Quote:
Originally Posted by Danzig
i think the fallout had to do with the fact that a lot of bettors lost out on betting a horse who should have been scratched. i know lasix was suggested as a possible reason for her lackluster performance.
now, when i read the other day that there was an 80% reduction in visible bleeding by horses in NY once the lasix ban was lifted....well, what else is there to say? do we really want an 80% increase in bleeders? we already have negative attention because of breakdowns, what will happen if horses start coming by the grandstand with blood coming out of their nostrils? or horses collapsing because of a bad enough hemorrage? and that does happen. i firmly believe that it's better to prevent something than to take a risk-that it's a lesser 'evil' if you will.
|
You realize if two horse visibly bleed in a week, an "80% reduction" means that now 1.6 do, right? In any case, the is certainly NOT the equivalent of an 80% increase in bleeders.