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

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

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.

What evidence do you have that it will increase field size? When you prune a shrub properly at least you know it is going to grow back. When you cut too much off, part of the shrub dies. When you shed owners like this sport is doing, adding more economic hardship and given the beating racing takes and will continue to in the mainstream-(you dont think PETA is going to forget all the ammo you people are giving them do you?) what makes you believe that owners will come running back? Especially with a shaky economy, potential tax increases and a real chance at losing much of the gains in purse money made via the racinos? This sport should be circling the wagons, beating back anyone saying anything negative and working together to solve issues in-house in order to maintain the business we have as well as make things better instead of grandstanding to Congress and the NY Times, villifying trainers and vets and making outlandish claims that have no basis in fact making us all look bad.

One of the biggest reasons why the average starts per year stat has continued to decrease is the modern theory of starting 2 year olds later in the year and hardly racing at 2. It is pretty hard for older horses to counter a horse making 1 or 2 starts and having them count the same as a horse that perhaps ran all year. But why waste time on facts?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

One of the biggest reasons why the average starts per year stat has continued to decrease is the modern theory of starting 2 year olds later in the year and hardly racing at 2. It is pretty hard for older horses to counter a horse making 1 or 2 starts and having them count the same as a horse that perhaps ran all year. But why waste time on facts?

We know that horses started at 2 and raced young have stronger bones, longer careers, and less likelihood of musculoskeletal injury over their lifetimes.

But PETA won't tell you that.

[Riot]

The argument has gone away from the strongest argument in favor of using lasix, and why the veterinary world strongly supports it's continued use, and why it's used for training works in the countries that ban it on race day: it helps protect the race horse from lung damage. It is good for their health, with little downside.

Can we race without it? Sure. But horses won't be able to run as fast, as far, or as frequently. Not due to performance-enhancement, but due to increased level of side effects from chronic lung damage.

Before we used lasix, horsemen used to not allow horses to drink water for 1-2 days before racing, in order to dehydrate them. Far better one lasix injection is used to protect the lungs short-term during the work or race.