It is strange to gloat at 'the biggest stable in the UK cheating' but in the same breath saying that the use of the same drugs is widespread in Aus racing, they don't do much and their use isn't a problem. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
To test positive so close to an event,would seem too be pushing it somewhat? quantities is unknown I agree,only the cheat with experience would know for sure(or the untouchables who work for the very wealthy?)
|
|
By:
Here is an interesting article for you all......
BHA will not break down 2012 drug test figures for Godolphin • Testing continues of horses at Mahmood al-Zarooni yard • Only 600-700 out-of-competition tests were carried out in 2012 Share 6 inShare 0 Owen Gibson The Guardian, Friday 26 April 2013 19.46 BST Certify, one of 15 horses from the Mahmood al-Zarooni stable banned for use of anabolic steroids, passed two tests in 2012. Photograph: PA The British Horseracing Authority has refused to divulge how many Godolphin horses have been tested for banned substances in the past two years, despite this week banning 15 of the stable's horses for six months and effectively casting the shamed trainer Mahmood al-Zarooni from the sport. While the BHA publishes figures showing how many raceday tests have been carried out in each calendar year, it said it would not break down the figures any further despite the shadow hanging over the world's biggest bloodstock operation. It is understood that Certify, the winter favourite for the 1,000 Guineas who was one of 15 horses banned, after being given anabolic steroids by Zarooni, was tested twice last year and was clean both times. The BHA also confirmed that both Godolphin yards in Newmarket – one under the aegis of Zarooni and the other under Saeed Bin Suroor – had been visited for "in training" testing in the past "few years" and no horses had tested positive. The sport's governing body also said it was unrealistic to expect the winner of every race to be tested – hence it was inevitable that not every Godolphin winner would have been tested during the past two years. "We test horses from every race but not always the winner," said a BHA spokesman. "What I can say is that the winner of every major race almost certainly would have been tested." The BHA's figures show that of 90,174 runners in 2012, it conducted 7,182 raceday tests – 14 of which were positive. It has pointed to those figures as evidence that racing does not have an endemic problem. Yet only 600-700 out-of-competition tests were carried out in 2012 as part of the BHA's "testing in training" sampling programme. Again, it would not break down where these tests were targeted. "There could be a number of reasons why a yard could be idenitified for testing in training but we do not disclose the strategy for this," said the BHA. In non-equine sport the direction of travel has been towards increased out-of-competition testing at short notice, leading to the development of the World Anti-Doping Agency's "wherebouts" programme. The BHA said it was too early to say whether or not its out-of-competition testing regime would be improved as a result of the scandal, pointing instead to the statement by Paul Bittar, its chief executive, in the wake of the ruling on Thursday that it would "identify further areas for consideration" to be incorporated into its sampling strategy. The BHA is now testing the remaining horses (around 150 in number) at Zarooni's Moulton Paddocks yard. However, the horses in Bin Suroor's stable, where the rest of Godolphin's 300-plus horses are trained, will not be tested. The case has highlighted the inconsistencies in the approach to drugs taken by the various racing jurisdictions around the world with the BHA's so-called "zero tolerance" stance, which bans the use of steroids in races and training, far from standard. As racing becomes more international, those inconsistencies are likely to be thrown into sharper relief and, unlike other sports, there is no global harmonised code. In Australia it is legal to use steroids in training and in Dubai it is legal to administer steroids before a horse goes into training. In the US steroids have been routinely used since the 1960s and they remain legal for use in training in most states. While Bittar's statement on Thursday said that the BHA would raise the issue again with its international counterparts, on Friday he said it was unlikely that Australia would change its rules and admitted that Britain was unlikely to do anything that would force it to do so. "It's unlikely that will happen but even though the rules in Australia are different from Britain, and we might take a view that we're comfortable with our rules and they're the best in world, we have to respect that the way horses are trained and the way they are treated in their home jurisdictions is under the auspices of those rules," he said. "If those horses come here, they will be drug-tested, either post-race or in the lead-up to the race, and the drugs may well have cleared the system. In that case it seems a slight anomaly but I don't think it would ever shift us to a position where we stop overseas horses coming in." A spokesman for Ascot, at the forefront of trying to encourage big-name horses from overseas to race in the UK over recent years, said it was "becoming a massive issue" and something the International Federation of Horseracing Authorities should put "as a No1 priority for discussion". But he said the course would continue to try to attract horses from abroad. "As long as everyone is operating within the rules, there is no reason not to encourage horses to travel," he said. |
|
By:
"Just because Certify tested positive a few weeks out from racing, does not prove when she took it. It merely means it is still in the system.
