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

[pointman]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

This is getting old, as you are clearly biased and admitted as much. All horses don't bleed, so the aspirin thing is silly. Aspirin also wouldn't make humans that compete without a sore knee do it better.

The studies I saw had different conclusions. I saw some that said a small difference, others that said big difference. It is tough to follow your biased snippets.

I haven't learned much about Lasix in this thread that I didn't already know, but I have learned those supporting its use are as stubborn as those against it, and both sides are wrong on some of the issues. TTFN.

Assuming for a moment that you are correct that there is some enhancement to horses performances with Lasix despite the lack of medical evidence to support that contention, there is still a disconnect to the banning of the drug. Almost all players understand that Lasix can move a horse up (regardless of whether it is a performance enhancer or the horse has now been able to perform to its ability due to the medical benefits of the drug).

As you pointed out earlier in the thread, the move up of horses is about as quantifiable as any other handicapping angle. Since all horses are allowed to use Lasix, clearly the playing field is leveled and the handicapper is provided with known information to work with.

I don't believe for a second that any relevant segment of the general public refuses to bet on horse races due to a perception that Lasix is part of the stigma that the game cannot be trusted because horses are surreptiously drugged to win therefore rigging the results of the contest.

What I would love to hear from the proponents of banning Lasix is exactly what good for the game they believe they are accomplishing by banning it. Saying that the breed has been watered down and trying to link it to the use of Lasix is nothing more than pure speculation without any scientific evidence to back it up and is just as likely to be a coincidence with regard to timing. Forcing horses to race with blood in their lungs, shortening their careers, creating disincentives to ownership, etc. is not only cruel, but bad for the game in the short and long run.

At the end of the day, knowing that it without question has medical benefits to race horses, what is the harm in allowing horses to race on it under the current rules?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by pointman

At the end of the day, knowing that it without question has medical benefits to race horses, what is the harm in allowing horses to race on it under the current rules?

Let's not even talk about public perception because the public relations implications are debatable. Let's just talk about the drug itself. It sounds like you are saying that lasix has these great medical benefits and there is nothing bad about taking lasix. I would totally disagree with that. There are all kinds of negative side effects and we may not even know the long term negative consequences of using the drug. That one article said that there is concern that long-term lasix use reduces calcium and may lead to brittle bones.

All drugs have negative effects. When deciding whether to use a drug (on either an animal or a human), you have to weigh the benefits and the risks. With lasix, maybe the benefits outweigh the risks. That would be a legitimate argument. If you said that, I wouldn't argue with you. But for you to say that there are only benefits and no risks is ridiculous. I don't think there is a single drug out there (for humans or animals) that has no risks.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Let's not even talk about public perception because the public relations implications are debatable. Let's just talk about the drug itself. It sounds like you are saying that lasix has these great medical benefits and there is nothing bad about taking lasix. I would totally disagree with that. There are all kinds of negative side effects and we may not even know the long term negative consequences of using the drug. That one article said that there is concern that long-term lasix use reduces calcium and may lead to brittle bones.

All drugs have negative effects. When deciding whether to use a drug (on either an animal or a human), you have to weigh the benefits and the risks. With lasix, maybe the benefits outweigh the risks. That would be a legitimate argument. If you said that, I wouldn't argue with you. But for you to say that there are only benefits and no risks is ridiculous. I don't think there is a single drug out there (for humans or animals) that has no risks.

Where did I say there are no negatives? Of course it is a benefit vs. negatives analysis. I have just yet to here a cogent argument based on factual or scientific evidence instead of speculation that comes close to making the negatives of its current use outweigh the positives.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by pointman

Where did I say there are no negatives? Of course it is a benefit vs. negatives analysis. I have just yet to here a cogent argument based on factual or scientific evidence instead of speculation that comes close to making the negatives of its current use outweigh the positives.

Here was your quote, "At the end of the day, knowing that it without question has medical benefits to race horses, what is the harm in allowing horses to race on it under the current rules?"

