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

[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?