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

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by pointman

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.

You say they train on lasix overseas. How often do horses in Europe get lasix?

The arguments that most of these trainers make are total BS. They want to try to pretend that banning lasix would be the end of racing as we know it. They make all these completely exaggerated claims that are complete nonsense. Are there some horses that are bad bleeders that would be hurt by a ban on lasix? Absolutely. I'm not denying that. But I think the overall positive effects of a lasix ban would far outweigh the negatives.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

You say they train on lasix overseas. How often do horses in Europe get lasix?

The arguments that most of these trainers make are total BS. They want to try to pretend that banning lasix would be the end of racing as we know it. They make all these completely exaggerated claims that are complete nonsense. Are there some horses that are bad bleeders that would be hurt by a ban on lasix? Absolutely. I'm not denying that. But I think the overall positive effects of a lasix ban would far outweigh the negatives.

So the "minor" bleeders wont become worse if not treated? The idea that getting rid of a medication will eliminate the problem that it treats is beyond stupid. What you don't understand is that taking away a tool to treat a malady in a horse costs our owners more money in a time when they can least afford to spend it. The idea that other forms of treatment for bleeders (more expensive and not made public) wont be used is stupid. It is just an L in the program that makes horses pee.

[Cannon Shell]

I have yet for someone to show me how banning lasix will produce more business for the sport. It surely will cost the industry a lot of money, especially in the short term and I have yet to see a shred of evidence that it will bring a single dollar into the sport that wouldnt be there anyway.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

So the "minor" bleeders wont become worse if not treated? The idea that getting rid of a medication will eliminate the problem that it treats is beyond stupid. What you don't understand is that taking away a tool to treat a malady in a horse costs our owners more money in a time when they can least afford to spend it. The idea that other forms of treatment for bleeders (more expensive and not made public) wont be used is stupid. It is just an L in the program that makes horses pee.

I never said that getting rid of lasix would eliminate bleeding.

One thing that many trainers won't tell you is the real reason that horses bleed. Sure some horses bleed simply because they are bleeders. But most horses bleed because there is something hurting them. Eliminating lasix would force trainers to treat the actual issue rather than just putting a band-aid on the symptom.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I never said that getting rid of lasix would eliminate bleeding.

One thing that many trainers won't tell you is the real reason that horses bleed. Sure some horses bleed simply because they are bleeders. But most horses bleed because there is something hurting them. Eliminating lasix would force trainers to treat the actual issue rather than just putting a band-aid on the symptom.

But how do you propose that you treat bleeding?

So essentially what you are saying is that getting rid of lasix will make otherwise inattenative trainers and incompetent vets smarter?

An example of treating the issue as opposed to the symptm is working on a horses back end when weakness or injury there might be causing overloading on its front end leading to lameness there. Trying to tie bleeding to treating a horse for lameness if the human connections didnt know in the first place that the reason they were bleeding was lameness is an exercise in futility.

[Riot]

One thing that many trainers won't tell you is the real reason that horses bleed. Sure some horses bleed simply because they are bleeders. But most horses bleed because there is something hurting them. Eliminating lasix would force trainers to treat the actual issue rather than just putting a band-aid on the symptom.

That is a completely false paragraph. Let's keep an eye on the truth here: bleeding is a physiologic process with multiple causes, but none are thought to be pathology or other pre-existing problems.

Bleeding into the lungs is a proven side effect of horses (and some dogs, and some humans) running hard on firmer surfaces under great cardio-pulmonary stress and recruitment during maximal effort.

By the way, the use of Flair nasal strips (you know, that patch some horses wear on their nose) has about equal scientifically measurable effect on halting grade 3 and 4 bleeding as Lasix.

Where is the cry to ban these patches that ease the pressure differences between upper and lower airways, easing damage to lower lungs by EIPH?

The point isn't to halt bleeding that is Grade 3 & 4, it's to halt the unseen bleeding doing damage at the alevoli, the actual interface between blood capillary and air source (oxygenation) in the lung. Every time an alveoli is scarred by bleeding at a microscopic level, even if you can't see it on a bronchoscope, the horse is harmed.

