steroid use-morals and ethics

There are rules listed as "Cajun Rules".

It is a scratching contest.

You have the option to show up planning to scratch all night til the other can't/won/t. You can show up planning to place something on another at such a weight and such a pace he is no longer able to scratch.

Steroids are no different than protein powder, creatine, amino acods, RF-1. Vertex and the list goes on.

The object of the entire get together is to win. As long as both parties show up on time, on weight with a clean (non rubbed) dog how a person chooses to arrive is personal choice.

S

 

Personally I prefer all natural and that is not because of any moral or ethical thought processes. The usage of steroids is very complicated and very hard to dial in. I have met a number of people that have knocked out of the park on one dog and screwed the pooch with the next.

Steroids when used correctly on really good dog is a hard thing to handle. Steroids used incorrectly on a really good dog usually ends up as an "L".
Steroids used correctly on a par dog can keep him going long enough to outlast a really good 'naturally worked' dog.

There are benefits and they can be extraordinary. The majority of times it ends up with a bad result not because of the steroids but because of the application.

If a guy can nail it down half the time with pretty good dogs he will be hard to handle.

S

 

It is an age old argument.

If a person works thru a number of dogs, finds two that he chooses to breed, and then raises a highest level winner from that litter, by the sweat of his own brow, I have a lot of respect for that. An awful lot.

For the guy who hangs out at the shows or keeps tabs on a number of circles, buys a 2 year old proven dog and wins at the highest level, I have respect for that too.

I prefer to raise my own, not because of a respect value....but I'm cheap as all get out.

Steroids are no short cut, as a matter of fact it is a harder endeavor than going natural. It is actually harder to make them work.

So in the end the steroid camp puts in more work and more time making things click. And when done correctly the successes are plentiful.

The opposite is that most that use them do not hit it out of the park and the dog is left with the short end of the stick and the owner gets lighter on the hip.

For me, and everyone has the personal preferences and their own belief systems (as it should be), but I do not see the use of steroids as a moral, ethical or a question of sportsmanship dilemma.

S

 

There is a camp a state or so over from me that are about the best I have ever heard of when it comes to the dogs and the gas, as they like to call it.

They do not hit it out of the park every time. When they do hit it out or even hit it well they have great results.

The advantage and benefit that most tend to forget is the original purpose, recovery, as their after care is phenomenal. Where as a dog naturally worked needs a lot more time between endeavors than that of a dog gassed up for recovery.

The key is willingness and the $$$ ability to do weekly blood tests and dose accordingly. The gas has a half life and getting a complete blood work up prior, after initial dosing and then weekly is about the only way to hit it out of the park with any consistency at all. And even that does not ensure high percentages.

The problem that always persists is without accurate testing the dosing is a guess. Even dosing based on bodyweight per KG/LB of bodyweight is not all that accurate based on the individual metabolism of the dog, the amount of work needed by each individual dog and the half life of the particular brand of gas used.

Every thing that affects a dog working will also affect the effectiveness of the gas. Outside temperature, type of work, length of work, food/nutrition and quality of rest. All those play a big part in the end product.

The real kick in the ass is that a dog will not be the same dog is the 2nd keep, 3rd keep, 4th keep...they change. So XX amount of gas this time is not the same as last time. Thus low percentages.

And the other kick in the ass is if you look across and the other guy has knocked it out of the park.

S

 

Agree with some of your points, some not so much....

The adverse effects for animals are less than that of their human counterparts. Their metabolism and their ability to assimilate at a higher percentage than humans lessen the effects. Most of the damages done in humans is due to over dosing and not 'processing the steroid at a high percentage'. Animals are designed to scavenge/hunt and not eat on a regular basis thus when they eat they assimilate at a much higher percentage. With that in mind the steroids will pass thru faster, assimilate at a higher percentage and leave little behind. The human digestive system is much different. Thus the human processing of drugs intended for animals is not the best idea, but then over use makes the side effects real. Very real.

One of the biggest mistakes is seeing a dog on the gas get stronger and then 'raise the weight' so he not only gets tronger but he starts to build larger muscles. The actual amount of blood in the body stays pretty much the same, the viscosity making some changes. but mostly the same. The bigger muscles require more delivery by the same amount of blood. When the delivery can't be made either in the initial rapid deployment or in the gradual depletion, the dog runs hot. The muscles need to get stronger but nor bigger. I most definitely agree here.

The dog being worse off can be true but it is not because the dog was given steroids. It was because the dog was given the inappropriate amount of steroids or the work/feed ratios did not match the amount of steroids given. (The planets must align). Kinda sort of a play on words. Sort of like a guy does not get drunk (most) from drinking a beer. He gets drunk when he drings 12-18 beers. Being drunk has little to do with beer, but more to do with the amount of beer.

Great series of posts. No doubt a passionate topic.

S

 

Easier for humans than with dogs.

S