Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin
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.