Replying to norma beinhauer:

Bulletin: The remainder of the civilized world does not hover around NYC or its liberal mouthpiece the Times intending to absorb the crumbs of pseudo-intellectual rhetoric that is constantly spewed about animal rights. What other anthropomorphic publications are there on your list of drum-beaters which are hell-bent on attacking the Thoroughbred Industry? Your crusade has fallen short of the mark when compared to “Whale Wars” (sponsors gave that crusade a TV series). What have your sponsors done to expand your crusade?

Thankfully "Whale Wars" is helping whales. How odd that you choose to attack a television show (admittedly pitched to emotional appeals) having little to do with drugging horses in order to make money. Doping is doping is doping; ask Lance Armstrong. Cheating is sheating is cheating. Can you grasp these concepts? The public does, and horse racing is failing as it is flailing to support the status quo. Quit injecting animals with crap so money can be made from their suffering. Get it?

Replying to binky mcfadden:
Hello Norma? It me Binky!You responded to the wrong person.As a reminder you said:"Let’s review the dialogue:Q-1. What published scientific information is available that provides proof that a consumed, topical, or injectable chemical substance is able to improve the performance of a horse in a race competition?A. Not provided in this forum."It has been provided.Lame horses do win races, including horses with tendonitis!The idea that anyone is trying to ban all medications existing only in your mind; such as it is.Nap time.

A direct quotation from the "provided" Journal article:

"Dermorphin displayed a potent depressive action on electrically stimulated contractions of the guinea-pig ileum and mouse vas deferens preparations. Dermorphin was respectively 57,294, 18 and 39 times more potent than Met-enkephalin, Leu-enkephalin, beta-endorphin, and morphine on the guinea-pig ileum opiate receptors. On the vas deferens receptors, dermorphin was about as potent as the enkephalins and 40 times more potent than morphine. Naloxone was a powerful antagonist to dermorphin in both preparations. 3 Dermorphin produced potent and long-lasting analgesia in mice by intravenous injection, and in rats by intracerebroventricular injection, the ED50 being here of the order of 13-23 pmol/rat. Morphine was 752 and 2170 times less potent, depending on the analgesia test used. At high intracerebroventricular doses analgesia was accompanied by catalepsy. 4 Intracerebroventricular infusion of dermorphin induced development of tolerance and precipitation of withdrawal symptoms upon administration of naloxone. Both tolerance and physical dependence was consistently less marked with dermorphin than with morphine. 5 The minimum sequence requirement for full dermorphin activity was represented by the N-terminal tetrapeptide. The presence of the D-Ala2-residue was of crucial importance."

The known effects of morphine and derivatives in humans during life ending pain suppression are well documented. None of the patients under this therapy are able to perform anywhere near their optimum levels of cognitive thought since morphine drastically reduces a person’s level of consciousness, blocking the awareness of the surroundings, and impairs the body’s efforts at coordination. This is the significant argument.

How is it possible to avoid science in the dialogue in this forum? Arguing that the findings in rats and mice “spin” to the equine world of racing as “performance enhancing” is emotional balderdash. In this debate the referenced anthropomorphical stretch assigns to PETA persons quite well. It is those crusaders who support and vehemently state that creatures (have a soul) have human characteristics, and expound special privilege, need human rights applied, and because of these special interests, lobby for legislative changes (Florida’s pregnant pig fiasco/debacle referendum) which creates an unnecessary burden to society ...... ad nauseam, ad nauseam, ad nauseam!

Replying to norma beinhauer:
{ Most people would accept masking pain to the extent that a lame horse can race as “performance enhancing”. } Contrarily, a lame horse by definition can possibly move but can not race efficiently enough to win purse money. All contraindications expound the neurological changes initiated by analgesia. Not only are pain receptors rendered ineffective, but coordination is drastically impaired. The contention expounded in this forum ad nauseam is that trainers race debilitated horses for profit and because of this behavior, they are successful in that pursuit is a grade one falsehood. The crusade to ban all medication from the TB Industry, though well intended, will not prevail because of the therapeutic benefits derived from treatment and rehabilitation away from the racetrack. In contrast, being “unfit” for racing opens a Pandora of subtopics well worth discussing.

I went to an equine conference offered by Pfizer and the pitch there sounded exactly like this.