Cannon, Kasept and Pointman have made very accurate points here about lasix. There's alot of completely inaccurate baloney out there about lasix, much being unfortunately pushed by industry leaders. What they have said here is the truth of it.

The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) and the American Association of Equine Practitioners (AAEP) both fully and unquestionably support the use of lasix as raceday medication for the welfare of the horse, based upon all scientific evidence. Using lasix is good for the welfare of the race horse. Here's the statement: http://www.avma.org/issues/policy/an...racehorses.asp

And if you want some good, "lay person" explanations of EIPH (bleeding) and lasix, The Horse has them here: http://www.thehorse.com/TopicSearch/...&nID=32&ID=296

[Kasept]

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 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.

As Dale Romans said today on ATR, 'Who cares what they do in Europe' -- or anywhere else?'. Should we adopt the Euro too? We have a different sport that generally races on a different surface. The stresses placed on horses here are different than those in the rest of the world. We don't have 6 month seasons where horses are off more than they race. We don't have private backstretches where track-run vets & dispensaries operate. Meanwhile, iinternational outfits train on Lasix readily and would use it on raceday happily.

Seriously still clinging to the 'lasix masks other drugs' nonsense? That crap is old enough to vote. File it with the other grand lie that 'bleeding is hereditary and we need to purge it from the gene pool'. It's amazing that someone who is 'in the business' is perpetuating the same misinformation being peddled by the uninformed on facebook and the like.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Kasept

As Dale Romans said today on ATR, 'Who cares what they do in Europe' -- or anywhere else?'. Should we adopt the Euro too? We have a different sport that generally races on a different surface. The stresses placed on horses here are different than those in the rest of the world. We don't have 6 month seasons where horses are off more than they race. We don't have private backstretches where track-run vets & dispensaries operate. Meanwhile, iinternational outfits train on Lasix readily and would use it on raceday happily.

Seriously still clinging to the 'lasix masks other drugs' nonsense? That crap is old enough to vote. File it with the other grand lie that 'bleeding is hereditary and we need to purge it from the gene pool'. It's amazing that someone who is 'in the business' is perpetuating the same misinformation being peddled by the uninformed on facebook and the like.

If I am not mistaken, didn't one of the vets that you respect most (Steve Allday) say that we don't need lasix?

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

If I am not mistaken, didn't one of the vets that you respect most (Steve Allday) say that we don't need lasix?

He says we can survive without Lasix and that's certainly true. But that's not what is really being discussed. The issue at hand is Lasix as a canard for a small minority of the sport trying to impose its' will and self interest on the rest of us. And destroying the business for the non-idle rich in the process.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Kasept

He says we can survive without Lasix and that's certainly true. But that's not what is really being discussed. The issue at hand is Lasix as a canard for a small minority of the sport trying to impose its' will and self interest on the rest of us. And destroying the business for the non-idle rich in the process.

I think most people in the business completely underestimate the harm that drugs in racing has done to the integrity of the sport. I think all the drugs in racing has absolutely killed the business. I think it has driven tons of fans and bettors away.

Would eliminating lasix reverse this? Would it bring all the fans and bettors back? Of course not. I don't think anyone is claiming that. But I think it would be a good first step. I think racing has to move towards the elimination of most drugs.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I think most people in the business completely underestimate the harm that drugs in racing has done to the integrity of the sport. I think all the drugs in racing has absolutely killed the business. I think it has driven tons of fans and bettors away.

Would eliminating lasix reverse this? Would it bring all the fans and bettors back? Of course not. I don't think anyone is claiming that. But I think it would be a good first step. I think racing has to move towards the elimination of most drugs.

The integrity issue has been mangled by the industry with help from our friends at the various state racing commissions for years. People only know what we tell them and for years all they ever heard about was positive tests with no explanation of what the meds were, that most had zero effect on the raceday performance of the horse in question and no one explaining the penalty structure or even that we operate with virtually no steadfast rules, just "suggestions" that often are plain old guesses.

