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

[NTamm1215]

If there was any doubt which was the right way to view the scenario, just view Jerry Bossert's last tweet:

Jerry Bossert ‏ (@holybull71) @ShuveeIL @raypaulick this sport needs the Fed to step in

[Calzone Lord]

Is Bossert the guy who freaked out because they wouldn't show the Bengals in the press box?

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

Is Bossert the guy who freaked out because they wouldn't show the Bengals in the press box?

Could have been, I just know he's a serial NYRA hater whose opinion stinks.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

If there was any doubt which was the right way to view the scenario, just view Jerry Bossert's last tweet:

Jerry Bossert ‏ (@holybull71) @ShuveeIL @raypaulick this sport needs the Fed to step in

that's the last thing this sport needs!!

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

When breeders cry about lasix or other legal medications "affect" on the breed yet have no trouble with the manipulation of a foals legs (ie their god given genetic makeup) how can you take them seriously?

[Danzig]

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ky-pane...4495--rah.html


according to this article, the ban attempt has failed.

[cloud_break]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

I love how these guys like Seth Hancock show up for a meeting like this and stump for "hay, oats and water" (the misnomer that it is). Last time I checked, he was using Pletcher as his trainer. So let me see, he's opposed to giving a horse a $20 Lasix shot on race day, but he has no problem having his horses with a trainer whose horses average four figure vet bills on a monthly basis. Can you say hypocrite?

In a hypothetical defense of "Seth Hancock", the only logical support of race day medication reform is from the breeding side of things. Perhaps its just laziness, but having the racing side weed out stallion prospects that are entirely med dependent could make sense to a guy invested in such horses. Banning lasix however probably does not qualify under those criteria.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cloud_break

In a hypothetical defense of "Seth Hancock", the only logical support of race day medication reform is from the breeding side of things. Perhaps its just laziness, but having the racing side weed out stallion prospects that are entirely med dependent could make sense to a guy invested in such horses. Banning lasix however probably does not qualify under those criteria.

I know of no horses who are "med dependent". It is completely made up bs. There are no medications that alter the genetic makeup of a stallion or mare or thier progeny. Perhaps if these people weren't in such a big hurry to get the horses off the track to breed (and protect their investment) perhaps they could sort themselves out a little better on the racetrack.

[Alan07]

Originally Posted by Kasept

So you know who's on the right side of the argument, those voting AGAINST:

Thomas Conway
Foster Northrop, D.V.M.
Frank Jones Jr.
Franklin S. Kling Jr.
Tom Ludt
Michael A. Pitino
Burr Travis Jr.

Nice. So you are on a board of an organization that is banning Lasix in its championship series over the next two years, yet as a business man votes it down.

http://www.drf.com/news/lasix-ban-fa...cky-commission

[Rupert Pupkin]

Here is a good article about the subject. Although I disagree with the author's conclusion, I think it is a fair article that gives both sides of the argument.

http://businessofracing.blogspot.com...o-be-done.html

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I know of no horses who are "med dependent". It is completely made up bs. There are no medications that alter the genetic makeup of a stallion or mare or thier progeny. Perhaps if these people weren't in such a big hurry to get the horses off the track to breed (and protect their investment) perhaps they could sort themselves out a little better on the racetrack.

That sounds like a contradiction. You say that no horses are "med dependent". If the horses don't need meds, then why give them meds?

With regards to genetics, there is strong evidence that bleeding is genetic.

"According to data presented at the Summit, bleeding is to some degree an inherited trait, and the more horses whose bleeding was controlled by Lasix go to the breeding shed, the more that trait will tend to appear in subsequent generation."
http://businessofracing.blogspot.com...o-be-done.html

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

That sounds like a contradiction. You say that no horses are "med dependent". If the horses don't need meds, then why give them meds?

With regards to genetics, there is strong evidence that bleeding is genetic.