That question sounded to me like you didn't think there was anything bad about the drug. Anyway, I will let this guy answer your question:

http://thoroedge.wordpress.com/2011/...lous-nonsense/

By the way, with regard to the PR debate I think it would be positive PR if they banned lasix. Let's just say that for our sport to be really successful that we need public perception of the sport to improve by 80%. I'm making that number up just for argument's sake. You could use any number. But if we pretend that we need public perception to improve by 80%, do I think that the elimination of lasix would improve public perception by 80%? Of course not. But I think it could improve it by maybe 5-10%. I think it would certainly help a little bit. I think the banning of steroids helped a little bit. I don't think it was a dramatic improvement but I think it helped a little bit.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Here was your quote, "At the end of the day, knowing that it without question has medical benefits to race horses, what is the harm in allowing horses to race on it under the current rules?"

That question sounded to me like you didn't think there was anything bad about the drug. Anyway, I will let this guy answer your question:

http://thoroedge.wordpress.com/2011/...lous-nonsense/

By the way, with regard to the PR debate I think it would be positive PR if they banned lasix. Let's just say that for our sport to be really successful that we need public perception of the sport to improve by 80%. I'm making that number up just for argument's sake. You could use any number. But if we pretend that we need public perception to improve by 80%, do I think that the elimination of lasix would improve public perception by 80%? Of course not. But I think it could improve it by maybe 5-10%. I think it would certainly help a little bit. I think the banning of steroids helped a little bit. I don't think it was a dramatic improvement but I think it helped a little bit.

Seriously? That is the guy you are going to use as your source?

After steroids were banned handle dropped for 2 straight years. Tracks continued to cut race days, the same trainers won and the same ones lost. It was such a rousing success that the NY Times stated that virtually no progress has been made in the area of equine drugs!

How about using your numbers that there was a .5% improvement? Then is it worth the collateral costs? The horses immediately retired? The horses with careers cut short? The added expense of trying to use other means which surely will cost more than $25? The potential of shorter fields? The 47% trainers continuing to win 47% or higher? The public not seeing ANY changes just as they didnt when steroids were banned? You see that is the point that you and others miss. This isnt like baseball where they cracked down on roids and HR totals dropped dramatically. People wont see anything different so they will continue to believe whatever they want to believe. And after viewing this thread, others elsewhere and listening to the prattle it is readily apparent that some people will believe anything for awhile.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Seriously? That is the guy you are going to use as your source?

After steroids were banned handle dropped for 2 straight years. Tracks continued to cut race days, the same trainers won and the same ones lost. It was such a rousing success that the NY Times stated that virtually no progress has been made in the area of equine drugs!

How about using your numbers that there was a .5% improvement? Then is it worth the collateral costs? The horses immediately retired? The horses with careers cut short? The added expense of trying to use other means which surely will cost more than $25? The potential of shorter fields? The 47% trainers continuing to win 47% or higher?

Is that guy not credible? I don't know who he is. I just found the article and the guy sounded like he knows what he's talking about. We know what the drug does to an animal (and a person). What this guy is saying has to have at least a small amount of merit to it, even if it is overstated and/or exaggerated.

I'm still not convinced that the advent of lasix (and other drugs) over the last 25 years, is not one of the reasons why horses are more fragile today. The reason you gave about more horses being bred might be a big part of it too. There may be a number of reasons but I am not convinced that the advent of lasix is not one of them.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Is that guy not credible? I don't know who he is. I just found the article and the guy sounded like he knows what he's talking about. We know what the drug does to an animal (and a person). What this guy is saying has to have at least a small amount of merit to it, even if it is overstated and/or exaggerated.

I'm still not convinced that the advent of lasix (and other drugs) over the last 25 years, is not one of the reasons why horses are more fragile today. The reason you gave about more horses being bred might be a big part of it too. There may be a number of reasons but I am not convinced that the advent of lasix is not one of them.

