|
Drugs
Aug 25, 2006 3:26:25 GMT -5
Post by jhar26 on Aug 25, 2006 3:26:25 GMT -5
Baseball has it's problems, the NBA and NFL probably too, although no one likes to do anything about it. Most female tennis players look like the incredible Hulk these days. You can find more drugs among a team of cyclists than in a hospital. Boxers change weight divisions every couple of fights. Virtually every sprinter in track & field that has achieved anything in the last 30 years or so has been suspended or is under serious suspicion ( for today: LaTasha Jenkins). When weight lifters hear that they are gonna be tested at an important event suddenly more than half of them are going home with an injury, and so on, and so on...
How do you feel about drugs in sports? Is everyone taking them? And if so, should anything be done about it? Or should we simply ignore it because let's face it, for every athlete that gets caught there are ten that get away with it.
Gaston
|
|
|
Drugs
Aug 25, 2006 5:46:59 GMT -5
Post by robertaxel on Aug 25, 2006 5:46:59 GMT -5
I strongly feel that ignoring the issue is completely wrong - not only will that cheapen the sport, but more importantly, it will neglect the consequences of drugs on young athletes starting their career.
Of course, not all athletes are taking them, but those that are must face consequences, up to and including a lifetime ban. Drugs are just another form of cheating, IMO and make the results of the contest meaningless.
Robert
|
|
|
Drugs
Aug 25, 2006 6:08:08 GMT -5
Post by jhar26 on Aug 25, 2006 6:08:08 GMT -5
I strongly feel that ignoring the issue is completely wrong - not only will that cheapen the sport, but more importantly, it will neglect the consequences of drugs on young athletes starting their career. Of course, not all athletes are taking them, but those that are must face consequences, up to and including a lifetime ban. Drugs are just another form of cheating, IMO and make the results of the contest meaningless. Robert I actually think that while not everyone is taking drugs I'm absolutely convinced that the vast majority of them are, even though of course I can't prove it. As a simple example, let's look at the 100 m runners of the past 25 years. The best of them have been Ben Johnson, Carl Lewis, Linford Christie, Tim Montgomery and Justin Gatlin. ALL of them have been caught taking drugs (including Lewis at least three times, although the results were swept under the carpet in his case). Many (and I mean MANY) other of the main runners have been caught also. Now, no one is gonna be able to convince me that in such a climate anyone who wins a medal at a world championship or an Olympics is clean. I mean, how can you beat a field of talented athletes who on top of that are also on drugs? It's impossible unless you're superman. And testing negative doesn't mean that they haven't taken anything either. One doctor says that if they had tested Marion Jones just one hour later they wouldn't have detected anything. Gaston
|
|
|
Drugs
Aug 25, 2006 10:11:39 GMT -5
Post by egoodstein on Aug 25, 2006 10:11:39 GMT -5
>>How do you feel about drugs in sports?<<
**I think it's unfortunate because it casts doubts about real abilities and results. The combo of 'drugged up freak shows' & to some extent rich players 'phoning in' their play for rich owners bores me often. So many professional sports don't really interest me much. No solution-- players should be compensated (in the not very glorious past, they often were exploited & then cast aside), and true sports is really part of a huge entertainment industry now.
>>Is everyone taking them?<<
**No-- but most are in some sports I think (i.e., baseball-- at least power hitters). Some of this has to do with the vast money involved at least at pro levels, schedule pressures (how do you keep going week after week-- tennis good example but other sports too).
>>And if so, should anything be done about it?.<< **Well, yes, but question is what. One problem I think is for some substances, once they were legal, now not, and also it does seem that legit medications can also trigger some positive drug tests. Though I think that's used as excuse as much as real situation. Still, IMO some kind of 'pardon' clauses need to be written into drug testing keeping this in mind. Also, the advancement of drugs will mean needed advances in testing-- expensive but probably necessary. It is true that we live in a 'drug' society-- lines between medical help and cheating can be blurry in general. Still, I think for the sake of honest achievement in sports, drug testing can and probably will become just another part of the regimen involved for just about every sport. It will probably not ever be perfect. Ed
|
|
|
Drugs
Aug 25, 2006 11:34:41 GMT -5
Post by Kathy ~ on Aug 25, 2006 11:34:41 GMT -5
Something I've had to consider in my Sport. In humans, I agree with abuse and the outcome of any particular game. And for the $$ they are paid to toss a ball, it's sickening !!