Replying to norma beinhauer:
{ Most people would accept masking pain to the extent that a lame horse can race as “performance enhancing”. } Contrarily, a lame horse by definition can possibly move but can not race efficiently enough to win purse money. All contraindications expound the neurological changes initiated by analgesia. Not only are pain receptors rendered ineffective, but coordination is drastically impaired. The contention expounded in this forum ad nauseam is that trainers race debilitated horses for profit and because of this behavior, they are successful in that pursuit is a grade one falsehood. The crusade to ban all medication from the TB Industry, though well intended, will not prevail because of the therapeutic benefits derived from treatment and rehabilitation away from the racetrack. In contrast, being “unfit” for racing opens a Pandora of subtopics well worth discussing.

Hello Norma? It me Binky!

You responded to the wrong person.

As a reminder you said:

"Let’s review the dialogue:

Q-1. What published scientific information is available that provides proof that a consumed, topical, or injectable chemical substance is able to improve the performance of a horse in a race competition?

A. Not provided in this forum."

It has been provided.

Lame horses do win races, including horses with tendonitis!

The idea that anyone is trying to ban all medications existing only in your mind; such as it is.

Nap time.

Replying to Barbara Grimaldi:
Big Brown almost made it. His trainer? Rick Dutrow, whose record is littered with drug violations in several states. I'll Have Another could make it. His trainer? He's known as Drug O'Neill, who has been censured for drug violations and other offenses in several states. And remember--Bernadette was O'Neill's. Conclusion: the racing industry circles the wagons around its own no matter how foul they are and continues to allow trainers like these two to make money and be responsible for horses despite all the claims against them. I'll Have Another is an extraordinary horse and I am for him winning the TC all the way. I just regret that trainers who shame the sport like these two can continue to cash in and be allowed on tracks despite their well-known abuse of the "rules" and their standing violations. Nothing and no one regulates TB racing, so violators can always be assured that the protective wagons will surely be circled around them.

{ Most people would accept masking pain to the extent that a lame horse can race as “performance enhancing”. }

Contrarily, a lame horse by definition can possibly move but can not race efficiently enough to win purse money. All contraindications expound the neurological changes initiated by analgesia. Not only are pain receptors rendered ineffective, but coordination is drastically impaired. The contention expounded in this forum ad nauseam is that trainers race debilitated horses for profit and because of this behavior, they are successful in that pursuit is a grade one falsehood. The crusade to ban all medication from the TB Industry, though well intended, will not prevail because of the therapeutic benefits derived from treatment and rehabilitation away from the racetrack. In contrast, being “unfit” for racing opens a Pandora of subtopics well worth discussing.

Look it up. There are plenty of studies on this and other medications that have even more significant painkilling effects. The recent cases of dermorphin use exemplify the abuse a strong pain killer. Its painkilling ability is scientifically documented. “Morphine was 752 and 2170 times less potent, depending on the analgesia test used.” (1) These are just two examples, Norma. Most people would accept masking pain to the extent that a lame horse can race as “performance enhancing” and also detrimental; with or without scientific studies.

Please explain how your disdain for anthropomorphic reference has any bearing on an article’s or person’s credibility; or how it is even relevant to this debate. Anthropomorphism is an accepted literary device, Norma; not just a big word to catechize Forum members with incongruous arguments. Many animals (unlike rocks) do, in fact, exhibit anthropomorphism; which is irrelevant.

I am no bleeding-heart, liberal trying to PETAize the industry. I breed and race thoroughbreds. I also don’t need a scientific article to know that strong pain killers “enhance performance”, put riders and animals at risk, and repulse the public and handicappers alike. Performance enhancement is not limited to analgesics. While it is short of writing a book to appease you; I have provided the requested evidence, logic, and some direction for self-edification.

Does anything you say ever make sense to anyone else, or I am just too pathetically, painfully, permanently and preposterously Paleolithic to understand?

(1) British Journal of Pharmacology. 1981 July; 73(3): 625–631.

