TDN OP-ED: Jerry Brown on missing Lasix discussion point

[cmorioles]

I'd love to hear how known bleeder Rich Tapestry was able to come over here and win a G1 without Lasix? How is it possible that he can run at all after all his documented episodes of EPIH? Shouldn't he be deteriorating to the point he can't run as well any longer? Or is he just a miracle horse?

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I'd love to hear how known bleeder Rich Tapestry was able to come over here and win a G1 without Lasix? How is it possible that he can run at all after all his documented episodes of EPIH? Shouldn't he be deteriorating to the point he can't run as well any longer? Or is he just a miracle horse?

You mean Rich Tapestry that's only run twice since December of last year? That Rich Tapestry?

If the argument is that Lasix makes them run less frequently, he's not helping prove that point. He had six months off before that race he just won.

[GenuineRisk]

The problem with adding a weight penalty is then trainers are going to weigh the chances of an EIPH episode with the chances of a weight break. And that puts the horse's safety and the safety of everyone else in the race at risk if, god forbid, the horse drops mid-race from an EIPH episode.

It's not an advantage if every horse may use it. It doesn't make a horse run faster than they can; it gives them a better chance to run to the best of their ability because they are less likely to be running with blood in their lungs. If minimizing the effects of a horse's natural physical shortcomings is giving an unfair advantage we should also ban any sort of corrective surgery, whether for crooked legs or flipped palates. Bone chips? They're out of racing for good.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

It's not an advantage if every horse may use it. It doesn't make a horse run faster than they can; it gives them a better chance to run to the best of their ability because they are less likely to be running with blood in their lungs. If minimizing the effects of a horse's natural physical shortcomings is giving an unfair advantage we should also ban any sort of corrective surgery, whether for crooked legs or flipped palates. Bone chips? They're out of racing for good.

Horses with Lasix run faster than horses without Lasix. Period. If you like the "drug them all" to make things even, go for it.

Since when are surgery and drugs the same thing? Terrible comparison.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Horses with Lasix run faster than horses without Lasix. Period. If you like the "drug them all" to make things even, go for it.

Since when are surgery and drugs the same thing? Terrible comparison.

No, a horse running on Lasix may run faster than it would not running on Lasix (because it's not breathing in its own blood) but Lasix is not going to make a slow horse run faster than a fast horse. As has been pointed out, Smarty Jones ran the first seven (six?) races of his career not on Lasix. His competition was on Lasix. So, according to your statement, they should have beaten him because "horses with Lasix run faster than horses without Lasix. Period." But he beat them because he was the fastest horse in those races. His competition might have run better than they would have not on Lasix, but they still weren't faster than he was. Because they were not as talented as he was. Lasix limits EIPH; it doesn't confer talent.

Both corrective surgery and Lasix permit horses to run to the limit of their talent. It's an apt comparison.

I like a trainer having the option to reduce the chances a horse is going to bleed in the lungs during a race.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

No, a horse running on Lasix may run faster than it would not running on Lasix (because it's not breathing in its own blood) but Lasix is not going to make a slow horse run faster than a fast horse. As has been pointed out, Smarty Jones ran the first seven (six?) races of his career not on Lasix. His competition was on Lasix. So, according to your statement, they should have beaten him because "horses with Lasix run faster than horses without Lasix. Period." But he beat them because he was the fastest horse in those races. His competition might have run better than they would have not on Lasix, but they still weren't faster than he was. Because they were not as talented as he was. Lasix limits EIPH; it doesn't confer talent.

Both corrective surgery and Lasix permit horses to run to the limit of their talent. It's an apt comparison.

I like a trainer having the option to reduce the chances a horse is going to bleed in the lungs during a race.

I disagree. Horses that don't bleed run faster with Lasix than without too. Your Smarty Jones point is off base. Maybe he was just that much more talented. He certainly ran his best ever races in the Derby and Preakness on my ratings, and I'm nearly certain he didn't bleed in any of the races. There really is no point going on with this if you don't want to believe that. Drug them all, that will help the sport's image.

And again, Jerry Brown has been doing this a lot longer than I have and he believes it too. You think he doesn't know what he is talking about?

[Arletta]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I disagree. Horses that don't bleed run faster with Lasix than without too. Your Smarty Jones point is off base. Maybe he was just that much more talented. He certainly ran his best ever races in the Derby and Preakness on my ratings, and I'm nearly certain he didn't bleed in any of the races. There really is no point going on with this if you don't want to believe that. Drug them all, that will help the sport's image.

And again, Jerry Brown has been doing this a lot longer than I have and he believes it too. You think he doesn't know what he is talking about?

Is there any proof of this? That just sounds preposterous!