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

[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.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by 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.

The thing is that they argue that all those things occur and keep repeating the mantra until people believe it. In the end all you are doing is taking the L in the program away and telling people that everything is good now. Of course when a guy starts to go on one of his patented runs where every horse runs off the screen or an unknown trainer emerges as a 47% winner no one will believe a damn thing changed. If you are going to do something and tell everyone that this is a game changer (for the good) well you better be right or you will just become chicken little which is directly where we are headed. It is a good thing that the horseplayer in general has a short memory or they might have recalled all the wonderous things and changes that banning anabolic steroids was going to do...

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The thing is that they argue that all those things occur and keep repeating the mantra until people believe it. In the end all you are doing is taking the L in the program away and telling people that everything is good now. Of course when a guy starts to go on one of his patented runs where every horse runs off the screen or an unknown trainer emerges as a 47% winner no one will believe a damn thing changed. If you are going to do something and tell everyone that this is a game changer (for the good) well you better be right or you will just become chicken little which is directly where we are headed. It is a good thing that the horseplayer in general has a short memory or they might have recalled all the wonderous things and changes that banning anabolic steroids was going to do...

I don't think anyone is saying that banning lasix is the cure-all. I think they are saying that it would be a good start. You can only do one thing at a time. Banning steroids was a good start. Banning lasix would be a good next step. There would still be an extremely long way to go. The sport needs comprehensive change. I do believe in the expression, "If it isn't broke, don't fix it." Unfortunately racing is broken in the U.S.

There needs to be major change. I don't know how you can support the status quo. Why would you want to continue to go do down the same broken path that has completely ruined racing in the U.S.?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I don't think anyone is saying that banning lasix is the cure-all. I think they are saying that it would be a good start. You can only do one thing at a time. Banning steroids was a good start. Banning lasix would be a good next step. There would still be an extremely long way to go. The sport needs comprehensive change. I do believe in the expression, "If it isn't broke, don't fix it." Unfortunately racing is broken in the U.S.

There needs to be major change. I don't know how you can support the status quo. Why would you want to continue to go do down the same broken path that has completely ruined racing in the U.S.?

A good start to what? Are you so delusional as to believe there is a real business plan that calls for the humiliation of the sport as to rid it of a simple duiretic? Banning lasix is the reddest of red herrings.

If you believe that banning lasix is going to have a positive effect on business I would love to know what evidence you base this misguided opinion on? The steroid ban was followed by a 2 year decline in handle and field size and obviously wasnt much of a positive PR move especially since Drape and company ignored it for the most part.

I find it odd that someone who doesnt agree with banning lasix is aways accused of maintaining the status quo? Like i said before if you polled players and gave them 2 choices, big competitive fields and reasonable takeout or getting rid of lasix I'm pretty sure that the poll would render a 99-1% vote for option A.

[Cannon Shell]

Most South American countries run on lasix but you never hear about that. The idea that getting rid of lasix will make horses stop bleeding is absurd but it is almost exactly what is said. The qualifications to become prime breeding stock in this country are laughably low and anyone who thinks that eliminating raceday lasix is going to shift the breed positively has a complete misunderstanding of the game. It isnt as though horses can't get away with bleeding as to win enough (one graded race or stakes placing in a mares case) that they become part to the vaunted "gene pool". Bleeding while racing get worse over time in the vast majority of cases and breeders here have already shown they have no aversion to breeding to lightly raced horses.

Anyone who has an issue with the game and where it is headed should place the blame exactly where it belongs, the people who are so adamant about getting rid of medication because for the most part they have been steering us in the wrong direction ever since they decided that they didnt want NYC OTB because no one will ever want to place bets on horse racing without being there...

The bluebloods with the power in this sport have crashed the ship into the reef and are blaming the reef. Keep buying what they are selling and you might wind up holding onto some valuable breeding shares to Funny Cide.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

A good start to what? Are you so delusional as to believe there is a real business plan that calls for the humiliation of the sport as to rid it of a simple duiretic? Banning lasix is the reddest of red herrings.

If you believe that banning lasix is going to have a positive effect on business I would love to know what evidence you base this misguided opinion on? The steroid ban was followed by a 2 year decline in handle and field size and obviously wasnt much of a positive PR move especially since Drape and company ignored it for the most part.

I find it odd that someone who doesnt agree with banning lasix is aways accused of maintaining the status quo? Like i said before if you polled players and gave them 2 choices, big competitive fields and reasonable takeout or getting rid of lasix I'm pretty sure that the poll would render a 99-1% vote for option A.