Uh no he isnt.

Do people really think that other drugs werent used before the last 25 years? There is a good possibility a 70's TC winner wasnt clean. There was a trainer in NY that moved up horses 15 lengths in 4 days. The 1967 winner of the Derby was DQ'ed for a bute positive.

No other species gets less healthy with modern medicine. Why would thoroughbreds? Harness horses have improved by leaps and bounds and believe me they are FAR more aggressive with drugs, legal or otherwise.

In the last 20 years we have had people tell us toe grabs were no good, so we got rid of them. We have had people tell us steroids were no good, so we got rid of them. The told us we needed synthetic tracks so some tracks got rid of them. They have cut the allowable level of bute by more than 50%. They are testing to picograms levels. They have banned milkshakes.

Has a single one of these moves helped appreciably?

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Here was your quote, "At the end of the day, knowing that it without question has medical benefits to race horses, what is the harm in allowing horses to race on it under the current rules?"

That question sounded to me like you didn't think there was anything bad about the drug. Anyway, I will let this guy answer your question:

http://thoroedge.wordpress.com/2011/...lous-nonsense/

By the way, with regard to the PR debate I think it would be positive PR if they banned lasix. Let's just say that for our sport to be really successful that we need public perception of the sport to improve by 80%. I'm making that number up just for argument's sake. You could use any number. But if we pretend that we need public perception to improve by 80%, do I think that the elimination of lasix would improve public perception by 80%? Of course not. But I think it could improve it by maybe 5-10%. I think it would certainly help a little bit. I think the banning of steroids helped a little bit. I don't think it was a dramatic improvement but I think it helped a little bit.

So this the solution? I would love to credit the author if I could find his or her name. Concerned about calcium stunting growth and maintainence then why not give the horse calcium supplements? Or is that performance enhancing too? And that is some source they have to to back up that argument.

If Austrailian horses are built much sturdier than U.S. horses, then why aren't these faster beasts loading the starting gate for the Derby or the Met Mile?

If you are an owner than why don't you answer Crist? How about backing up your arguments with actions, start all your horses without Lasix, prove us doubters wrong.

Perception? What do you think the public perception is going to be when horses are choking on their blood and bleeding on the racetrack?

If you had read my earlier posts up to this you would have seen that I weighed a negative against a positive regarding the argument that Lasix enhances performance. I have not argued that using it is all good, I have just argued that ban is misguided and supported by misguided and speculative arguments without scientific evidence.

I thought that you were a pretty smart guy. I am afraid I may be mistaken.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by pointman

So this the solution? I would love to credit the author if I could find his or her name? Concerned about calcium stunting growth and maintainence then why not give the horse calcium supplements? Or is that performance enhancing too? And that is some source they have to to back up that argument.

If Austrailian horses are built much sturdier than U.S. horses, then why aren't these faster beasts loading the starting gate for the Derby or the Met Mile?

If you are an owner than why don't you answer Crist? How about backing up your arguments with actions, start all your horses without Lasix, prove us doubters wrong.

Perception? What do you think the public perception is going to be when horses are choking on their blood and bleeding on the racetrack?

If you had read my earlier posts up to this you would have seen that I weighed a negative against a positive regarding the argument that Lasix enhances performance. I have argued that using it is all good, I have just argued that ban is misguided and supported by misguided and speculative arguments without scientific evidence.

I thought that you were a pretty smart guy. I am afraid I may be mistaken.

With regard to your comment about Australian horses in the Derby, "sturdy" and "fast" are two totally different things. Our horses in the US are definitely fast. Nobody is denying that. Our horses are "fast" but they are also very fragile.

I would rather that my trainers did not use lasix. But as I said in my prior post, most trainers consider lasix to be part of their program. Most of them don't like to be told what to do. I put my foot down on certain things and others I don't. If the horse has never run before, I try to at least get the trainer to run the horse without lasix for at least their first lifetime race or two.

