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

[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.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

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.

I strongly agree with you on one thing. I think you are absolutely right that horseracing should be spending a lot of money on surveillance and enforcement.

[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.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

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.

Is it that black-and-white with even minor injuries where the use of medication totally replaces any form of rest? Shouldn't the two be used in conjunction?

Anyways, the type of "rest" I was talking about was an "off season" of sorts. While horse racing can certainly be successful as a year-round venture, can it do so using the same group of horses the entire time? Can any individual racehorse stay in full race training and competition continuously? Is it feasible to stratify the horse population so that one group of horses (eg low-level claimers, stakes horses) get "down time" while another is actively running?

Why do racehorses get hurt alot? A huge factor is the number of miles they accumulate in a finite period of time.

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.

On the other hand, how many "therapeutic" positives are the result of indiscriminate "pre-racing"? Take the Tom Amoss case from this year. Five positives for the same medication in the span of a few weeks. Or Kiarin McLaughlin at a fall Keeneland meet a couple of years ago with multiple positives for an inhalant. Superficially, does this look like bad luck or mismanagement? Should the public reasonably be expected to accept that a significant number of horses in the same barn need to be on the same medication (never mind still be entered to race)?

Isn't more likely that trainers in these instances are being too aggressive with their "pre-race" regimens? In the event of a positive and subsequent punishment, are the regulators really unjustly persecuting the offendors? Who is making the sport (and medications) look bad in these instances?

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.

If the plan is to adopt a zero-tolerance policy, then racing probably can't operate. Not sure if that's what's being called for. If threshold levels of therapeutic medications are still utilized, then the scenarios you suggest should be comfortably handled with the horse's health put foremost.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

Is it that black-and-white with even minor injuries where the use of medication totally replaces any form of rest? Shouldn't the two be used in conjunction?

Of course they are used in conjunction depending on the injury and severity of it. There are also alternate therapies that are used like ultrasound, ice, hosing, etc.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Of course they are used in conjunction depending on the injury and severity of it. There are also alternate therapies that are used like ultrasound, ice, hosing, etc.

And chiropractice, and sports-specific muscle therapy

Racing's got 99 problems, but lasix ain't one.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

Anyways, the type of "rest" I was talking about was an "off season" of sorts. While horse racing can certainly be successful as a year-round venture, can it do so using the same group of horses the entire time? Can any individual racehorse stay in full race training and competition continuously? Is it feasible to stratify the horse population so that one group of horses (eg low-level claimers, stakes horses) get "down time" while another is actively running?

While a break can be helpful some horses do terrible when turned out. Is it better to give a horse a break from training occasionally? Sure. But not all horses that are at the track are in fulltime training.

I dont think it is possible to have 2 sets of horses alternate down time because it is hard to determine the timing of when a horse is going to improve or go off form. While some stakes horses might get mandatory rest because of the design of their future schedule I dont know anyone who would take a regular horse out of training that was thriving and doing well.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

Why do racehorses get hurt alot? A huge factor is the number of miles they accumulate in a finite period of time.

Horses get hurt because they are big, strong animals who are fed high test diets and honed to stay on edge. They have skinny legs and big bodies and most of the time those legs arent exactly perfectly conformed. They may have club or flat feet, be back or over at the knee, may be cow or sickle hocked. When thier foot strikes the ground the concussion isnt sent exactly up the leg through the foot in a straight line but correspondnt to the physical makeup of the feet and legs. This leads to certain area's getting more stress. A horse who is back at the knee is much more likely to sustain a knee chip than one who isnt. A horse who has flat feet is much more likely to get sore feet than one who doesn't. Horses with long pasterns are much more likely to run down/have suspensory issues than one who isn't. The surfaces that we train on in the best of times are hardly uniform from day to day, and from hour to hour, depending on the weather or even the amount of traffic on the track.

That doesnt even take into consideration internal issues like stomach issues, colic, tying up, etc.