I certainly agree with you that most players would much rather have big fields and reasonable takeouts than a lasix ban. But I don't think those are the choices that we are facing.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I certainly agree with you that most players would much rather have big fields and reasonable takeouts than a lasix ban. But I don't think those are the choices that we are facing.

Why not? Do you think that banning lasix is going to create larger fields? Smaller fields lead to smaller handle which leads to the possibility of more jurisdictions potentially looking to raise takeout (like in CA) in order to maintain the purse structure. Every action has a counter reaction. If you cant see that banning lasix will make it more expensive to own a horse and make it harder to keep them racing regularly (especially if Clembuterol which is a key component of cleaning up a horses lungs after a bleeding incident regardless of severity is banned as well) then you are kidding yourself.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Why not? Do you think that banning lasix is going to create larger fields? Smaller fields lead to smaller handle which leads to the possibility of more jurisdictions potentially looking to raise takeout (like in CA) in order to maintain the purse structure. Every action has a counter reaction. If you cant see that banning lasix will make it more expensive to own a horse and make it harder to keep them racing regularly (especially if Clembuterol which is a key component of cleaning up a horses lungs after a bleeding incident regardless of severity is banned as well) then you are kidding yourself.

In the short run, it may decrease field size. But it could conceivably increase field size in the long run.

There are plenty of smart people in the industry that think lasix knocks horses out and it causes them to need more time between races. Horses don't run nearly as often now as they did back in the 1970s. Some smart people think the advent of lasix in this country could be one of the main reasons for that. Nobody knows for sure but it is certainly a possibility.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I don't think anyone is saying that banning lasix is the cure-all. I think they are saying that it would be a good start. You can only do one thing at a time. Banning steroids was a good start. Banning lasix would be a good next step. There would still be an extremely long way to go. The sport needs comprehensive change. I do believe in the expression, "If it isn't broke, don't fix it." Unfortunately racing is broken in the U.S.

There needs to be major change. I don't know how you can support the status quo. Why would you want to continue to go do down the same broken path that has completely ruined racing in the U.S.?

What has been the benefit of banning steriods? Making unsound decisions that ultimately hurts the health of horses in favor of a hope that creating a false perception to the public helps the sport is not a fix. Is is creating an even bigger problem.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by 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.

I think the logic of people who think we should use lasix is twisted. They race all over the world without lasix. How can you say that we need lasix here when they don't use it anywhere else? Do you think they should start using it in England, Dubai, and Hong Kong? Is our racing the model for the world? I don't think so. It's the exact opposite. We are the laughing stock of the world. To say we need lasix here, when it is not used anywhere else, is a losing argument.

By the way, there of plenty of trainers out there that will tell you lasix is a performance enhancing drug that does mask other drugs. In addition, it totally knocks horses out. Lasix completely dehydrates you. Do you think it a good idea to do any type of rigorous physical task while you are totally dehydrated? It's terrible for a person and it's terrible for a horse.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

We are the laughing stock of the world. To say we need lasix here, when it is not used anywhere else, is a losing argument.

Speak for yourself.

If we are the laughing stock of the world, why are our stallions and bloodlines so desirable the world over? And, furthermore, if lasix is such a problem for overseas outfits, why do they always use it when they race in the US?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Speak for yourself.

If we are the laughing stock of the world, why are our stallions and bloodlines so desirable the world over? And, furthermore, if lasix is such a problem for overseas outfits, why do they always use it when they race in the US?

We do have some good stallions here. I'm not saying that anyone thinks all of our stallions are bad.

With regards to the Europeans using lasix in the US, they use it because they thing it's performance enhancing and they think they would be at a disadvantage by not using it.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

We do have some good stallions here. I'm not saying that anyone thinks all of our stallions are bad.

With regards to the Europeans using lasix in the US, they use it because they thing it's performance enhancing and they think they would be at a disadvantage by not using it.

So they are laughing at us but are also willing to make fools out of themselves as well.....at least according to you.

If it reads like BS it usually is BS.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

We do have some good stallions here. I'm not saying that anyone thinks all of our stallions are bad.

With regards to the Europeans using lasix in the US, they use it because they thing it's performance enhancing and they think they would be at a disadvantage by not using it.

Why would Europeans want horses that have raced on Lasix that "masked drugs" which will be passed down to the foals? Why do many train their horses on it? They buy our horses because they know that Lasix does not hurt them or their bloodlines.

Those who think that they would be at a competitive disadvantage are simply ignorant and basing their conclusion on conjecture, not scientific evidence. I am sure that many of them say that, but use it because they know their horse is a bleeder and will race more competitively here with the use of a medication that eliminates the medical problem that causes them to come here in the first place.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

We do have some good stallions here. I'm not saying that anyone thinks all of our stallions are bad.