Replying to norma beinhauer:
Bulletin: The remainder of the civilized world does not hover around NYC or its liberal mouthpiece the Times intending to absorb the crumbs of pseudo-intellectual rhetoric that is constantly spewed about animal rights. What other anthropomorphic publications are there on your list of drum-beaters which are hell-bent on attacking the Thoroughbred Industry? Your crusade has fallen short of the mark when compared to “Whale Wars” (sponsors gave that crusade a TV series). What have your sponsors done to expand your crusade?

you have again proven that you are not for the horses, that you are for racing being unregulated so the profiteers can keep playing down and dirty...you throw up many intellectual smoke screens, but when the smoke clears, you are for no change in the industry, for continued abuse of horses who give their all and are then discarded, and for a status quo that has brought the industry to its knees. Sad.

Replying to Barbara Grimaldi:
Neither this forum nor the NYTimes is an academic journal that provides you with impeccable and exquisite scientific information. Again, you are really prejudiced against liberal as both noun and adjective. With all the rotten events in the world that are controversial, you think the most prominent newspaper in the world needs to attack racing to sell papers? Some horse people resent the Times's stories because it hurts their income. Others welcome it because it helps the horses. You expect flawless science to show you are absolutely right about drugs, a conservative bias that would negate anything liberal--especially raging controversies-- and angelic vets who are immune to financial gain. Does anyone or any thing measure up to your standards and preferences? Again, who are you for? Horse profiteers or horses?

Bulletin: The remainder of the civilized world does not hover around NYC or its liberal mouthpiece the Times intending to absorb the crumbs of pseudo-intellectual rhetoric that is constantly spewed about animal rights. What other anthropomorphic publications are there on your list of drum-beaters which are hell-bent on attacking the Thoroughbred Industry? Your crusade has fallen short of the mark when compared to “Whale Wars” (sponsors gave that crusade a TV series). What have your sponsors done to expand your crusade?

Replying to norma beinhauer:
Let’s review the dialogue:Q-1. What published scientific information is available that provides proof that a consumed, topical, or injectable chemical substance is able to improve the performance of a horse in a race competition?A. Not provided in this forum.Q-2. Large animal veterinarians have not been mentioned in this forum as being able to minimize the effect of administered substances in racehorses. Why are they not involved?A. Without question, money is the reason horses are drugged and this is primarily a trainer issue. Some veterinarians have a conscience, but the majority of them don’t and are only motivated by money. Q-3. Why is the motivation of the liberal media geared to bash the racing industry?A. Liberal views fuel and incite controversy. Without a raging controversy there is no crusade to publish and criticize .... to ban scientific applications used by trainers, veterinary medicine, and the ultra wealthy from investing their time, money, and passion in the Sport of Kings.

Neither this forum nor the NYTimes is an academic journal that provides you with impeccable and exquisite scientific information. Again, you are really prejudiced against liberal as both noun and adjective. With all the rotten events in the world that are controversial, you think the most prominent newspaper in the world needs to attack racing to sell papers? Some horse people resent the Times's stories because it hurts their income. Others welcome it because it helps the horses. You expect flawless science to show you are absolutely right about drugs, a conservative bias that would negate anything liberal--especially raging controversies-- and angelic vets who are immune to financial gain. Does anyone or any thing measure up to your standards and preferences? Again, who are you for? Horse profiteers or horses?

Replying to Barbara Grimaldi:
You're right, the Times is liberal, but what has liberal got to do with scientific information in Times articles? If you are for the horses, you should be grateful that the Times--regardless of its reputation--is calling public attention to racing's black holes and causing steps toward reform. It's read by millions around the world. So call the Times what you will, but its articles are doing these animals a big favor. Money rules horseracing, not humane consideration. It's time the playing field got a bit more even, giving the animals more care and respect instead of greed using them up like old batteries. You ARE on the side of the horses, aren't you?

Let’s review the dialogue:

Q-1. What published scientific information is available that provides proof that a consumed, topical, or injectable chemical substance is able to improve the performance of a horse in a race competition?

A. Not provided in this forum.

Q-2. Large animal veterinarians have not been mentioned in this forum as being able to minimize the effect of administered substances in racehorses. Why are they not involved?

A. Without question, money is the reason horses are drugged and this is primarily a trainer issue. Some veterinarians have a conscience, but the majority of them don’t and are only motivated by money.

Q-3. Why is the motivation of the liberal media geared to bash the racing industry?

A. Liberal views fuel and incite controversy. Without a raging controversy there is no crusade to publish and criticize .... to ban scientific applications used by trainers, veterinary medicine, and the ultra wealthy from investing their time, money, and passion in the Sport of Kings.