Repole, citing juvenile Lasix ban, won't send horses to Breeders' Cup
 

http://www.drf.com/news/breeders-cup...es-santa-anita

-bt-

Funny how NYRA was the last bastion on forbidding the use of Lasix, and now the NY'er won't ship to SA for the BC because they won't allow it's use.

Good for Repole, absolutely great.

I personally won't be betting any of the Juvy races because of the ban. Its ridiculous to put gamblers in a situation where we now have to guess which horses are gonna hemorage and which ones won't. Its hard enough already.

I agree, but aren't we sort of doing that anyway?

I also applaud the decision. This is the only way the policy will ever change. What is going to happen next year when it is all races, not just two year olds?

Paul

who was the Einstein that thought of this? too bad horse racing is run by Fcking bafoons.

This couldn't have anything to do with the record of east coast horses in the last 2 Santa Anita Breeders' Cup races when it came to placing, could it? :rolleyes: I'm sure it's totally about lasix.

I guess the surface change doesn't matter?

In the article, he does say this is the reason for not running Stay Thirsty. However, the overall lasix point is still a good one.

Paul

Policy debate aside, it's not like the BC announced last week no Lasix for the Juvy races in 2012. Everyone knew this all year, except maybe Alysheba4, so the comments out now seem just like fuel to some fading fire.

If he had the expected favorite, and then didn't go - sure, a much bigger deal. I'm not fretting over the lack of Notacatbutallama.

Not even including the nose sticker, don't they have more expensive alternatives to lasix?

Is it really the only thing that stops bleeding?

yes i did know about it. what purpose does it serve?

i think repole made good points. he's unhappy with the rules change regarding lasix-and made a great point about how it affects bettors. not often you see us mentioned.
then there's his beef about the bc and belmont-can't argue with his take on that either.
i'd imagine he'd have gone with all, even stay thirsty, had the rule on lasix not been there. but i can see not wanting to ship just the one horse if he thought the rest wouldn't be well-served by going.
when the lasix ban was announced is a non-issue-i doubt repole would have a different opinion regardless of when the change was implemented. it's not a 'fading fire'. it's an issue and he's not alone with his opinion.

Sorry, didn't get that impression from your original post.

Not legal things. Or I should say not legal to give during a time period that would be effective things.

You don't think it is an issue for the bettors? Most of these horses have been running on lasex and now they won't. This is an un-needed variable because you will have no idea how individual horses will react.

......i was just being a smart ass, but i see it as a big mistake which seems to be the norm in the racing world.

In that case, it's a bad idea to run BC races without it. Hopefully the nose bands will work.

Of course it isn't.

Pre legalized lasix there were lots of pre-race "bleeder" shots that racetrack vets used to reduce bleeding. If anybody thinks that trainers are suddenly going to race on hay and oats for that kind of purse money you are dreaming. Probably a big sales increase in natural supplements this month. Euros probably will have an advantage as they have been dealing with no lasix and for sure they are not racing 100% on hay & oats.

Then why don't Euro horses start spewing blood all over without it. Lets be real here, there are other alternatives that will keep the majority of horses from bleeding. Further, you said yourself, top class 2yos are a lot less likely to bleed than old claimers. I already mentioned the report in Bloodhorse where hardly any horses that ran without it at Saratoga showed the slightest trace of EIPH.

That is ridiculous. If a horse bleeds badly with no lasix, he is still going to bleed with lasix. He may bleed less but he's still going to bleed. It's not as if lasix eliminates bleeding. On a scale of 1-10, if a horse bleeds a 10 without lasix, what's he going to bleed with lasix? He'll still probably bleed a 7. They don't use 1-10 scales for bleeding but I used it for simplicity. Now if a horse bleeds a 1 or a 2 without lasix, he might not bleed with lasix. Lasix will help a little bit but it's not a cure-all.

In terms of handicapping, it is a non-issue. None of the horses will have lasix. They're all on the same boat. As I said before, if a horse does end up bleeding badly, that horse was not going to win the race even if he had lasix.

I wonder if Repole will refuse to run horses in the Dubai World Cup. There is no lasix allowed in Dubai. I don't hear people complaining about that. It would actually be a bigger factor in that race. If you have an older horse who has a history of bleeding and you have to go to Dubai where it is very hot, that may be a small concern. That would certainly be a bigger concern than in the BC Juvenille races, but even in Dubai I wouldn't worry about it too much. In the BC Juvenille races, it is a non-issue.

By the way, eight horses from the US that raced on lasix went over to Dubai and won the Dubai World Cup without lasix.

