Quote:
Originally Posted by Danzig
ok, from everything i've read here and the other thread, as well as in other discussions, let me see if i have this right:
pro's of removing lasix on race day:
no longer have horses on drugs on race day.
are there any others?
facts on lasix:
not harmful
not proven to enhance performance (note, i said proven-opnion/belief isn't proof)
prevents bleeding and any accompanying lung damage
not a masking agent. (as the study i linked said, with plasma testing, better testing(for what they know what to test for!), lasix can't be considered as a masking agent
used either in training and/or race day in practically every racing jurisdiction on the planet
cons of removing lasix on race day:
bleeders with a history have lost their bleeding prevention, prone to worsening episodes as well as more and more damage.
no way of knowing what horse will have a bleeding episode, or when, or how severe. that in turn means no prevention of lung damage, which can be permanent
an alternative to lasix is removal of water and food for 24-48 hours before racing. (that's some alternative)
or you can force people who currently have something they can use to prevent bleeding to retire a horse instead. wow. can you imagine? dip deep in your pockets, buy a horse. pay for all the training and what comes with it...the horse runs, bleeds, and you have no way to recoup that money. that sounds like a great plan.
and as for the comment about 'since the 70's' this or that has changed...
isn't that about the same time that commercial breeding took off?
|
You have the issues well thought out
You did forget one con, however: the increase in the American racing public starting to see horses bleeding out their nose and in respiratory distress as they come back to be unsaddled.
05-12-2012, 12:54 PM
Threaded Mode