Quote:
Originally Posted by pointman
Where did I say there are no negatives? Of course it is a benefit vs. negatives analysis. I have just yet to here a cogent argument based on factual or scientific evidence instead of speculation that comes close to making the negatives of its current use outweigh the positives.
|
Here was your quote, "At the end of the day, knowing that it without question has medical benefits to race horses, what is the harm in allowing horses to race on it under the current rules?"
That question sounded to me like you didn't think there was anything bad about the drug. Anyway, I will let this guy answer your question:
http://thoroedge.wordpress.com/2011/...lous-nonsense/
By the way, with regard to the PR debate I think it would be positive PR if they banned lasix. Let's just say that for our sport to be really successful that we need public perception of the sport to improve by 80%. I'm making that number up just for argument's sake. You could use any number. But if we pretend that we need public perception to improve by 80%, do I think that the elimination of lasix would improve public perception by 80%? Of course not. But I think it could improve it by maybe 5-10%. I think it would certainly help a little bit. I think the banning of steroids helped a little bit. I don't think it was a dramatic improvement but I think it helped a little bit.