- This topic has 160 replies, 33 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
Page 8 has made for very interesting reading.
Well I was going to make the point that Australians train their horses more for speed because of the prize money on offer, except there’s no colossal difference between the money on offer here and down under.
The average prize fund on offer for a WFA Group 1 sprint in Australia is roughly $420k (6 races in total – there are a few handicaps and 1 for 3yo only) which equates to £210k. The European average (Maurice Gheest doesn’t qualify since it’s over 6 1/2f) is ever so slightly under £300k.
But given the geography, you have to bring in Asian Group 1 sprints as well. There’s an average of £565k over 6 Group 1 sprints in Hong Kong, Singapore and Japan. The Hong Kong Sprint alone is worth £940k which skews the average a little. Take that away and it’s a £500k average, and that obviously is streets ahead of what Europe has to offer.
The Arabians also have a complete obsession with speed and perhaps that obsession has just carried on over to the Far East and Australia.
Prizemoney is probably one of the main reason for sprinters here but the hot weather probably plays a big part to. I prefer to train horses for 1600m or further but lately only sprinters and it’s why most trainers start about 4am or earlier so your horses are worked and cooled down and back in their boxes by about 7am its not viable with the heat to work horses later in the day as european trainers can
An amusing response to Johnston from Danny Morton in The Australian
"That **** goes over my head. I don’t worry about it too much. He’s got a bit of a chip on his shoulder, hasn’t he? I have never heard of the bloke and there is probably good reason for that"
Knowing Danny well I can well believe he said. Very quiet laid back trainer who lets his horses do the talking. Only 35 so he has achieved an incredible amount in such a short time.
That his and the horses efforts have been cheapened is probably the point that has upset fair minded people.
The breeder of Scenic Blast said in the local paper today that the dam has been forgotten in this and went on to say she was a giant of a mare and has produced another Group One winner in Gilded Venom.
The trouble I have with the Takeover Target case is that Janiak did
not
withdraw the horse after the steroids were found. With an injection in to a ligament there was no way it would clear in time. Five tests confirmed the steroid (17-alpha-hydroxy-pogesterone hexanoate) in the horses system. His trainer had
plenty of time to withdraw
the horse yet Janiak took
no action
and it was left to the
stewards
to
withdraw
the horse
themselves
.
Therefore, the conclusion I have to make is that Janiak believes it is
o.k.
to run with
steroids in a horse’s system
. Something which
unfortunately
casts
some
doubt in
my
(and probably Mark Johnstone’s) mind about TT’s performances, both
before and after
this incident. Timeform Racehorses 2006 says "Some experts, were reportedly of the opinion that the steroid
could stay there permanently
". It clearly was
not
going to clear in a few days.
That same year Honor In War (an American horse) was withdrawn
by his trainer
in a similar case, from the Cox Plate (Grade 1 Australian race).
Can our antipodean friends tell me why Joe Janiak did not withdraw Takeover Target in Hong Kong?
I am
not
saying Takeover Target was on steroids at any other time, but it does not look good. First of all careless with the injection in the first place, and then failure to withdraw the horse, when proven to be on steroids.
Value Is Everything
- Total Posts 17716
Ginger
For God’s sake read the thread!
It’s quite clear why his trainer didn’t withdraw him, and your witch-hunt is now beginning to border on the manic.
A number of people, much closer to the subject than you are, have given their views on this, and the trainer has patently done nothing wrong, so must you continue to clutch at the very last straws, just to salve your ego?…….
Can our antipodean friends tell me why Joe Janiak did not withdraw Takeover Target in Hong Kong?
Because the HK stewards were also ready to wait and see if the drug would clear the system in time for the race – this HKJC press release from two days before the race:
http://www.hkjc.com/english/news/news_2006120814807.htm
best regards
wit
Ginger
For God’s sake read the thread!
It’s quite clear why his trainer didn’t withdraw him, and your witch-hunt is now beginning to border on the manic.
A number of people, much closer to the subject than you are, have given their views on this, and the trainer has patently done nothing wrong, so must you continue to clutch at the very last straws, just to salve your ego?Calm down Reet.
Just because someone has a different opinion than you, does not make it a witch hunt. I think my stance on the David Flood affair demonstrates that my opinion on this subject is quite consistent. I’d be asking the same questions whether Joe Janiak was an Australian or British. Just because I explain myself (unlike some) does not make me manic. And just because there may be someone "closer to the subject", does not make my opinion invalid.