I agree with you that it will be bad PR when a horse comes back bleeding through the nose. We see that occasionally right now even with horses on lasix. If they ban lasix, I'm sure the incidence of this will increase somewhat.

I admit that I haven't read all your posts in this thread.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I would rather that my trainers did not use lasix.

Then buy a box of FLAIR nasal strips, and drop it off at the barn, and see if your trainer will still train for you using those. I'm serious - they have proven efficacy for EIPH. You can get them for $10-15 a strip (single use).

By the way: if we eliminate lasix, I imagine that many will go back to what they used to use before lasix - removing water from the horse for a day or two. That type of severe forced dehydration (which is unlike the diuresis induced by lasix for multiple reasons) is NOT a scenario I'd like to see.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pointman

So this the solution? I would love to credit the author if I could find his or her name. Concerned about calcium stunting growth and maintainence then why not give the horse calcium supplements? Or is that performance enhancing too? And that is some source they have to to back up that argument.

If Austrailian horses are built much sturdier than U.S. horses, then why aren't these faster beasts loading the starting gate for the Derby or the Met Mile?

If you are an owner than why don't you answer Crist? How about backing up your arguments with actions, start all your horses without Lasix, prove us doubters wrong.

Perception? What do you think the public perception is going to be when horses are choking on their blood and bleeding on the racetrack?

If you had read my earlier posts up to this you would have seen that I weighed a negative against a positive regarding the argument that Lasix enhances performance. I have not argued that using it is all good, I have just argued that ban is misguided and supported by misguided and speculative arguments without scientific evidence.

I thought that you were a pretty smart guy. I am afraid I may be mistaken.

Racehorses injest a lot of calcium.
http://horse.purinamills.com/product...2-0032711.aspx
Many also supplement along with the feed
http://www.mannapro.com/products/hor...l-information/

ITTP is one of the biggest rumored "hops" in racing. Made in France.

Here is a story which refers to "blue magic" which a pretty famous US trainer was rumored to have used in his rise to prominence.
http://www.thecourier.com.au/news/lo...nz/650748.aspx

I know they are a little off tangent but the other idea that racing is so clean in foreign jurisdictions because they dont use lasix on raceday is false.

This may be a scam but from Aussie backpage.com an ad for ITTP for $950 US dollars
http://brisbane.backpage.com/MiscFor...e-race/2304216

UK
http://www.tradett.com/products/u315...orse-race.html

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Let's not even talk about public perception because the public relations implications are debatable. Let's just talk about the drug itself. It sounds like you are saying that lasix has these great medical benefits and there is nothing bad about taking lasix. I would totally disagree with that. There are all kinds of negative side effects and we may not even know the long term negative consequences of using the drug. That one article said that there is concern that long-term lasix use reduces calcium and may lead to brittle bones.

All drugs have negative effects. When deciding whether to use a drug (on either an animal or a human), you have to weigh the benefits and the risks. With lasix, maybe the benefits outweigh the risks. That would be a legitimate argument. If you said that, I wouldn't argue with you. But for you to say that there are only benefits and no risks is ridiculous. I don't think there is a single drug out there (for humans or animals) that has no risks.

The long term consequences? The average horse may get 6 shots a year. Being that people keep confusing the issue by using human analogies they forget that horses are very infrequently treated with lasix especially compared to humans who take it every day for long periods.

Does it cause minor dehydration? Doesn't standing in a stall when it is 95 degrees do that as well? I have never heard of dehydration as being listed as a major issue for racehorses.

Let me be on record as saying that I dont believe that lasix is some magical drug that does all these things good or bad. For the most part it just makes them pee. If there was something different that could be used to help prevent bleeding, lessen incidents and hold confirmed bleeders I would kick lasix to the curb in a minute. But that doesnt appear to be on the horizon so IMO stopping its raceday usage because a few bluebloods (and Barry) feel better about themselves using a bogus PR claim (Rupert you cant seriously think that a lasix ban is going to have any effect when a STEROID ban didnt do you?) and a threat of the Feds coming is completely counter productive.