This was a strong debate at one point, and I continue to struggle with the issue: The Lasix debate -Thoroughbreds
Opponents of Lasix use point out that it was legalized in the late 1970's during a shortage of thoroughbreds in North America. They suggest that Lasix and Butazolidin are used to make otherwise uncompetitive horses able (if not fit) to race.
They are also quick to note that the percentage of winning favorites has declined since the introduction of these drugs -- a sign that racing has become less formful. Furthermore, they assert that the commonplace use of a controlled substance in racehorses does not contribute to the image of racing as a fair and legitimate sport.
Lasix proponents simply assert that it is a treatment without which certain horses would be unable to race due to physical ailments. Many horses are bleeders and require medication to control the problem.
Many people from both sides agree, however, that the use of Lasix and Butazolidin is getting out of control. Since virtually all horses bleed -- at least a little bit -- any horse can be declared a bleeder and put on Lasix. Bute can be used on any horse the trainer deems needs it. Why the proliferation of horses racing with Lasix and Bute?
Some say that trainers are using both drugs just in case their horse has an undetected problem. Or, they may be using them because there is a perceived advantage to using these drugs, and they do not want their horses to be at a disadvantage.
At the very least it can not be denied that the large majority of horses race under medication on a consistent basis. One finds oneself wondering if these drugs are truly necessary on a continuing basis. And if so, should such horses be permitted to race?
The practical implications Regardless of which side one takes in the Lasix debate, it appears that controlled medications are here to stay. Lasix and Butazolidin are legal and common in most jurisdictions, and more theraputic drugs may be permitted in the near future. For instance, California is considering establishing maximum bloodstream levels of eight drugs. The issue of horses running on medication seems to be expanding.
Since medications will be a part of racing for the foreseeable future, it is prudent for the handicapper to carefully consider the impact of these chemicals whether you call them "theraputic medications" or "performance-enhancing drugs". The use of raceday medications entails a number of implications of practical value to the handicapper.
Certainly one should study a horse's past performances very carefully before playing the "first time Lasix" angle. Is this a horse that can benefit from a dose of Lasix? Typically, a horse that shows early speed then suddenly stops after a half mile or so is likely to be suffering from the effects of bleeding. This is the type of horse that can be helped by Lasix. Horses that run near the back of the pack throughout the entire race are unlikely to improve under any medication.
Some professional handicappers suggest that Lasix is least effective on hot, humid days, probably because any mammal's breathing is more difficult on such days.
If your handicapping typically involves favoring horses carrying less weight than their rivals, be sure to take into account the pounds shed by a Lasix-medicated horse by increased urinary output.
|
|
|
Drugs
Aug 25, 2006 13:27:08 GMT -5
Post by egoodstein on Aug 25, 2006 13:27:08 GMT -5
>> This was a strong debate at one point, and I continue to struggle with the issue: The Lasix debate -Thoroughbreds
Opponents of Lasix use point out that it was legalized in the late 1970's during a shortage of thoroughbreds in North America. They suggest that Lasix and Butazolidin are used to make otherwise uncompetitive horses able (if not fit) to race.<<
**Interesting points. I know a little about these drugs which are also used for showhorses as well as thoroughbred racehorses. (Latix mainly for showjumpers). These drugs IMO were developed for injuries as treatment originally-- and in such a context have had good results as I understand it. But yes, they're also used for 'enhanced performance' which has led to some abuse or at least overuse. I know with Bute that at least show horses can only take this in small doses for a limited amount of time really-- after a while diminishing returns of effectiveness and other problems can occur. I think Lasix can be same. I think the main thing with horses is to not overrace or show them, or exhaust them but still keeping them fit in training (as well as varying the routines)-- the time between races/meets/shows and the way they are trained is at least as important as the events themselves. But of course esp. with racehorses, the money pressures enter in & you'll never completely eliminate those trying to gain an edge. Ed
|
|
|
Drugs
Aug 27, 2006 0:18:53 GMT -5
Post by Kathy ~ on Aug 27, 2006 0:18:53 GMT -5
WITH ALL THE ARLINGTON PARK CONTROVERSY.. THERE WERE 20 BREAKDOWNS IN LESS THAN TWO MONTHS.. MY STATS ARE NOT ACCURATE, BUT ADDING TO YOUR COMMENT.. OVER RACED..