It is quite clear the trainer has done something wrong, administering a drug (or allowing someone else to do so) that did not come out of the horse’s system in time for the race. Had Janiak not done anything wrong Takeover Target would’ve been able to run in Hong Kong.
Of course I could accuse you of your own little witch hunt against me Reet, but I am not as paranoid as you are.
Value Is Everything…….
Can our antipodean friends tell me why Joe Janiak did not withdraw Takeover Target in Hong Kong?
Because the HK stewards were also ready to wait and see if the drug would clear the system in time for the race – this HKJC press release from two days before the race:
http://www.hkjc.com/english/news/news_2006120814807.htm
best regards
wit
Janiak had until the day of the race to withdraw the horse. Because of Janiak’s refusal to do so, the stewards had to withdraw the horse for him. He was quite within his rights to wait until the last moment, if he really thought the steroids would be out of Takeover Target’s system. But the FACT of the matter is, Joe Janiak refused to withdraw a horse that was KNOWN to have steroids in him. I ask again, WHY?
Two questions I think Joe Janiak should answer are:
a) Why did you refuse to withdraw the horse?
b) Do you believe it is o.k. to run horses in races with steroids in their system?
Mark
Value Is EverythingThe trouble I have with the Takeover Target case is that Janiak did
not
withdraw the horse after the steroids were found. With an injection in to a ligament there was no way it would clear in time. Five tests confirmed the steroid (17-alpha-hydroxy-pogesterone hexanoate) in the horses system. His trainer had
plenty of time to withdraw
the horse yet Janiak took
no action
and it was left to the
stewards
to
withdraw
the horse
themselves
.
Therefore, the conclusion I have to make is that Janiak believes it is
o.k.
to run with
steroids in a horse’s system
. Something which
unfortunately
casts
some
doubt in
my
(and probably Mark Johnstone’s) mind about TT’s performances, both
before and after
this incident. Timeform Racehorses 2006 says "Some experts, were reportedly of the opinion that the steroid
could stay there permanently
". It clearly was
not
going to clear in a few days.
That same year Honor In War (an American horse) was withdrawn
by his trainer
in a similar case, from the Cox Plate (Grade 1 Australian race).
Can our antipodean friends tell me why Joe Janiak did not withdraw Takeover Target in Hong Kong?
I am
not
saying Takeover Target was on steroids at any other time, but it does not look good. First of all careless with the injection in the first place, and then failure to withdraw the horse, when proven to be on steroids.
Credibility of both Gingertipster and Mark Johnston has probably reached a new low
Mark,
I was with Joe every day at this time and to answer your questions:
1. All horses are tested upon arrival in HK and Joe knew he had problems immediately. The horse was subsequently re-tested virtually every day afterwards.
2. The amount of the substance in the horse was minimal and getting less every day. Therefore he wanted to keep the horse in the race as long as possible in the hope that he’d be cleared to run,
3. He was given the chance to withdraw him before declaration but because of the minimal amount he decided to keep going just in case he was clear. After this point it was down to the stewards to withdraw him before betting began.
4. By being scratched he not only lost the chance to run for huge prizemoney and points towards the Global Sprint Challenge but also had to pick up the tab for the horses shipment and his own personal travel expenses. It is therefore not suprising that he tried to wait until the last moment.
5. Trainers all over the world medicate with different substances knowing approximate withdrawl times for those medications. Sometimes if they overstep the mark they will be in trouble and this was the case here.
6. I don’t think anybody thinks it is ok for horses to race with steroids in the system. However I think you need to realise that not all steroids are performance enhancing. Vets carry 100s of products which aim to sort various problems – just like any GP you would visit – and research on withdrawal times by Animal Health Trust etc is very helpful in this regard.
Thankyou for your calm, thorough and good response to my question Adrian.
I do not agree with a few things.
You say the amount was minimal. The fact some experts thought the injection in to a ligament (not muscle) would take a considerable time to leave the system; seems to suggest it was not minimal. Or at least not minimal where the injection was administered.
At the time this happened Takeover Target had already won the Global Challenge, no horse could beat him. So he did not need to run for that cause.
With all the money Takeover Target has won for Joe Janiak, surely even a cabbie could afford the expenses.
Had he left it to the last possible moment, it would not be so bad. But he did not, it was beyond the last moment. As he did not withdraw the horse, the stewards did.