It may be still there from when she was a yearling given your drug testing procedure. And if that is the case, then all this rubbish talk is based on crap".  |
|
By:
The reason BjT that we have a list of banned substances in racing is too stop the cheats (they know the rules and were caught),and for one am very happy that the stewards and testers did there job.If you want too defend or make lite of the subject,that is up too you.
|
|
By:
Why is that funny? Did you read the article?
I will point out a few interesting parts of it....... The BHA also confirmed that both Godolphin yards in Newmarket – one under the aegis of Zarooni and the other under Saeed Bin Suroor – had been visited for "in training" testing in the past "few years" and no horses had tested positive. Only 600-700 out-of-competition tests were carried out in 2012 The sport's governing body also said it was unrealistic to expect the winner of every race to be tested – hence it was inevitable that not every Godolphin winner would have been tested during the past two years. Yet only 600-700 out-of-competition tests were carried out in 2012 as part of the BHA's "testing in training" sampling programme. Samping programme? Interesting. So it only just started last year and only tested 600 horses out of 91,000 runners? Considering this out of competition testing is very new in England, to have 25% of the biggest stable in the world testing positive to steroid use, is a big fcuking deal. In regards to how long the benefits last, I point you to this: The British Horseracing Authority has refused to divulge how many Godolphin horses have been tested for banned substances in the past two years, despite this week banning 15 of the stable's horses for six months and effectively casting the shamed trainer Mahmood al-Zarooni from the sport. The horses in question, are allowed to race again in 6 months, by the organisation that suggests that any drug use will help performance. Well, obviously the effects don't last for very long if they are allowed to compete again this year. |
|
By:
|
|
By:
Compare Britain to Australia:
Britain: Only 600-700 out-of-competition tests were carried out in 2012 The sport's governing body also said it was unrealistic to expect the winner of every race to be tested – hence it was inevitable that not every Godolphin winner would have been tested during the past two years. "We test horses from every race but not always the winner," said a BHA spokesman. Australia: "Currently, we do post-race (urine) testing of about 4500 horses each year and aim to lift that to 6500 over the next 12 months. We test every winner and every horse that performs poorly or not up to expectation. We also do 6000 pre-race blood tests each year. In a metropolitan Saturday meeting, we would pre-race between five and seven horses in each race." |
|
By:
And you know the funny thing about that quote where we test that many horses and EVERY winner of EVERY RACE?
That was from 2004. And you guys only started testing out of competition last year? You guys are a fcuking joke with all these ridiculous threads about drugs in Australian racing. Have a look in your own backyard. |
|
By:
Here,here Bjt,we have agreement!
 |
|
By:
Macheted up to the eyeballs imo bet part of the deal was...we'll come to Ascot providing you don't test us...good job it was on it or it would have been beaten 100 lengths
|
|
By:
Macheted up to the eyeballs imo bet part of the deal was...we'll come to Ascot providing you don't test us...good job it was on it or it would have been beaten 100 lengths
|
|
By:
I can say that again
 |
|
By:
Soft ground and Travel i believe enough of a worry for Black caviar,and i think you lot trying too put a dark cloud on a fantastic career is stupid,she was never tested positive(she is innocent) lets not distract people from the real subject,i expected the press(gravy train) too do this not people on this forum.
|
|
By:
lets not distract people from the real subject,i expected the press(gravy train) too do this not people on this forum.
 |
|
By:
Metro - of course she hasn't tested positive, the point (and it is wider than BC) is that she may well have taken steroids perfectly legally and with no comeback for connections who, whether she has taken them or not, have done nothing wrong. I've said before, not a problem if she's racing against other horses that have taken the same drugs (tbh an aussie trainer would have to be pretty dumb to get caught) but it obv is for international racing. Would Ascot have bent over backwards to 'entice' her over here if it was known she has taken steroids - legally or otherwise? I just think there needs to be a level playing field for group 1 international racing - be that in Aussie, Dubai, USA or wherever.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
are you Australian bjt?
|
|
By:
yes. Why?
|
|
By:
Not to mention spyker, even if she was on a severe steroid program leading up to Ascot, there is every chance she wasn't on as much as the rest of the horses running around at Ascot.
FACT |
|
By:
I would never have guessed.
BTW Black Caviar was a fantastic horse but............ |
|
By:
Not to mention spyker, even if she was on a severe steroid program leading up to Ascot, there is every chance she wasn't on as much as the rest of the horses running around at Ascot.
FACT Proof please - no conjecture and guesswork on this thread please - there is a poster lurking that is very hot on people making it up as they go along and he will break you! |
|
By:
Come to the conclusion after reading this thread that someone is going around spiking the Aussies drinks, some absolute ball locks be wrote here during the night.
|