Helpful, thank you.

What are you talking about? He asked a question and I answered it. There are other things that can be used to prevent bleeding but as I said none are currently legal to give in the timeframe that they would need to be given.

What do Euros have to do with anything that I said?

Can I borrow your crystal ball sometime?

Why bother? If you used it, all you'd see are advertisements for Lasix.

Uh ok. Maybe the magic 8 ball?

I know it's not an exact science. I'm not claiming that it is. I was speaking in general terms. Is it impossible that not having lasix could have a dramatic effect on any of the BC Juvenille races? Sure it is possible, but it is very unlikely.

If you had a 2 year old that was going to run in the BC Juvenille this year, would you be nervous about running without lasix? Tell us the truth. I'm sure you would rather run with it if your horse had used it in all of his previous races. I understand that. But would you truly be worried if you couldn't use it?

Depends on the horse.

I've run plenty of horses w/o lasix before and worked for Jerkens who probably used lasix less than any big trainer over the last 25 years. The catch is that you rarely have a clue that your horse is going to bleed otherwise you wouldnt run them. Its all pretty much conjecture. If one bleeds w/o lasix as you said they might have bled with it. Of course they also might not have either. Plus it isnt as though a single minor bleeding incident is certain to cause a poor performance. The issue as stated seemingly a thousand times is that once a horse has that first episode they are far more likely to do it again and more likely for it to be progressively worse. That can lead to infection which can lead to short and long term health issues. We are already using far more powerful antibiotics than we used to, mostly because of overuse of them.

If I'm betting the race I pretty much ignore the issue but more because there is virtually no way to quantify it not because it isnt going to be a factor. I'm am certain that some of the horses that run poorly will have bleeding be used as an excuse. That should piss off plenty of people regardless of the validity of the reports.

That seems a near certainty.

There is actually an article today in the DRF about this subject. It's a good article. They interveiw several trainers. Most of the trainers don't sound too concerned.

Breeders' Cup: Lasix ban puts trainers in uncharted territory
By Marcus Hersh
http://www.drf.com/news/breeders-cup...rted-territory

OK, so you are only talking drugs then. That wasn't clear to me.

Yeah lasix is preventing us from seeing "hard nose 4 and 5 year olds". I guess lasix is making those breeders retire all those horses to stud?

yeah, it's the lasix.

when they ban it altogether, and nothing changes, i wonder what will be the bogeyman then?

“If you look at the numbers, about the time Lasix became prevalent everywhere – somewhere in the early 90s – look at the starts per horse and starts per year,” said Seth Hancock, whose family owns storied Claiborne Farm, a signatory to the no-2-year-old-Lasix pledge. “If you charted it on a graph, you’d see a big drop off.”

This is not true.

http://www.jockeyclub.com/factbook.asp?section=10

The trend of declining starts per year per horse began in the early 60's.

Average starts per horse per year
1960- 11.31
1965- 10.88
1970- 10.22
1975- 10.23
1980- 9.21
1985- 8.28
1990- 7.94
1995- 7.73
2000- 7.10
2005- 6.45
2011- 6.20

This number has been trending down far before lasix was being used. There was a larger drop off between1960-1990 (pre widely used lasix) than 1990-2011 timeframe which Hancock uses. Using these numbers as evidence that lasix is the chief cause for horses running less often is a joke or as Riot would say, a lie.

At some point I wish someone would point out this little chart to them which is especially ironic considering that the information is free to all at the Jockey Club website. Regardless of what side of the issue you are on it is typical of this industry to use made up theoretical numbers because thats what people believe is their recollection as opposed to actual data which is big reason why things never get fixed.

Seems to be more of a descent from the 80s on. Is that due to a greater emphasis on breed to sell and record auction prices vs. the traditional homebred operations? It was my understanding that the decade of the 1980s was where a yearling sales bubble developed. Surely there's a shortening of careers as a result when getting their babies in the ring is an objective of increasing importance.

They were using a lot of lasix in the early 1980s. There was a bigger drop percentage wise from 1980 until now than there was before 1980. Is it partly because of lasix? I don't know for sure but I think it is certainly a reasonable hypothesis that lasix could be a contributing factor.

I think your hypothesis makes sense with regards to stakes horses who have value as stallions. But what percentage of horses is that, maybe 1 or 2%?

The 2009 North American foal crop was around 32,000 in size.

1% of 32,000 is 320. Safer to say it's more like .1%, the answer to your question.

Yes, you are probably right. It is probably closer to .1%.