Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell
The idea that the outcome of races can be manipulated by the amount of lasix given is completely without merit.
While I dont agree that the elimination of lasix will ruin racing, it surely wont have a positive effect in the short or long term especially as it contributes to a continued decline in the number of owners nationwide. Surely the added expense along with the decrease in value of a large number of horses cant be a positive regardless of how you look at it. The idea that the playing field is leveled w/o lasix is just plain wrong, it will be muddled as trainers and vets try new techniques with widely varying results.
There is a serious shortage of owners coming into the game and the number of empty stalls at tracks across the country is increasing. The decline in foal crop is far less significant than the decline in people to own them.
The common theme that less racing is going to lead to some revival as all the horses from the tracks that close are going to migrate to the surviving tracks is just not going to happen either. Racing has been shrinking for 20 years, getting smaller wont help except to further marginalize it and create more barriers to finding new participants. What racings leaders have failed to grasp is that people will choose to walk away and have been doing it for years now. Both owners and bettors are leaving yet the new strategy we get from the people with the money is a crusade against a diureitic with the side effect of enormous negative publicity giving every potential enemy of the game a free shot to stick a fork in its side.
|
all worrying about new owners aside chuck, what about the non-horseracing-fan public? how do we explain to people who don't a damn about the sport about giving medication on raceday?? you know, because they ask about such things all the time. surely that is the biggest issue facing the sport!
and yeah, so tongue in cheek in case anyone was wondering....