Because the industry (and most of the ivory tower crowd behind the medication bs) refused to understand its customers and refused to understand that we were a gambling venture first and foremost and a sport second they tried to hide everything medicationwise. Naturally that backfired and tracks are still slow to understand that the Ness and Guerrero's of the world are bad for business at their tracks and cast a poor light on everything. THAT is the drug problem that we have which has nothing to do with lasix or any other type of legal medication!

You see the thing is that virtually no one has any idea what is being given to various horses (legally!) and the idea that eliminating something that no one knows about anyway on "our word" when we just spent the last few months telling everyone Lasix is a performance enhancing drug and most of the results of the last 30 years are tainted isnt myopic, it is sheer stupidity.

Again the idea that modern medicine is bad for thoroughbred racehorses only and is causing people not to bet is beyond dumb.

Only horseracing can spend virtually nothing on surveillence and enforcement and be surprised that people might be doing illegal things and react by banning a legal medication.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Kasept

As Dale Romans said today on ATR, 'Who cares what they do in Europe' -- or anywhere else?'. Should we adopt the Euro too? We have a different sport that generally races on a different surface. The stresses placed on horses here are different than those in the rest of the world. We don't have 6 month seasons where horses are off more than they race. We don't have private backstretches where track-run vets & dispensaries operate. Meanwhile, iinternational outfits train on Lasix readily and would use it on raceday happily.

Seriously still clinging to the 'lasix masks other drugs' nonsense? That crap is old enough to vote. File it with the other grand lie that 'bleeding is hereditary and we need to purge it from the gene pool'. It's amazing that someone who is 'in the business' is perpetuating the same misinformation being peddled by the uninformed on facebook and the like.

[Dunbar]

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?

Has anyone addressed this question other than with an "I don't care about the rest of the world" response? Someone said horses only average 3 or 4 starts a year in Ireland and France. What about Australia and Hong Kong? Are horses in those areas making fewer starts per year than here?

To read this thread, one would think we are currently in a Golden Age of horseracing, and that to go back to the pre-1995 situation in New York is absolutely unthinkable. Were New York horses making fewer starts per year before 1995 than now?

Rupert's point, I think, is that "the sky is falling, the end is near" may be an over-reaction in the face of the experience of the rest of the world. That seems like a reasonable point to me, especially considering our own long experience pre-Lasix.

--Dunbar

[Calzone Lord]

Banning lasix probably isn't going to do any good for the horse player.

It's also extremely unpopular with a strong majority of trainers and vets...who are both far more powerful groups in the industry than betting customers.

A lasix ban is basically a bid for more worthless PR from industry do-gooders. It would make the New York Times feel like it did some good.

It's unfortunate that it's an issue at all right now.

Meanwhile, poker is still on TV ... and everytime I go to the track I see the poker tables, slot machines, craps tables, blackjack tables, and Roulette tables all kicking the sh!t out of the horse racing simulcast section.

At-least horse racing is still holding its own with Pai-Gow when both are being offered in the same place...as the Asian population in Erie isn't so large.

However, I have no doubt Pai-Gow is handling far more than 30-track full card simulcasting here...and that's not because the local horse bettors are going the Internet and rebate shop route. It should be a wildly superior game to all -- and it's laughably uncompetitive when people have the option.

[rpncaine]

Being totally honest..as much as I love Horseracing, if I had access to REAL craps dice, I'd be there every second that I could! It is just so much fun and fast action.

[Powderfinger]

Great thread with some interesting viewpoints.
I have seen several horses die after crossing the finish line from a heart attack. Why would this happen to a perfectly healthy young animal? I'm not an equine expert, but if lasix is a diuretic that stops bleeding doesn't that mean it's a blood "thickener"? and if the blood is thicker, wouldn't that make it harder for the heart to pump it through the system causing more heart attacks? Something unnatural about a animal losing so much fluid from the body; there has to be some drawbacks.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

Banning lasix probably isn't going to do any good for the horse player.

