- This topic has 8 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
Very surprised to read that Encke and Certify amongst others remain in training and will race again at the top level in 2014.
The science behind the six month wash-through period seems decidedly ambiguous and we can all guess what sentence two of a post race report will contain if either of these creatures post victory this year. Pyrrhic indeed.
Another poor show from the Sheikh/BHA imo.
- Total Posts 764
Any news on Opinion Poll? He was my first ever bet over £100 when he won at Sandown a couple of years back!
Very surprised to read that Encke and Certify amongst others remain in training and will race again at the top level in 2014.
The science behind the six month wash-through period seems decidedly ambiguous and we can all guess what sentence two of a post race report will contain if either of these creatures post victory this year. Pyrrhic indeed.
Another poor show from the Sheikh/BHA imo.
Under what grounds could the BHA stop those horses from racing again Cav?… When they let Australian (amongst others) trained horses run at Royal Ascot that could
legally
have had exactly the same treatment as Certify and Encke.
Thankfully Australia has now changed its steroid rules and is now supposedly stricter than ours. But those foreign horses treated with steroids in the past can still enter at Royal Ascot in 2014.
I agree, I backed Certify @ 20/1 for the 1000 Guineas and rather not see her on the racecourse again. But the "experts" seem to think the substance will have no effect after six months and this will be a lot more than six months. At least they will not get full stud value (through progeny) for any subsequent (or come to that – "previous") win. Suspect BHA’s hands are somewhat tied to "expert opinion". Not wishing to risk a court case.
Value Is EverythingHorses found to have been doped with steroids should be disqualified from ever racing again. Who knows what unfair advantage a period of ‘chemistry’ confers over a longer term.
If they are serious about cleaning up racing that is one step that should be taken asap.
As much as it questions what they have previously achieved, it was not the horses fault they were doped. While the affair does still leave a nasty taste in the mouth, the horses were banned for a specific time and as this time has past they should be allowed to race. What was the future for these horses if they didn’t have the chance to race again? As a previous poster indicated how many horses who were legally doped in their country of origin and subsequently raced and won on British tracks.
I agree it wasn’t the horses fault they were doped but is it not potentially grossly unfair on other horses and connections to compete against horses whose muscular and athletioc development may have been significanty advantaged by a period of steroid administration? Anyhow, the horses don’t know whether they are or aren’t banned so it’s not unfair on them, you might argue it is unfair on connections – but I wouldn’t.
I agree it wasn’t the horses fault they were doped but is it not potentially grossly unfair on other horses and connections to compete against horses whose muscular and athletioc development may have been significanty advantaged by a period of steroid administration? Anyhow, the horses don’t know whether they are or aren’t banned so it’s not unfair on them, you might argue it is unfair on connections – but I wouldn’t.
The duration of steroid administration is the key here, if there was prolonged period there is perhaps a question of how much possible advantage still remains, but it has been almost a year since they were banned. This raises two questions, it is not known what the duration of steroid administration and the dosage was. If anything it is almost a worry that apparently there has never been a statement that it was just for the short winter period (again comes back to the point having their previous results annulled). The other question would be were the horses kept in training post the ban where recent dosages may have had a been a more long term benefit. Had they gone into a field for a number of months then came back into training then any subsequent steroid advantage would be at best negligible.
As a complete aside, one possible interest of this whole affair, is how do decent horses that have a year off not due to injury fare when they return?
Given the tiny margins that oft decide race outcomes and in the absence of any metric to quantify in an exact amount the ongoing performance benefit or lack thereof to any of the doped horses, none of them should be let race on a UK racecourse again.
Any horse that has been performance doped legally or otherwise in a foreign jurisdiction shouldn’t be let on a UK racecourse either.
That should be the BHA position, period.
Royal Ascot would be better off without them. That, No Nay Never was the size of a small bull ffs.
Sheikh Mohammed has now spoken out.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.