Kentucky's ongoing attempt to end racing in state proceeds..

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Kasept

As Dale Romans said today on ATR, 'Who cares what they do in Europe' -- or anywhere else?'. Should we adopt the Euro too? We have a different sport that generally races on a different surface. The stresses placed on horses here are different than those in the rest of the world. We don't have 6 month seasons where horses are off more than they race. We don't have private backstretches where track-run vets & dispensaries operate. Meanwhile, iinternational outfits train on Lasix readily and would use it on raceday happily.

Seriously still clinging to the 'lasix masks other drugs' nonsense? That crap is old enough to vote. File it with the other grand lie that 'bleeding is hereditary and we need to purge it from the gene pool'. It's amazing that someone who is 'in the business' is perpetuating the same misinformation being peddled by the uninformed on facebook and the like.

If I am not mistaken, didn't one of the vets that you respect most (Steve Allday) say that we don't need lasix?

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

If I am not mistaken, didn't one of the vets that you respect most (Steve Allday) say that we don't need lasix?

He says we can survive without Lasix and that's certainly true. But that's not what is really being discussed. The issue at hand is Lasix as a canard for a small minority of the sport trying to impose its' will and self interest on the rest of us. And destroying the business for the non-idle rich in the process.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Kasept

As Dale Romans said today on ATR, 'Who cares what they do in Europe' -- or anywhere else?'. Should we adopt the Euro too? We have a different sport that generally races on a different surface. The stresses placed on horses here are different than those in the rest of the world. We don't have 6 month seasons where horses are off more than they race. We don't have private backstretches where track-run vets & dispensaries operate. Meanwhile, iinternational outfits train on Lasix readily and would use it on raceday happily.

Seriously still clinging to the 'lasix masks other drugs' nonsense? That crap is old enough to vote. File it with the other grand lie that 'bleeding is hereditary and we need to purge it from the gene pool'. It's amazing that someone who is 'in the business' is perpetuating the same misinformation being peddled by the uninformed on facebook and the like.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I think the logic of people who think we should use lasix is twisted. They race all over the world without lasix. How can you say that we need lasix here when they don't use it anywhere else?

Has anyone addressed this question other than with an "I don't care about the rest of the world" response? Someone said horses only average 3 or 4 starts a year in Ireland and France. What about Australia and Hong Kong? Are horses in those areas making fewer starts per year than here?

To read this thread, one would think we are currently in a Golden Age of horseracing, and that to go back to the pre-1995 situation in New York is absolutely unthinkable. Were New York horses making fewer starts per year before 1995 than now?

Rupert's point, I think, is that "the sky is falling, the end is near" may be an over-reaction in the face of the experience of the rest of the world. That seems like a reasonable point to me, especially considering our own long experience pre-Lasix.

--Dunbar

[Calzone Lord]

Banning lasix probably isn't going to do any good for the horse player.

It's also extremely unpopular with a strong majority of trainers and vets...who are both far more powerful groups in the industry than betting customers.

A lasix ban is basically a bid for more worthless PR from industry do-gooders. It would make the New York Times feel like it did some good.

It's unfortunate that it's an issue at all right now.

Meanwhile, poker is still on TV ... and everytime I go to the track I see the poker tables, slot machines, craps tables, blackjack tables, and Roulette tables all kicking the sh!t out of the horse racing simulcast section.

At-least horse racing is still holding its own with Pai-Gow when both are being offered in the same place...as the Asian population in Erie isn't so large.

However, I have no doubt Pai-Gow is handling far more than 30-track full card simulcasting here...and that's not because the local horse bettors are going the Internet and rebate shop route. It should be a wildly superior game to all -- and it's laughably uncompetitive when people have the option.

[rpncaine]

Being totally honest..as much as I love Horseracing, if I had access to REAL craps dice, I'd be there every second that I could! It is just so much fun and fast action.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

Banning lasix probably isn't going to do any good for the horse player.