Not only that, it will make it tougher.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

Has anyone addressed this question other than with an "I don't care about the rest of the world" response? Someone said horses only average 3 or 4 starts a year in Ireland and France. What about Australia and Hong Kong? Are horses in those areas making fewer starts per year than here?

What the international aspect of the argument boils down to in general is: year-round racing (NA) vs. seasonal racing (elsewhere).

Do racehorses, as athletes, need a signficant period of rest from competition annually?

A lot of comparisons are made between racehorses and human athletes to make points about medication. But what human athletes are asked to train and compete indefinitely during the length of their careers?

Which of these schedules would tend to favor the health of the horse?

Year-round racing is necessary for a lot of people in the industry to stay in business. Furthermore, it does not appear to be economically viable to voluntarily give horses time off. This was one of the arguments used to oppose the ban on anabolic steroids. If horses couldn't be helped artificially to recover from their races, how could they continue to race year-round? A similar argument was used by Dale Romans recently about lasix. The wealthy owners can afford to give horses time off after a significant bleeding episode, the average horseman cannot.

This issue will underly every future medication debate beyond the lasix one. Therapeutic medications are used in racing to promote the well-being of the racehorse, but are they also being relied upon to avoid the cost of resting the horse? If so, will be banning medications make it impossible to race horses in the current year-round fashion?

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

It should be a wildly superior game to all -- and it's laughably uncompetitive when people have the option.

And that's the problem, right there. It isn't how the public perceives the use of drugs; it's that now that there is plenty of competition for gambling dollars, the average American prefers to spend his or her gambling dollars elsewhere.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

What the international aspect of the argument boils down to in general is: year-round racing (NA) vs. seasonal racing (elsewhere).

Do racehorses, as athletes, need a signficant period of rest from competition annually?

A lot of comparisons are made between racehorses and human athletes to make points about medication. But what human athletes are asked to train and compete indefinitely during the length of their careers?

Which of these schedules would tend to favor the health of the horse?

Year-round racing is necessary for a lot of people in the industry to stay in business. Furthermore, it does not appear to be economically viable to voluntarily give horses time off. This was one of the arguments used to oppose the ban on anabolic steroids. If horses couldn't be helped artificially to recover from their races, how could they continue to race year-round? A similar argument was used by Dale Romans recently about lasix. The wealthy owners can afford to give horses time off after a significant bleeding episode, the average horseman cannot.

This issue will underly every future medication debate beyond the lasix one. Therapeutic medications are used in racing to promote the well-being of the racehorse, but are they also being relied upon to avoid the cost of resting the horse? If so, will be banning medications make it impossible to race horses in the current year-round fashion?

Racehorses get hurt alot. The vast majority of these injuries are minor and are easily treated. When people talk about banning medications and they talk about giving horses rest as opposed to "drugs" I wonder what world they live in. I would love for someone to give me the parameters of a medication ban. So no meds from what point? 3 days? 5 days? A week? A month? Are we going to going to modernize and standardize our system of testing so that those who follow the rules arent unjustly persecuted because the current system is frighteningly vague.

Most people don't know that we have no steadfast rules concerning withdrawl times in most jurisdictions. The Pletcher incident in the BC a few years ago where he and the vet asked the state vet if they would be ok giving a medication 18 days before the race and were told they would be and yet the horse still got a positive test should be a great indicator of where we stand. The RMTC has made some progress in this area but is still a longway from being complete. People also don't realize that a positive test does not necessarily mean that the drug in question had any effect on the performance of the horse but rather is just the detection of a drug above a certain number which often arbitrarily assigned.

So I want to know what am I supposed to do when a horse has an issue? If a horse acts colicky should I not give her medication and just hope that it is a little gas because if I give her banamine she wont be able to run the following week? If Bodemeister grabs a quarter working a week before the Derby should Baffert not treat him or go to the local church and pour some holy water on it? Or just scratch and turn him out? Because the evil Bute and Banamine would be among the meds called for in these situations.