BC to phase out raceday meds; No Lasix for '12 Juvenile events

[PatCummings]

Originally Posted by pointman

Please enlighten us on the positives of banning Lasix on a race day. Please don't make the nonsensical claims that it masks other drugs or that it has weakened the breed.

I have made no comments in this thread on whether banning Lasix is good or not. I'm saying that it is foolishly premature to say it will be bad betting, and equally premature to assume all horses in the 2013 BC will be running "Lasix off."

[Cannon Shell]

Depending on the state in which the BC is held, they may not be able to ban Lasix. You can't just take your horse off when you want and then go back on when you want. The BC to my knowledge has no power to supersede the rules of racing in an individual state so I don't think this is a settled issue.

By the way here is an interesting article from years ago when everything ws supposedly wonderful

http://articles.latimes.com/1990-10-...1_horse-racing

Another one
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/199...orsemen-l-word


http://articles.latimes.com/1992-05-...le-crown-races

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Depending on the state in which the BC is held, they may not be able to ban Lasix. You can't just take your horse off when you want and then go back on when you want. The BC to my knowledge has no power to supersede the rules of racing in an individual state so I don't think this is a settled issue.

By the way here is an interesting article from years ago when everything ws supposedly wonderful

http://articles.latimes.com/1990-10-...1_horse-racing

Another one
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/199...orsemen-l-word


http://articles.latimes.com/1992-05-...le-crown-races

It's just more useless mouth flapping by the BC folks. I'm surprised anyone here pays it any credence.

[slotdirt]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Depending on the state in which the BC is held, they may not be able to ban Lasix. You can't just take your horse off when you want and then go back on when you want. The BC to my knowledge has no power to supersede the rules of racing in an individual state so I don't think this is a settled issue.

By the way here is an interesting article from years ago when everything ws supposedly wonderful

http://articles.latimes.com/1990-10-...1_horse-racing

Another one
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/199...orsemen-l-word


http://articles.latimes.com/1992-05-...le-crown-races

Interesting thought. I wonder what legal standing the BC would have to force entrants to not be running with a raceday medication that is otherwise legal in a particular state.

[Merlinsky]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

Interesting thought. I wonder what legal standing the BC would have to force entrants to not be running with a raceday medication that is otherwise legal in a particular state.

I expect that it's legal to be more restrictive. The problem would be if they wanted to be less so. For instance, say the BC wanted to allow cobra venom, but the state forbids it, they're not gonna get that through. A state may have a 21 and older law on alcohol, but some counties are dry or limit when you can purchase it. Saying they're doing it in the public interest or whatever is probably all it takes if they really think that's what they're doing.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Merlinsky

I expect that it's legal to be more restrictive. The problem would be if they wanted to be less so. For instance, say the BC wanted to allow cobra venom, but the state forbids it, they're not gonna get that through. A state may have a 21 and older law on alcohol, but some counties are dry or limit when you can purchase it. Saying they're doing it in the public interest or whatever is probably all it takes if they really think that's what they're doing.

They can make whatever restrictive rules they want but in some states you HAVE to run on lasix if you have been running on it and need a vet reason to come off of it. Not to mention that there may be trouble for those who do go ahead and take off lasix as they will have to "re-qualify" for Lasix afterwards meaning 30 days and if they happen to be unfortunate to bleed after a race out of their nose again they would be subject to 90 days and with another incident be barred.

[Merlinsky]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

They can make whatever restrictive rules they want but in some states you HAVE to run on lasix if you have been running on it and need a vet reason to come off of it. Not to mention that there may be trouble for those who do go ahead and take off lasix as they will have to "re-qualify" for Lasix afterwards meaning 30 days and if they happen to be unfortunate to bleed after a race out of their nose again they would be subject to 90 days and with another incident be barred.

Can't imagine that'd be a problem for Euros,etc. making their first and only start of the year in the US. I'm sure if someone wants to run sans lasix in the BC, there are ways to get vet approval, although who wants the Life At Ten-esque drama of a horse bleeding badly who shouldn't have been allowed to try to race w/o lasix in the first place. This sounds like an absolute mess of an untangling of regulations, and then there's the prospect of many bloody noses.

Forgive me, but I'm not clear on the process and policies around going on/off lasix in the various jurisdictions. About the re-qualifying, what's involved? Do you mean they have to run again in 30 days on lasix or not run for 30 days before going back on, or what? If it's the latter, many of the BC horses are either leaving the country, retiring (well, hopefully not the juveniles), or are done for the year. I imagine whatever the drug policy situation, someone's gonna fall into the 'sucks to be you' group where the BC's decided it's just not a big enough problem to work around, and it's no skin off their nose.

[slotdirt]

It just occurs to me that the Breeders Cup would have to get state regulators buy-in to make this work. I want to know what track wants to deal with the headache of lasix being permissable on a Thursday, and even for a couple races on Friday morning, then not for the Breeders Cup races Friday through Saturday. The whole thing just seems like a massive logistical headache.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Merlinsky

Can't imagine that'd be a problem for Euros,etc. making their first and only start of the year in the US. I'm sure if someone wants to run sans lasix in the BC, there are ways to get vet approval, although who wants the Life At Ten-esque drama of a horse bleeding badly who shouldn't have been allowed to try to race w/o lasix in the first place. This sounds like an absolute mess of an untangling of regulations, and then there's the prospect of many bloody noses.

Forgive me, but I'm not clear on the process and policies around going on/off lasix in the various jurisdictions. About the re-qualifying, what's involved? Do you mean they have to run again in 30 days on lasix or not run for 30 days before going back on, or what? If it's the latter, many of the BC horses are either leaving the country, retiring (well, hopefully not the juveniles), or are done for the year. I imagine whatever the drug policy situation, someone's gonna fall into the 'sucks to be you' group where the BC's decided it's just not a big enough problem to work around, and it's no skin off their nose.

The Euros arent the issue, it is the US horses that intend on running in the US post BC. In order to "requalify" in some states you have to basically declare a bleeding incident which in effect makes you a 2 time bleeder and prevents you from running for 30 days post requalification.