Jason Kelce under fire for Secretariat steroid allegations, forced to apologize to appease horse racing fans

Horse racing fans were not happy after Kelce’s allegations about the famous racehorse

Jason Kelce got into a horse racing debate on social media on ThursdayLAPRESSE

Philadelphia Eagles’ legend Jason Kelce stirred up controversy in the horse racing community with his recent comments about the iconic thoroughbred, Secretariat.

Kelce, known for his outspoken nature, suggested that Secretariat might have been doping during his racing career in the 1970s.

These remarks sparked a heated debate on social media among sports fans and horse racing fans.

Kelce’s comments came in response to a discussion about Secretariat’s remarkable achievements and physical attributes.

Someone on X refuted the idea of Secretariat being on steroids, citing the horse’s naturally enlarged heart as a possible explanation for its extraordinary performance.

However, Kelce wasn’t convinced, arguing that the prevalence of steroid use in the 1970s, coupled with the lack of adequate testing at the time, raised suspicions about the legendary horse’s accomplishments.

In a lengthy post, Kelce expressed his skepticism, pointing out Secretariat’s unparalleled muscular stature and the absence of reliable testing methods during that era.

He acknowledged the possibility that Secretariat could have been a natural talent but emphasized the likelihood of performance-enhancing drug use among racehorses at the time.

Here’s Kelce’s full post:

“Just going to put this out there, you know who else has enlarged hearts. People who take copious amounts of steroids. I’ll admit I don’t know whether Secretariat was on steroids or not, it’s impossible to know, because in 1973 when Secretariat won the triple crown there was not adequate testing available to find out. But, the fact this horse had unparalleled muscular stature and died with an enlarged heart, and raced at a time when steroids were extremely prevalent, without adequate testing, raises flags in my book. Thoroughbred steroid use dates back to the 60s at least. I’m not saying what Secretariat did was unimpressive, because he was likely also racing against other majorly juiced up horses of his time, and if Secretariat was indeed a natural horse, that would make his accomplishments all the more impressive. I just find it highly unlikely given the circumstances of where the sport was at at that time, how dominant the horse was in the era, and the records it still holds to this day. The enlarged heart in my mind is actually more evidence that at some point the horse was being juiced. There is a gene that some thoroughbreds carry that causes a larger heart, but this wasn’t just a larger heart, this was a heart large enough for the vet to say it was the largest heart he had ever seen. The horse was undoubtedly born with incredible natural mechanics and ability, and may have been natural, but I also think that it’s unlikely given the time it raced and what was happening with a lot of those horses and the lack of testing available.”

Kelce’s provocative remarks ignited a firestorm of criticism and backlash from the horse racing community.

Kelce’s appology to horse racing fans

Facing mounting pressure and backlash, Kelce issued a public apology, clarifying that he didn’t intend to undermine Secretariat’s legacy or offend anyone with his comments.

He acknowledged the lack of concrete evidence to support his claims and expressed regret for stirring controversy.

“I’m sorry everyone, wasn’t trying to get people riled up, I really thought it was just known that in the 70s steroid use was rampant. I’m not trying to take away from Secretariat’s, or anyone from that eras legacy. You’re right, without proof it is unfair to assume these things publicly, I apologize,” he wrote.

Despite his apology, Kelce’s comments continue to divide opinion within the sports world.

Some defend his right to express skepticism, citing past instances of doping scandals in various sports.

Others condemn Kelce for tarnishing Secretariat’s reputation without substantial evidence.