Not only that, it will make it tougher.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

Has anyone addressed this question other than with an "I don't care about the rest of the world" response? Someone said horses only average 3 or 4 starts a year in Ireland and France. What about Australia and Hong Kong? Are horses in those areas making fewer starts per year than here?

What the international aspect of the argument boils down to in general is: year-round racing (NA) vs. seasonal racing (elsewhere).

Do racehorses, as athletes, need a signficant period of rest from competition annually?

A lot of comparisons are made between racehorses and human athletes to make points about medication. But what human athletes are asked to train and compete indefinitely during the length of their careers?

Which of these schedules would tend to favor the health of the horse?

Year-round racing is necessary for a lot of people in the industry to stay in business. Furthermore, it does not appear to be economically viable to voluntarily give horses time off. This was one of the arguments used to oppose the ban on anabolic steroids. If horses couldn't be helped artificially to recover from their races, how could they continue to race year-round? A similar argument was used by Dale Romans recently about lasix. The wealthy owners can afford to give horses time off after a significant bleeding episode, the average horseman cannot.

This issue will underly every future medication debate beyond the lasix one. Therapeutic medications are used in racing to promote the well-being of the racehorse, but are they also being relied upon to avoid the cost of resting the horse? If so, will be banning medications make it impossible to race horses in the current year-round fashion?

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

It should be a wildly superior game to all -- and it's laughably uncompetitive when people have the option.

And that's the problem, right there. It isn't how the public perceives the use of drugs; it's that now that there is plenty of competition for gambling dollars, the average American prefers to spend his or her gambling dollars elsewhere.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

What the international aspect of the argument boils down to in general is: year-round racing (NA) vs. seasonal racing (elsewhere).

Do racehorses, as athletes, need a signficant period of rest from competition annually?

A lot of comparisons are made between racehorses and human athletes to make points about medication. But what human athletes are asked to train and compete indefinitely during the length of their careers?

Which of these schedules would tend to favor the health of the horse?

Year-round racing is necessary for a lot of people in the industry to stay in business. Furthermore, it does not appear to be economically viable to voluntarily give horses time off. This was one of the arguments used to oppose the ban on anabolic steroids. If horses couldn't be helped artificially to recover from their races, how could they continue to race year-round? A similar argument was used by Dale Romans recently about lasix. The wealthy owners can afford to give horses time off after a significant bleeding episode, the average horseman cannot.

This issue will underly every future medication debate beyond the lasix one. Therapeutic medications are used in racing to promote the well-being of the racehorse, but are they also being relied upon to avoid the cost of resting the horse? If so, will be banning medications make it impossible to race horses in the current year-round fashion?

Racehorses get hurt alot. The vast majority of these injuries are minor and are easily treated. When people talk about banning medications and they talk about giving horses rest as opposed to "drugs" I wonder what world they live in. I would love for someone to give me the parameters of a medication ban. So no meds from what point? 3 days? 5 days? A week? A month? Are we going to going to modernize and standardize our system of testing so that those who follow the rules arent unjustly persecuted because the current system is frighteningly vague.

Most people don't know that we have no steadfast rules concerning withdrawl times in most jurisdictions. The Pletcher incident in the BC a few years ago where he and the vet asked the state vet if they would be ok giving a medication 18 days before the race and were told they would be and yet the horse still got a positive test should be a great indicator of where we stand. The RMTC has made some progress in this area but is still a longway from being complete. People also don't realize that a positive test does not necessarily mean that the drug in question had any effect on the performance of the horse but rather is just the detection of a drug above a certain number which often arbitrarily assigned.

So I want to know what am I supposed to do when a horse has an issue? If a horse acts colicky should I not give her medication and just hope that it is a little gas because if I give her banamine she wont be able to run the following week? If Bodemeister grabs a quarter working a week before the Derby should Baffert not treat him or go to the local church and pour some holy water on it? Or just scratch and turn him out? Because the evil Bute and Banamine would be among the meds called for in these situations.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

Has anyone addressed this question other than with an "I don't care about the rest of the world" response? Someone said horses only average 3 or 4 starts a year in Ireland and France. What about Australia and Hong Kong? Are horses in those areas making fewer starts per year than here?