MANY ARE SAYING THIS TO BE TRUE.. THE SPORT IS DYING.. BOTTOM LINE..
BARBARO HAD NOT RACED IN MAYBE 5 WEEKS BEFORE THE DERBY. CAME HOME SAILEING.. TWO WEEKS LATER.. BROKE DOWN
NOW ADD ST. LIAM & LOST IN THE FOG... THESE ARE THE TOP STAKES RACERS &. .. NOT LOOKING GOOD FOR LITHF..
I WANT TO GO INTO THE BIO'S TO SEE IF THESE CHAMPS HAS LASIX PRIOR TO STAKES RACES. THAT ISSUE HAS NOT BEEN BROUGHT UP, HOWVER I AM SEEING MORE HORSE HAVING UNUSUAL BREAKDOWNS AND EVENTUALLLY HAVE BEEN EUTHANIZES.
TRYING TO RESEARCH &.. SEE IF THERE IS A LINK . JUST LIKE ANY OTHER SPORT..IT IS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY. HOWEVER, THE HORSES ARE NOT"MR. ED".. ( NO PUN ED).. & THEY CAN'T COMMUNICATE IF THEY'RE FEELING OFF FOR A RACE..
THANKS FOR THE INPUT ED.. HORSES, WHETHER THOROUBREDS, OR SHOW HORSES ......... IT'S STILL CONSIDERED A "KICK" IMO AND I PREFER NO LASIX.. UNLESS FOR MEDICAL REASONS..
LIKE I SAID.. NEED TO GET MY FACTS STRAIGHT. .. ESPECIALLY THE ARLINGTON PARK TURF !!
|
|
|
Drugs
Aug 27, 2006 0:30:00 GMT -5
Post by Kathy ~ on Aug 27, 2006 0:30:00 GMT -5
21 euthanized this season
August 23, 2006 - Arlington Park has lost another race horse to an injury. Track officials say "Gringa Hug" had to be euthanized Wednesday following a race.
The remains will be examined at the University of Illinois to determine what caused the injury. Just last weekend two other horses were euthanized because of leg fractures. So far this season, Arlington Park has had to euthanize 21 horses, which is an unusually high number.
Earlier this month, the Illinois Racing Board brought in an independent consultant who determined that the track is safe.
|
|
|
Drugs
Aug 27, 2006 5:51:05 GMT -5
Post by westendkid on Aug 27, 2006 5:51:05 GMT -5
Hi, Kathy
That an awfully high number. What is going on at Arlington? I'd be curious to know the outcome of the investigation.
For my money, the NYRA is the best around - no drugged up horses! The horses do better and the bettors have an easier time of handicapping a race. Considering the number of races run at Belmont, Aquaduct & Saratoga, the NYRA keeps a good eye on the horses, trainers and jockeys. And, the bettor is happier because of it.
The West End Kid
|
|
|
Drugs
Aug 27, 2006 11:05:49 GMT -5
Post by Kathy ~ on Aug 27, 2006 11:05:49 GMT -5
GOOD MORNING.. I'VE BEEN GETTING MY "ALERTS' FOR ARLINGTON &.. THAT WAS THE LATEST UPDATE.. THINGS CHANGED WITH THE CHURCHILL DOWNS UMBRELLA NOW.. I SEE THE DIFFERENCE!! I REICEVE THE NTRA & NYRA ONLINE MONTHLY NEWS .. AND SURE ENOUGH.. EAST COAST IS WHERE THE I JUST TRACKED THE TRAVERS .. LEADING TO THE BREEDER'S CUP.. I SAW A NICE WIN BY BERNARDINI.. AND BLUEGRASS CAT CAME IN SECOND.. I THINK AT CHURCHILL OR ARLINGTON I'D BE HOLDING MY BREATH.. LIKE I SAID.. TRYING TO KEEP UP.. I'M GETTING MY "VIRTUAL STABLE" READY FOR NOV. 4 &... GLAD THEY ARE HEADING EAST THIS YEAR !! THAT'S FOR THE 411.. DO YOU KNOW WHY/HOW THE SPLIT CAME ABOUT.. THE CHURCHILL DOWNS INC.. INCLUDING ARLINGTON.. I HAVE SET MY TRACK STRAIGHT.... WILL POST WHEN I GET INFO ON ARLINGTON.. IT'S BEEN IN THE NEWS AROUND HERE.. MAYBE 15 SECONDS WORTH
|
|