And for those who dont own horses and think they have no dog in the fight because they are just bettors if the Feds do come guess whose money they are going to tap into to fund the bureaucracy?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Let's not even talk about public perception because the public relations implications are debatable.

http://www.drf.com/news/crist-lasix-...hat-you-preach

If I thought that banning lasix would help horseracing I would be content to try to figure out ways to deal with EIPH without it. But I dont think that those who are in favor of banning it are: a. being truthful about their true intentions, b. have little understanding of what the betting public wants, c. understand the ramifications and potential negative reactions that will come with the elimination of it. The PR bounce has zero chance of helping, the breeding factors are laughable and when you realize that all these industry leaders are the same ones wo have gotten us to this point of near irrelevancy perhaps like PG1985 you will figure out that simply going the other way will increase your chance of success greatly.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

http://www.drf.com/news/crist-lasix-...hat-you-preach

If I thought that banning lasix would help horseracing I would be content to try to figure out ways to deal with EIPH without it. But I dont think that those who are in favor of banning it are: a. being truthful about their true intentions, b. have little understanding of what the betting public wants, c. understand the ramifications and potential negative reactions that will come with the elimination of it. The PR bounce has zero chance of helping, the breeding factors are laughable and when you realize that all these industry leaders are the same ones wo have gotten us to this point of near irrelevancy perhaps like PG1985 you will figure out that simply going the other way will increase your chance of success greatly.

I'm not sure which part of the article you want me to respond to. With regard to his main message, I would simply say that the reason most of these guys continue to use the drug is because they think they would be at a disadvantage if they didn't, and not so much because their horses would bleed, but because they think it makes most horses run better, even non-bleeders.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I'm not sure which part of the article you want me to respond to. With regard to his main message, I would simply say that the reason most of these guys continue to use the drug is because they think they would be at a disadvantage if they didn't, and not so much because their horses would bleed, but because they think it makes most horses run better, even non-bleeders.

The PR part, hello? If every trainer felt this way than why are 98% of trainers in favor of keeping it including fairhaired boys who surely would have an advantage without it like Motion, Clement and Mott?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The PR part, hello? If every trainer felt this way than why are 98% of trainers in favor of keeping it including fairhaired boys who surely would have an advantage without it like Motion, Clement and Mott?

All of these trainers have a "program". Lasix is part of that program. These guys don't want to change any part of their program. Why would they? Their programs work. They are having a lot of success. What would they want to change anything?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

All of these trainers have a "program". Lasix is part of that program. These guys don't want to change any part of their program. Why would they? Their programs work. They are having a lot of success. What would they want to change anything?

Do you really think that trainers like this wouldnt have a bigger advantage without lasix? Do you even give things a minute of thought? Do you honestly believe the trainers in question couldnt develop a training "program" that didnt give a horse a shot of lasix on the day they run considering the resources they have access to? Really?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Let's not even talk about public perception because the public relations implications are debatable. Let's just talk about the drug itself. It sounds like you are saying that lasix has these great medical benefits and there is nothing bad about taking lasix. I would totally disagree with that. There are all kinds of negative side effects and we may not even know the long term negative consequences of using the drug.

Wrong. We know virtually everything about lasix, and have for decades. It's a very simple, easy-to-understand drug with a predictable and well-defined mechanism of action, and side effects which are dose-dependent and well-documented and very predictable.

That one article said that there is concern that long-term lasix use reduces calcium and may lead to brittle bones.

Not even remotely possible at the doses horses get racing.

All drugs have negative effects. When deciding whether to use a drug (on either an animal or a human), you have to weigh the benefits and the risks. With lasix, maybe the benefits outweigh the risks.

Yet veterinarians are encouraging the American racing industry to eliminate all drugs from race day - except lasix. Because the benefit is overwhelming.