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.