With regards to the Europeans using lasix in the US, they use it because they thing it's performance enhancing and they think they would be at a disadvantage by not using it.

no, they use it because they can here. if everyone truly thought it was performance enhancing, than why do i see horses racing here without an 'L' next to their name???

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

no, they use it because they can here. if everyone truly thought it was performance enhancing, than why do i see horses racing here without an 'L' next to their name???

I don't know if every trainer thinks lasix is performance enhancing.

I personally think it is a big mistake to use lasix on a first-time starter. The reason is because there is a small percentage of horses that will actually run worse on lasix. I have no idea what that percentage is. It is probably somewhere between 1-5%. If possible, I would like to run a horse at least once or twice without lasix. That way you can at least see how they run without it as compared to how they run with it.

One of my trainers (a different trainer than the one I was on the phone with) had a horse that had run 3 times without lasix. He had run great every time. He had two wins and then ran 2nd in a stakes race. He then decided to put the horse on lasix for his next race. He figured that lasix helps most horses and it would probably help this horse (even though the horse had never bled). The horse ended up running poorly in his first race with lasix. The trainer never even thought of the possibility that lasix might have been the cause of the dull effort. He was dumbfounded as to why the horse ran so bad. The horse had been training great. He ran him again with lasix and he ran bad again. They went over the horse with a fine-tooth comb and couldn't find anything wrong with him. He came out of the race great and he was training great.

At this point, the trainer started thinking about the possibility that the lasix was the cause of the two bad races. The horse had run great three times in a row without lasix. Then the horse ran poorly two races in a row with lasix. The trainer couldn't come up with any explanation for the horse's two bad races. So he thought there was a small possibility that this horse was one of the few that runs worse with lasix. He took the horse off lasix for his next race and the horse won (it was a stakes race) by 8 lengths.

This is not something that is common. As I said, I don't think anyone knows what percentage of horses that run worse with lasix. It could be as low as 1%. But this trainer is lucky that he ran that horse without lasix those first few races. Otherwise he would have never known that the horse was much better without lasix. That horse ended up being a multiple graded stakes winner. I'll bet you that horse would have never won a stakes race on lasix. That is why I think it is a good idea to run a horse a couple of times without it.

[Riot]

Rupert, to your trainers impressions, there has been contrary scientific measurements regarding lasix. Studies that show horses on lasix don't do as well (dehydration, electrolyte changes). Then one study in the 1990's, looking at actual race horse races run, that showed horses on lasix did better (ran slightly longer, faster) What couldn't be eliminated in the second study was maidens simply learning their job and improving their 2-3-4 starts (as they also were then put on the vet's list for lasix due to evidence of bleeding).

I consider lasix a performance-enabler. Not a performance-enhancer. It helps prevent lung damage. It enables a horse to do the best they can with what they have. Let's use modern sports medicine to help horses, not hurt them. It has nothing to do with doping.

With all the problems horse racing has, that the poobahs of racing are even addressing lasix like this is beyond my comprehension.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I don't know if every trainer thinks lasix is performance enhancing.

I personally think it is a big mistake to use lasix on a first-time starter. The reason is because there is a small percentage of horses that will actually run worse on lasix. I have no idea what that percentage is. It is probably somewhere between 1-5%. If possible, I would like to run a horse at least once or twice without lasix. That way you can at least see how they run without it as compared to how they run with it.

One of my trainers (a different trainer than the one I was on the phone with) had a horse that had run 3 times without lasix. He had run great every time. He had two wins and then ran 2nd in a stakes race. He then decided to put the horse on lasix for his next race. He figured that lasix helps most horses and it would probably help this horse (even though the horse had never bled). The horse ended up running poorly in his first race with lasix. The trainer never even thought of the possibility that lasix might have been the cause of the dull effort. He was dumbfounded as to why the horse ran so bad. The horse had been training great. He ran him again with lasix and he ran bad again. They went over the horse with a fine-tooth comb and couldn't find anything wrong with him. He came out of the race great and he was training great.

At this point, the trainer started thinking about the possibility that the lasix was the cause of the two bad races. The horse had run great three times in a row without lasix. Then the horse ran poorly two races in a row with lasix. The trainer couldn't come up with any explanation for the horse's two bad races. So he thought there was a small possibility that this horse was one of the few that runs worse with lasix. He took the horse off lasix for his next race and the horse won (it was a stakes race) by 8 lengths.

