NYTHA Lasix Primer & Letter to NYS RWB

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

You can't get an edge, but you can certainly not put yourself at a disadvantage. Not using Lasix is a HUGE disadvantage, even when horses don't bleed. You would look as silly debating that as I would if I said Lasix doesn't help with bleeding. Both are indisputable, if you take the blinkers off.

So are you making the case that those w/o lasix are actually the problem? I'm just pointing out the ludicrous rantings of cleanracing.org.

If everyone has the same opportunity to use lasix in a highly regulated (except seemingly Maryland) fashion, therefore giving no one a bulit in advantage (because there is a choice) then what is the problem especially considering that the horses who do bleed or are predisposed to bleed (often unknowingly until it happens) benefit physically from it?

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

So are you making the case that those w/o lasix are actually the problem? I'm just pointing out the ludicrous rantings of cleanracing.org.

If everyone has the same opportunity to use lasix in a highly regulated (except seemingly Maryland) fashion, therefore giving no one a bulit in advantage (because there is a choice) then what is the problem especially considering that the horses who do bleed or are predisposed to bleed (often unknowingly until it happens) benefit physically from it?

Now we've come full circle. The only problem I have is that all horses, whether they need it or not, are virtually forced to race on a drug. I realize that horse racing operates in its own little world, but where else in the world would this be considered acceptable, or even tolerated?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Now we've come full circle. The only problem I have is that all horses, whether they need it or not, are virtually forced to race on a drug. I realize that horse racing operates in its own little world, but where else in the world would this be considered acceptable, or even tolerated?

I think that "forced to run with a drug" is a little over the top. I mean they are "forced" to do just about everything that they do. Lasix is about as innocuous a drug as you will find. The thing is that its preventative properties make it useful for all horses therefore making the statement "whether they need it or not" a bit misleading.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I think that "forced to run with a drug" is a little over the top. I mean they are "forced" to do just about everything that they do. Lasix is about as innocuous a drug as you will find. The thing is that its preventative properties make it useful for all horses therefore making the statement "whether they need it or not" a bit misleading.

I don't doubt that you do think that. However, try passing that one off on people outside the game. Racing is legal now, but it doesn't have to always be that way. Our sport is headed for some heavy scrutiny and I really think the fact that nearly every horse in the US gets Lasix is not something that will go over well, no matter how innocuous it may be.

[Danzig]

try passing it off on people outside the game...what, they're suddenly going to care?
if by some strange chance someone outside the game asks me why horses are given lasix, i'll explain that horses can hemorrage due to fluid in the lungs while exerting themselves, and lasix prevents that.
or do you think these suddenly interested people aren't going to understand that? or as the article i posted the other day said would you rather withold hay and water for 24-48 hours and explain why that's ok?

as for waiting until a bleeding episode-as has been written and read by me and others, a significant bleeding episode can cause permanent damage. do you feel it's better to wait til a horse bleeds, and then just cross your fingers it's not significant enough to cause damage? or just go ahead and do what you know full well will prevent an episode and all that accompanies it?

i know if i had significant money invested, i'd rather prevent than hear an apology. you really think it's better to have preventable bleeding episodes than use lasix? you'd rather the choice be taken away? after all, it's currently up to each trainer or owner to decide. and the owner is the one ponying up all the money, whether to give beforehand, or possibly have wasted money by not paying for lasix and having a possibly lung damaged horse.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Danzig

try passing it off on people outside the game...what, they're suddenly going to care?
if by some strange chance someone outside the game asks me why horses are given lasix, i'll explain that horses can hemorrage due to fluid in the lungs while exerting themselves, and lasix prevents that.
or do you think these suddenly interested people aren't going to understand that? or as the article i posted the other day said would you rather withold hay and water for 24-48 hours and explain why that's ok?

and can you please answer if there is a way to tell if/when a horse can bleed? i would like to know. obviously if you can know when it would happen, you could then know who to give it to.
or are you ignoring the question because the answer is you can't ever tell until it happens?

Yes, they will care, when breakdowns are rampant and drug use is widespread. Oh, they will care, at least long enough to ruin the game. You can count on that.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Yes, they will care, when breakdowns are rampant and drug use is widespread. Oh, they will care, at least long enough to ruin the game. You can count on that.

er, according to some, breakdowns are already rampant, and drug use is widespread.
i bet many of the over 100k on hand may 5 in churchill knew nothing about o'neills several milkshaking violations, or other issues with racing officials. they just cared about having a good time.
i've got race photos in my office. i'll let you know the first time someone asks me about drugs. had them up for years, hasn't happened yet.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Yes, they will care, when breakdowns are rampant and drug use is widespread. Oh, they will care, at least long enough to ruin the game. You can count on that.

Lasix use has zero to do with breakdowns and breakdowns are hardly rampant. As I said before the way lasix is protrayed is far worse than any supposed negative effects.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I don't doubt that you do think that. However, try passing that one off on people outside the game. Racing is legal now, but it doesn't have to always be that way. Our sport is headed for some heavy scrutiny and I really think the fact that nearly every horse in the US gets Lasix is not something that will go over well, no matter how innocuous it may be.

I dont live in a vaccum, I do speak to many people outside of the game. I have never had anyone raise any questions about lasix, ever. I have spoke to a number of people in the last year and posed the lasix question to them. Not a single person disagreed that if it is beneficial with few if any serious side effects it should be banned. The way it is being portrayed is far more dangerous to the game than its actual use.

I have been preaching for a long time that there are a whole lot of issues on the regulatory end that need addressing. I have been stumping for more effective deterrants to cheating both on Steves radio show, privately to officials and on this board. My greatest fear isnt that the game will be banned because that is unlikely but that the "changes" that these dolts at the TOBA and JC want to make wont have any effect except make the game more expensive for owners and players, 2 groups of which are becoming a rarer breed.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I dont live in a vaccum, I do speak to many people outside of the game. I have never had anyone raise any questions about lasix, ever. I have spoke to a number of people in the last year and posed the lasix question to them. Not a single person disagreed that if it is beneficial with few if any serious side effects it should be banned. The way it is being portrayed is far more dangerous to the game than its actual use.

I have been preaching for a long time that there are a whole lot of issues on the regulatory end that need addressing. I have been stumping for more effective deterrants to cheating both on Steves radio show, privately to officials and on this board. My greatest fear isnt that the game will be banned because that is unlikely but that the "changes" that these dolts at the TOBA and JC want to make wont have any effect except make the game more expensive for owners and players, 2 groups of which are becoming a rarer breed.