The Garrett Amway STEROIDS Discussion

ratherrapid · Postby **ratherrapid** » Fri Jan 30, 2009 1:20 pm

Garrett Amway has been a professional body builder for 20 years. Early in his career he was on a regular regimine of anabolic steroids. Here is the jist of a conversation I had with Garrett on 1/30/09:

RR: Garrett, may I ask you a couple of questions.

GA: Sure, go ahead.

RR: The steroid Q is raging in horse racing again.

GA: Oh, it is?

RR: Ya, we talked about that before, but, here's the deal now. If you were given a steroid shot twice a month, would that have a performance enhancing effect.

GA: Oh, ya!

RR: Now, if you were on a regular regimine of this what is the effect.

GA: The biggest effect is you're able to train harder. You get more out of your workouts. Anabolics increase strength and endurance.

RR: Now, if you stopped taking anabolics 45 days before the event and then had the event, would there still be a performance enhancing effect from the steroids.

GA: Definitely?

RR: Would you explain that.

GA: Well, number one, for 3-4 weeks after you withdraw them--and it depends a little on how you withdraw and the reaction--you'd be able to train much harder per workout than if you you had never been on anabolics. Sounds like there'd be a training effect up close to the event.

RR: Ok, would there be a residual strength effect.

GA. Yes, you'd still be stronger.

RR: How much.

GA A little bit only, but, it would be noticeable.

RR: Endurance?

GA: Definitely endurance. That would still be with you because of the training and the steroids themselves.

Roger · Postby **Roger** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 7:55 pm

Thanks that was infomative. I guess he would say that Big Brown really did not loose the Belmont because of withdrawal depression.

ratherrapid · Postby **ratherrapid** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 8:50 pm

forgot to ask him how long it takes to completely lose the effect. I'll corner him again soon

Tucumcari · Postby **Tucumcari** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 9:43 pm

Sigh. the steriod debate is dull. Just let us use them. Then we won't have to dance around the rule. If we think it's not being used we are blind.

dray33 · Postby **dray33** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 9:49 pm

Not the right answer Tuc. It's wrong: unfair to horsemen (honest owners trainers, bettors), damaging to the sport and horse.

Thanks ratherapid for the informative interview.

Timber · Postby **Timber** » Sat Jan 31, 2009 11:08 pm

You didn't catch the inference today? HRTV pointedly asked Sadler about his filly Dawn After Dawn and her 'horseing' antics before the post parade. He replied she had always been exciteable, or something similar.

Tucumcari · Postby **Tucumcari** » Sun Feb 01, 2009 10:37 am

dray33 wrote:Not the right answer Tuc. It's wrong: unfair to horsemen (honest owners trainers, bettors), damaging to the sport and horse.

Thanks ratherapid for the informative interview.

I know it's not the right answer Dray. I miss them. They did have "therapeutic"uses :shock:

. I miss looking at big bodied good weight carrying horses. The weirdest thing is I don't even like them or enjoy many of the horses who did get them.
BUT you can still use them. You just have to withdraw them pre anticipated race date.
Horses that are on the "list," some of those are horses that have received hormones in the last 30 days.
There is a fun new "hormone" that is rapidly out of the system. Trust me . NOW the playing field is NOT level. and this has been created by this rule. Sorry, it's fact. Some of the more inventive people are going to find things that they aren't testing for that do the same job. Fact.
Yes horses can carry weight and eat without them. Gastrogard is expensive and arsenic is effective. Back off to get a horse to get sharp and crawling out of it's skin.
But it's not a level playing field. People are blind or sheltered if they think it is.
That is the unfortunate part of this.