This is not something that is common. As I said, I don't think anyone knows what percentage of horses that run worse with lasix. It could be as low as 1%. But this trainer is lucky that he ran that horse without lasix those first few races. Otherwise he would have never known that the horse was much better without lasix. That horse ended up being a multiple graded stakes winner. I'll bet you that horse would have never won a stakes race on lasix. That is why I think it is a good idea to run a horse a couple of times without it.

there's more to it than just saying ' a first time starter'. they've been in training, maybe there's already been a bleeding episode? or maybe they just don't want to have to have a problem ever show up? if you can prevent bleeding and lung issues before they become an issue, why wouldn't you?
lasix has become the popular target for some reason, and really isn't the issue where drugs are concerned. the issues are with cheaters, some who are caught countless times, suspended countless times, and are still training. that's the issue, not a legal drug that has legitimate reasons for being used. it is absolutely a red herring in the whole discussion of what needs to be done to fix racing. cheating trainers and the owners who hire them are the issue. rather than all this bs posturing over lasix, where are the hearings and rules for many-times over cheaters? where are the moves for expanded testing, more security?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I think the logic of people who think we should use lasix is twisted. They race all over the world without lasix. How can you say that we need lasix here when they don;t use it anywhere else? Do you think they should start using it in England, Dubai, and Hong Kong? Is our racing the model fro the world? I don't think so. It's the exact opposite. We are the laughing stock of the world. To say we need lasix here, when it is not used anywhere else, is a losing argument.

By the way, there of plenty of trainers out there that will tell you lasix is a performance enhancing drug that does mask other drugs. In addition, it totally knocks horses out. Lasix completely dehydrates you. Do you think it a good idea to do any type of rigorous physical task while you are totally dehydrated? It's terrible for a person and it's terrible for a horse.

We are the laughingstock of the world? Yeah ok so when all those buyers come to Keeneland every year they are snickering as they write those checks?

Who gives a damn what they do elsewhere? I like basketball but don't follow the WNBA so don't give a **** what happens there just like I dont care about what is going on in Singapore or Ireland. If you knew enough about racing in other countries to know that the average racehorse in Ireland makes 3 starts a year and the average horse in France makes 4 starts a year perhaps you wouldnt be in such a hurry to emulate them. The idea that we should care what people who represent one tenth of one percent of our customers think is beyond stupid.

Plenty of trainers are f cking morons too. When the chemists at the labs say that when following the 4 hour protocols that Lasix doesn't mask any known medications I tend to believe them.

Funny that the millions of people that take lasix daily aren't all sitting home drinking water because they are so knocked out that they couldnt possibly go out and work.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I think the logic of people who think we should use lasix is twisted. They race all over the world without lasix. How can you say that we need lasix here when they don;t use it anywhere else? Do you think they should start using it in England, Dubai, and Hong Kong? Is our racing the model fro the world? I don't think so. It's the exact opposite. We are the laughing stock of the world. To say we need lasix here, when it is not used anywhere else, is a losing argument.

By the way, there of plenty of trainers out there that will tell you lasix is a performance enhancing drug that does mask other drugs. In addition, it totally knocks horses out. Lasix completely dehydrates you. Do you think it a good idea to do any type of rigorous physical task while you are totally dehydrated? It's terrible for a person and it's terrible for a horse.

You are taking the extemely myopic view that the supporters of the ban dispense. While Lasix may be banned outside of North Amercia, it is used in training of horses and banned on raceday when horses need it most. Please explain to me why it is ok to train on it but not race on it.

What do owners in jurisdictions that ban Lasix do when their horses can't compete because of bleeding? They either ship their horses to North America and race them here or sell them to North American owners. They are laughing alright, all the way to the bank. The vast majority who ship here for one or two races run their horses on Lasix when they do.

I would love to see those trainers who say that Lasix is a performance enhancing drug come up with any credible scientific study to support that position. It won't happen because it does not exist.

If Lasix is such a drain on horses, than why are 99% of horses racing in North America racing with it? There is no rule against trainers running their horses without Lasix, so why are many more not doing that? Just because someone says something is true does not make it so, and that is the type of slippery slope BS that Chuck is talking about that divides the industry. Then again, Obama won an election and will run for a second term with the same type of if we say it enough people will believe it nonsense which is proven to work.

I am sure as a horseplayer you look forward to horses being taken out of training more often, retired earlier in their careers, less incentive for people to own a horse which will have a more limited racing career, more unwanted horses in need of a home, smaller fields and being duped by betting a horse that will bleed and burn money. Sounds like a great idea.