Steroids in horses: Gauging the effect There is no conclusive test, but there is a lot of evidence.

LOUISVILLE, Ky. - Bulging muscles, seemingly inflatable heads, acne in places that would make a teenager blush, a spike in athletic performance sure to raise eyebrows. The signs of steroid use in humans can sometimes be easy to detect even without a blood test.

In 1,200-pound animals, the indications aren't so clear.

"It's an impossible question for us to even answer," said Dr. Scot Waterman, executive director of the Racing Medication and Testing Consortium. "A .01 [percent] change in performance would alter the outcome of a one-mile race 50 percent of the time. That is an impossible change to measure with scientific study."

The anecdotal evidence, however, is growing.

Trainer Rick Dutrow caused a stir during the Triple Crown season when he admitted that all of his horses - including Kentucky Derby and Preakness winner Big Brown - receive monthly doses of the anabolic steroid stanozolol. The drug, sold under the brand name Winstrol, is not banned in the three states where the Triple Crown is run.

In a letter to Congress, Dutrow explained that he has veterinarians administer the drug because it brightens his horses' coats, increases their appetites, and makes them train better.

Yet Dutrow felt compelled to have Big Brown skip his monthly steroid dose during the five weeks between the Kentucky Derby and the Belmont Stakes because he felt the horse was "a picture" of health.

The colt certainly didn't race that way.

Sluggish from the start, Big Brown was eased by jockey Kent Desormeaux in the final turn at the Belmont on his way to a last-place finish.

With no visible signs of problems other than stifling heat and an acrylic patch on the horse's cracked front left hoof that Dutrow said was not a factor, the result led to questions on the role that a lack of steroids might have played in Big Brown's poor performance.

"Everybody is trying to figure out why Big Brown didn't run," said Dr. Don Catlin, president of the Anti-Doping Research Institute. "I don't know why, but I do know if I'm on steroids and if you stop them a couple of weeks ago, I'm going through withdrawal and I'm not going to feel like running. But you can't test for that."

Catlin would know. He has spent the last 25 years leading the charge against drugs in sports and worked with several organizations, including the NFL and the NCAA, in developing drug-testing procedures.

Catlin served as an adviser to horse racing officials, helping the Racing Medication and Testing Consortium develop rules it hopes the 38 states where racing is conducted will use to implement drug testing. Ten states have already adopted the standards, and the National Thoroughbred Racing Association expects the remaining 28 to get on board by the end of the year.

It's an ambitious step, one that Catlin thinks is necessary to help the struggling industry. Though he acknowledged that the effects of steroids on horses don't exactly mirror what happens in humans, he said the intent is the same.

"It's just exactly like human doping," he said. "There's a lot of horses on them, and they win and they take them. They're all on steroids. They've been on them for 30 years."

Yet Waterman bristled when asked to compare Big Brown to former sprinter Ben Johnson, who was stripped of his gold medal in the 100 meters at the 1988 Summer Olympics after testing positive for stanozolol.

"[Johnson] was on a cycle. Big Brown was getting one shot a month," Waterman said. "It's completely different, and the results are going to be completely different because of it. The infamous Ben Johnson deltoids, you're not going to get that from a once-a-month shot."

Maybe, but in the post-Mitchell Report sports world, having a leading trainer admit he gives his horses steroids doesn't sit well.

"Why give steroids to a horse once a month?" equine veterinarian Doug Byars asked. "Do you give it to them because of appetite? No. You give it because you think they may improve their overall performance and keep them at the top of their game."

As in humans, when steroids were first administered to horses, it was for medical reasons - to help them overcome injuries - not turn them into muscle-bound freaks.

Yet as the years passed, the benefits of increasing a horse's appetite and speeding muscle repair after a workout or race became evident.

Though veterinarians must account for every milliliter of drug administered, they are allowed "extra label" privileges by the Food and Drug Administration, meaning they can give any drug that is approved by the FDA as long as a doctor-patient relationship exists.

A 2003 study conducted at Pennsylvania racetracks showed that 60 percent of horses tested were on steroids, sometimes more than one. "The impetus of the study was the common knowledge of the use," said Lawrence Soma, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania.

Through the advent of testing and regulation, most racehorses in the state are now steroid-free, Soma told congressional officials.

"We've made considerable progress leveling the playing field," he said.

Rick Arthur, the equine medical director for the California Horse Racing Board, said the inconsistent results have made him skeptical about the benefits of running on the drugs.

"Frankly, I don't think they do [help]," Arthur said. "Knowing trainers, if it made that big of a difference, 100 percent of the horses would be running on it."

Though frustrated by the inability to create a test that could measure how steroids affect the way a horse runs, Arthur said there's no test that shows that steroids make it easier to hit a home run or strike out a batter.

While it's difficult to point to drastic improvements in on-track performance due to steroids - Secretariat's track record in the Kentucky Derby still stands 35 years later - there are numbers that indicate a troubling byproduct of steroid use.

The number of starts for thoroughbreds has dropped from 11.31 in 1960 to 6.37 in 2006, according to the Jockey Club. The rise in the use of steroids and other medications like Lasix and the decline of starts per year is no coincidence, said Richard Shapiro, chairman of the California Horse Racing Board.

"You see a direct correlation," he said.

There is concern that steroid use, combined with a change in breeding practices that focuses more on speed than durability, can make for a more brittle horse, even if there are no tests available that can prove it.

"The root of the problem today is medication," Shapiro testified at the congressional hearing. "As medications are used in the breed and being bred into the breed, they're masking infirmities."

Breeding farms are also dealing with fallout from increased steroid use.

Dan Rosenberg, a breeding consultant who spent 25 years working at Three Chimneys Farm in Midway, Ky., said it's not unusual for stallions whose racing careers are over to arrive with smaller testicles than normal. Fillies who have been on steroids can exhibit aggressive, masculine behavior and have altered menstrual cycles.

Yet Rosenberg said he has seen no long-term health problems that he would attribute to steroid use.

"Four to six months after they get here, they're back to normal," he said. For some horses, steroid use begins before they set foot on a track. There has been rising concern over steroid use by breeders who want to make their yearlings look like a million bucks - literally - in the sales pavilion.

Keeneland and Fasig-Tipton, the world's largest thoroughbred auction houses, have taken steps toward ensuring the animals that walk into the pavilion are clean. The companies ask breeders to stop administering steroids to their horses 45 days before the sale. Prospective buyers can also request their horses be screened for steroids and have the sale voided if a test comes back positive.

Horses whose steroid levels test above the legal threshold upon their return to the track would have their performances vacated, with the trainer being fined a minimum of $500 and the owner required to return the purse for a first offense. Subsequent violations would result in stricter penalties, though states would be free to adjust the penalties as they see fit.