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

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Let's not even talk about public perception because the public relations implications are debatable.

http://www.drf.com/news/crist-lasix-...hat-you-preach

If I thought that banning lasix would help horseracing I would be content to try to figure out ways to deal with EIPH without it. But I dont think that those who are in favor of banning it are: a. being truthful about their true intentions, b. have little understanding of what the betting public wants, c. understand the ramifications and potential negative reactions that will come with the elimination of it. The PR bounce has zero chance of helping, the breeding factors are laughable and when you realize that all these industry leaders are the same ones wo have gotten us to this point of near irrelevancy perhaps like PG1985 you will figure out that simply going the other way will increase your chance of success greatly.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

http://www.drf.com/news/crist-lasix-...hat-you-preach

If I thought that banning lasix would help horseracing I would be content to try to figure out ways to deal with EIPH without it. But I dont think that those who are in favor of banning it are: a. being truthful about their true intentions, b. have little understanding of what the betting public wants, c. understand the ramifications and potential negative reactions that will come with the elimination of it. The PR bounce has zero chance of helping, the breeding factors are laughable and when you realize that all these industry leaders are the same ones wo have gotten us to this point of near irrelevancy perhaps like PG1985 you will figure out that simply going the other way will increase your chance of success greatly.

I'm not sure which part of the article you want me to respond to. With regard to his main message, I would simply say that the reason most of these guys continue to use the drug is because they think they would be at a disadvantage if they didn't, and not so much because their horses would bleed, but because they think it makes most horses run better, even non-bleeders.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I'm not sure which part of the article you want me to respond to. With regard to his main message, I would simply say that the reason most of these guys continue to use the drug is because they think they would be at a disadvantage if they didn't, and not so much because their horses would bleed, but because they think it makes most horses run better, even non-bleeders.

The PR part, hello? If every trainer felt this way than why are 98% of trainers in favor of keeping it including fairhaired boys who surely would have an advantage without it like Motion, Clement and Mott?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The PR part, hello? If every trainer felt this way than why are 98% of trainers in favor of keeping it including fairhaired boys who surely would have an advantage without it like Motion, Clement and Mott?

All of these trainers have a "program". Lasix is part of that program. These guys don't want to change any part of their program. Why would they? Their programs work. They are having a lot of success. What would they want to change anything?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

All of these trainers have a "program". Lasix is part of that program. These guys don't want to change any part of their program. Why would they? Their programs work. They are having a lot of success. What would they want to change anything?

Do you really think that trainers like this wouldnt have a bigger advantage without lasix? Do you even give things a minute of thought? Do you honestly believe the trainers in question couldnt develop a training "program" that didnt give a horse a shot of lasix on the day they run considering the resources they have access to? Really?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Do you really think that trainers like this wouldnt have a bigger advantage without lasix? Do you even give things a minute of thought? Do you honestly believe the trainers in question couldnt develop a training "program" that didnt give a horse a shot of lasix on the day they run considering the resources they have access to? Really?

Of course they could develop a training program without lasix. I wasn't saying that they would have any trouble changing their program. I was simply saying that they would rather not change their program. Why would they possibly want to change things when things are going so well for them? Not only that, lasix is somewhat effective in lessening (and even preventing) bleeding. Most traines use it. They think it works. It's part of their program. I wouldn't expect that many of them would want to get rid of it.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Of course they could develop a training program without lasix. I wasn't saying that they would have any trouble changing their program. I was simply saying that they would rather not change their program. Why would they possibly want to change things when things are going so well for them? Not only that, lasix is somewhat effective in lessening (and even preventing) bleeding. Most traines use it. They think it works. It's part of their program. I wouldn't expect that many of them would want to get rid of it.

If i was in their position I would surely believe a lasix ban would give me an advantage. They already have really good horses, access to whaever vet care needed including expensive therapy like hyperbaric oxygen and the ability to pretty much run whernever they want to. The trainers who dont have these things would be at a huge disadvantage.

When I worked for Jerkens we ran a lot of horses without lasix and trained them the exact same way unless they were a frail filly or had some other issue. Training a bad bleeder is onething but the training of the others is pretty similar.