To read this thread, one would think we are currently in a Golden Age of horseracing, and that to go back to the pre-1995 situation in New York is absolutely unthinkable. Were New York horses making fewer starts per year before 1995 than now?

Rupert's point, I think, is that "the sky is falling, the end is near" may be an over-reaction in the face of the experience of the rest of the world. That seems like a reasonable point to me, especially considering our own long experience pre-Lasix.

--Dunbar

If you cant see that racing in different jurisdictions in this country let alone other countries is different than you just arent trying very hard.

At the medication summit at Belmont last Summer we were given materials that showed US horses were making more starts per year than England, Ireland and France. I dont think any other countries were included. Of course when asked the foreign participants said that because their racing schedules and systems were different than ours hence the fewer starts. Naturally they unwittingly made the point that so many of us have been making, that racing is different in different places and as such simply comparing them is a bit of an apples and oranges argument.

There was a reason that lasix was legalized, it isnt just some nationwide plot by vets and trainers. To act like we can simply ignore the issue and turnback the clock is myopic. Perhaps we can revive Oscar and have him perform some of his pre-1995 magic?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

Has anyone addressed this question other than with an "I don't care about the rest of the world" response? Someone said horses only average 3 or 4 starts a year in Ireland and France. What about Australia and Hong Kong? Are horses in those areas making fewer starts per year than here?

To read this thread, one would think we are currently in a Golden Age of horseracing, and that to go back to the pre-1995 situation in New York is absolutely unthinkable. Were New York horses making fewer starts per year before 1995 than now?

Rupert's point, I think, is that "the sky is falling, the end is near" may be an over-reaction in the face of the experience of the rest of the world. That seems like a reasonable point to me, especially considering our own long experience pre-Lasix.

--Dunbar

I don't know if that's true about horses starting only 3 or 4 times a year in Ireland and France. That sounds a little low to me. I'd like to see the source on that.

As you have pointed out, horses used to be much sturdier and used to race much more often before we started using lasix and all these other drugs. I'm not claiming that that proves that lasix and all these drugs are the reason why horses are so much more fragile now, but I certainly think that it is a possibility. I think it is a reasonable hypothesis. There are some smart people in this industry that believe it. I don't know if it is true or not but I don't know how anyone could say with certainty that it's not true.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I don't know if that's true about horses starting only 3 or 4 times a year in Ireland and France. That sounds a little low to me. I'd like to see the source on that.

As you have pointed out, horses used to be much sturdier and used to race much more often before we started using lasix and all these other drugs. I'm not claiming that that proves that lasix and all these drugs are the reason why horses are so much more fragile now, but I certainly think that it is a possibility. I think it is a reasonable hypothesis. There are some smart people in this industry that believe it. I don't know if it is true or not but I don't know how anyone could say with certainty that it's not true.

Any lack of durability can be traced directly to the late 70's/early 80's when the number of horses in the US exploded. Horses who werent considered worthy of being breeding stock in prior years were suddenly being bred each and every year. The stallion ranks grew and likewise many of those who would have been considered inferior just a few years before were suddenly breeding full books of mares. When the foal crop goes from 25000 (1970) to 50000 (1985) it is logical that there will be a dilution of quality right? The shrinking of foal crops will make it tough on the racing side but should take some of the lesser breeding stock out of comission though the exodus to statebred programs may temper this. Of course there is no real way to measure this as it is a nebulous topic. If you believe the sheets horses have never been faster and yet beyer figures are lacking in comparison to 20 years ago in general. I still dont understand why medication gets so much blame from people who are perfectly willing to breed unraced mares to lightly raced stallions...