back in the fray after a good nights sleep.
on the face of it, when one says 'horses shouldn't be given drugs to race' sounds like a good plan.
however, the drug in question prevents hemorraging (which gives no sign of when or how badly it will occur) and potential permanent damage depending on severity of the hemorrage, isn't harmful, according to studies has no masking qualities and isn't proven to improve performance. doesn't sound like such a bad thing when you look at all that, does it?
now, if you stop using lasix....you have horses at risk of bleeding, with no idea of when or how severe it will be, you have proven bleeders without the benefit of something shown to prevent the bleeding, which puts them at risk of permanent damage. the only benefit of stopping lasix that i can see is that you can then say there's no race day medication, while completely ignoring the benefits of the now-banned drug.
but i guess for bleeders they could withold food and water for 24-48 hours.
i suppose explaining the benefits of witholding the basic necessities of life rather than using a safe drug with proven benefits would sound infinitely more palatable to people?
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all.
Abraham Lincoln
|