I do realise not all steroids are used for muscle improvement. But whether this steroid was or not, does not matter. Fact is Joe did not withdraw the horse when he knew it had a prohibited substance in it’s body. Therefore, there is SOME doubt in my mind whether Joe would run horses in other races with other prohibited substances.
I realise trainers all over the world medicate horses, but as in the Honor In War case, they do agree to withdraw the horse when it happens.
I think when any athlete tests positive for any prohibited substance there is SOME doubt in most of our minds; as to whether they have run with prohibited substances before, and got away with it. That is just a natural state of mind. Especially when the person involved does not withdraw from the contest when proven to be under the influence.
Mark
Value Is EverythingYou seem a little confused about the issue of therapeutic drug use in racehorses Mark.
There are many drugs used in everyday veterinary practice which would not pass a drug test. Trainers and vets have to be very careful about their use and to observe the relevant withdrawal periods before competition. A lot of competition positives are due not to people trying to gain unfair advantage but rather to unforeseen persistence of a therapeutic agent in the system longer than anticipated. The fact that a horse has had a steroid prescribed for some therapeutic purpose under the care of a veterinary surgeon does not somehow taint that horse, nor does an unfortunate incident like Takeover Target where the drug lodged in a poorly vascularised area (probably the nuchal ligament in the neck) and hence failed to clear his system in the anticipated time.
In my experience the Australian authorities are even stricter than our own with regard to anabolic steroid use and I find it hard to believe any of their top trainers could systematically abuse steroids for performance enhancement without falling foul of the testing system there, not least because the drugs are far more tightly controlled than in these islands. Mark Johnstons comments are most disappointing, as they have no foundation and smack of a knee-jerk reaction to Australian success, yet they give ammunition to the small army of conspiracy theorists who believe that we are clean but the rest of the world is cheating- it just aint so.Grant Pritchard-Gordon of Badgers Bloodstock sent the following letter to UK Racing Post in response to Mark Johnston’s comments.
At a time when there is a concerted effort to promote British Bloodstock around the world, I find Mark Johnston’s comments on his website about SCENIC BLAST to be negative in the extreme. It is particularly important for British racing to attract overseas runners to our tracks to test the quality of our own bloodstock.
If I am to travel the world as a Bloodstock Agent and sing the merits of ‘British bred’ horses, then I need to be able to say that our horses are able to perform to the highest standard on the International stage. Fortunately we have trainers and owners who are minded to travel their horses extensively overseas and have considerable success. However, we must also be encouraging similar international competition on our own tracks under our ‘clean’ regulations.Johnston’s website ‘bletherings’ were highly inflammatory and also wholly inaccurate. SCENIC (the sire of SCENIC BLAST) has been a highly successful stallion in Australia where he is currently third on their leading sires table with earnings this year of more than A $ 8 million.( The fact that Johnston suggests that he is a moderate National Hunt sire can only place considerable doubt over many of his other remarks.) As for his comments on the physical attributes of Scenic Blast, then I must ask him why he never made similar naïve comments about one of our homebred sprinting champions in Sakhee’s Secret?
Johnston’s website comment raises the question of the ‘smoking syringe’. Yet in today’s Racing Post he criticises the BHA’s integrity budget for being over the top. He campaigns to eradicate anabolic steroids in any athletics, yet apparently does not trust our authorities to fully monitor foreign runners in our own races. Will he please make up his mind whether he wants to uphold our reputation for having the cleanest racing in the world or let ‘milkshakers’ rule the roost.
Of course the BHA must maintain the strictest vigilance on this particular practice and we must also trust them to maintain testing standards that enables us to sing the praises of any horse that wins in England… whether they be British, Irish, French, Australian or American trained. Foreign owners and trainers must be made welcome and not be laid bare to such sniping comments as came from Johnston. It smacks of sour grapes and is not becoming of one of our senior trainers.Grant Pritchard-Gordon
Newmarket, Suffolk
Maybe some Australian trainers have a bit of an idea. In the 70’s a prominent UK owner sent out a son Of Sassafras to be trained for the Melbourne Cup as they were considered dour stayers. The horse was placed with a Rasndwick trainer called TJ Smith. The horse was called GALWAY BAY.He won the Gp1 Craven A stakes 1200 at Flemington on Derby Day, The G1 George Adams, 2nd Doomben 100,000, Stradbroke, etc etc etc. Mark Johnston I am sure has a good record but Mr T J Smith also had a clue
John Brown from Sydney
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.