"According to data presented at the Summit, bleeding is to some degree an inherited trait, and the more horses whose bleeding was controlled by Lasix go to the breeding shed, the more that trait will tend to appear in subsequent generation."
http://businessofracing.blogspot.com...o-be-done.html

from the drf article:

In large part, those studies have concluded that horses suffer from bleeding as a result of genetic conditions that evolved in the species millions of years ago and because of the vast volumes of blood pumped at high pressure through a horse's lungs during exercise. Other studies have concluded that furosemide has been proven to mitigate those effects and prevent long-term damage to lung tissue.


as for your query-horses given lasix don't have to have it to run, it's something they can run without. in that regard, they aren't dependent. however, the issue is bleeding, in some horses it can be significant. lasix prevents that. and as romans pointed out, they would have allowed it throughout training, just not on race days which is when he said 'they would need it most'. and as was pointed out, lasix can prevent long-term lung damage.

if ky wants to lead the way on meds, perhaps they should do more to go after the ones that enhance performance, rather than worrying about a drug that prevents bleeding and tissue damage?

[joeydb]

I love this sport, but why are so many idiots in charge of it? We're always getting bad news. It's depressing.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

That sounds like a contradiction. You say that no horses are "med dependent". If the horses don't need meds, then why give them meds?

With regards to genetics, there is strong evidence that bleeding is genetic.

"According to data presented at the Summit, bleeding is to some degree an inherited trait, and the more horses whose bleeding was controlled by Lasix go to the breeding shed, the more that trait will tend to appear in subsequent generation."
http://businessofracing.blogspot.com...o-be-done.html

Seriously? Horses are treated for issues just like any other flesh and blood being. That doesnt mean they are dependent on meds, just that they arent beyond the scope of illness or malady. Just as people who take a daily dose of aspirin as a preventative measure aren't dependent on aspirin, horses arent dependent on lasix or just about any other med.

The "evidence" that bleeding is to some degree an inherited trait is flimsy considering that pretty much all horses are known to bleed from time to time. What people just dont seem to understand is that often bleeding doesn't just happen out of thin air, there are a whole laundry list of things that can help cause a horse to bleed and none of them involve the horses sire or dam. Ignoring it wont make it better and if you or any other person thinks that lasix or any medication is the biggest mistake being made in the thoroughbred horse breeding arena then you have fallen for the bait, hook line and sinker.

I support this if they ban all diabetes medicine for humans.

[citycat]

Obviously Cannon Shell has the most insightfull and logical thoughts on the subject. Why can't the people in charge be so thoughtful on the subject also?

[cloud_break]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I know of no horses who are "med dependent". It is completely made up bs. There are no medications that alter the genetic makeup of a stallion or mare or thier progeny. Perhaps if these people weren't in such a big hurry to get the horses off the track to breed (and protect their investment) perhaps they could sort themselves out a little better on the racetrack.

Bad choice of words on my part. Perhaps "enhanced"?

[OTM Al]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

Could have been, I just know he's a serial NYRA hater whose opinion stinks.

He does such a good job at it on Gotham Day, on which 2 BC winners were racing on the inner, a thing unheard of, he didn't write a single word in his column about the card. The guy is worse than useless.

[pointman]

The logic of the supporters of the ban is twisted and warped, essentially they argue that a drug that helps the health of horses with no evidence that it masks other drugs, enhances performance or has negative genetic effects should be banned so that the sport does not have the appearance to the ignorant that horses performances are enhanced by drugs. Incredible.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Seriously? Horses are treated for issues just like any other flesh and blood being. That doesnt mean they are dependent on meds, just that they arent beyond the scope of illness or malady. Just as people who take a daily dose of aspirin as a preventative measure aren't dependent on aspirin, horses arent dependent on lasix or just about any other med.

The "evidence" that bleeding is to some degree an inherited trait is flimsy considering that pretty much all horses are known to bleed from time to time. What people just dont seem to understand is that often bleeding doesn't just happen out of thin air, there are a whole laundry list of things that can help cause a horse to bleed and none of them involve the horses sire or dam. Ignoring it wont make it better and if you or any other person thinks that lasix or any medication is the biggest mistake being made in the thoroughbred horse breeding arena then you have fallen for the bait, hook line and sinker.

Maybe the supporters should lobby the NFL to ban all painkillers. After all, the sons of many NFL players become NFL players themselves, despite no medical evidence we don't want to create genetically inferior football players who are dependent on pain medication or create the appearance that the outcome of football games are altered by drugs.