NYTHA Lasix Primer & Letter to NYS RWB

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

All of those things would be great. However, none of them are going to do much good until horses are able to race more often. Field size is the number one factor that drives betting. I'm not suggesting banning Lasix is going to do that either, but that is the number one problem that needs to be addressed. Why can't horses run often like they did in the past?

Everyone loves to use the av starts per year stat but they fail to recognize 2 things that negatively effect that number. The fact that 2 year olds are included skews the numbers simply because nowdays virtually every 2 year old that runs will drag the number down. The 2nd is nowdays trainers are judged almost exclusively by win percentage. Giving a horse a prep race is hardly acceptable any longer. Even guys like Zito who would seem to be secure in their place have adjusted the way they train high dollar babies because the owners look at a loss as a huge negative even if the experience is beneficial for the horse. A guy like Whittingham would be scorned now as too old fashioned because he almost always gave his first timers a race or two. Even at the lower level tracks trainers are selected by win percentage. You solve that and trainers will be filling the box because for the most part we make money by running but if we have a barn full of empty stalls, well you know...

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Everyone loves to use the av starts per year stat but they fail to recognize 2 things that negatively effect that number. The fact that 2 year olds are included skews the numbers simply because nowdays virtually every 2 year old that runs will drag the number down. The 2nd is nowdays trainers are judged almost exclusively by win percentage. Giving a horse a prep race is hardly acceptable any longer. Even guys like Zito who would seem to be secure in their place have adjusted the way they train high dollar babies because the owners look at a loss as a huge negative even if the experience is beneficial for the horse. A guy like Whittingham would be scorned now as too old fashioned because he almost always gave his first timers a race or two. Even at the lower level tracks trainers are selected by win percentage. You solve that and trainers will be filling the box because for the most part we make money by running but if we have a barn full of empty stalls, well you know...

If you are trying to tell me horses run as often now as they did even 20 years ago, you are just being foolish. Check out Todd Pletcher's ridiculous comments on freshening El Padrino. They are very telling about the state of the game today.

If owners, and trainers, want to worry about losing races, that is their problem. It will ruin the game. That kind of thinking is the biggest reason starts are shrinking. It has nothing to do with 2yo horses being counted. It is very short sighted of owners to think this way. Who gives a sh!t about win percentage? You can't win money in the barn. The less horses race, the more fragile they seem to become. I'm sure any athlete in any other sport in the world would be more prone to injury if they rarely compete.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

If you are trying to tell me horses run as often now as they did even 20 years ago, you are just being foolish. Check out Todd Pletcher's ridiculous comments on freshening El Padrino. They are very telling about the state of the game today.

If owners, and trainers, want to worry about losing races, that is their problem. It will ruin the game. That kind of thinking is the biggest reason starts are shrinking. It has nothing to do with 2yo horses being counted. It is very short sighted of owners to think this way. Who gives a sh!t about win percentage? You can't win money in the barn. The less horses race, the more fragile they seem to become. I'm sure any athlete in any other sport in the world would be more prone to injury if they rarely compete.

No I am telling you that there are far greater forces that affect the number of starts than lasix.

Hello? It will ruin the game? What do you think has been happening?

You obviously havent been paying close enough attention to the trends of the last 20 years. I know you have been but you are just being stubborn. Of course it is shortsighted of owners to think this way but that what they have been doing!!!!! Lukas get a lot of grief (and obviously his last 8-10 years havent been kind) but his disciples who now have a stranglehold on a huge amount of the good horses in this country dont really follow his model of success. He ran horses and ran them alot. The spacing stuff came from the sheets guys and when Frankel won everything for a few years and gave credit to this methodology everyone who could read figured this was the magic trick. Of course I'm not just talking about trainers either. There arent a handful of big owners that dont have an "advisor" whose sole purpose on life is deciding what to do with their bosses horses. Most of them wouldnt know a horse if it fell over them but they believe they can read sheets or TG's or some other methodology that tells them as soon as a horse runs a really good race you should "space" the races further or like Alpha stop running entirely. That is the exact opposite of how people felt 30 years ago. When a horse ran a big race they would want to strike while the iron was hot.

Behind a lot of this hate to lose stuff is the value of bloodstock which was a significant driver of business for the last 15 years. As soon a horse shows they can run the plot to "maximize" the horses value begins. That plan rarely includes running them where they will be challenged. Big trainers having 5 strings of horses makes it easy to transfer them to find the softest spot possible. The thing is that when owners listen to TVG or HRTV or the trade magazines, this style of management is praised and many smaller owners want to emulate that "winning" approach. Of course they dont talk about all the flameouts that are managed into oblivion (see Godolphim for multiple examples)

[Calzone Lord]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

There arent a handful of big owners that dont have an "advisor" whose sole purpose on life is deciding what to do with their bosses horses. Most of them wouldnt know a horse if it fell over them but they believe they can read sheets or TG's or some other methodology that tells them as soon as a horse runs a really good race you should "space" the races further or like Alpha stop running entirely. That is the exact opposite of how people felt 30 years ago.

In a lot of cases -- these owners would be no worse off if they had RockHardTen85 managing the stable.

It's surprising how often you see poor placement and overall management of such good and expensive horses.

I'm talking about examples more subtle than something like cluelessly running Trinniberg in the Derby -- but if some of these owners really do have people managing placement -- they wouldn't be any worse off if they just left it up to the trainer and cut out a middle man.

And the in-race tactics they use are often brutally incompetent. They make the placing look genius by comparison.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

No I am telling you that there are far greater forces that affect the number of starts than lasix.

Before I read the rest, I already said "I'm not suggesting banning Lasix is going to do that either (re: increase field size)". How did you come to the conclusion I was saying that?

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

No I am telling you that there are far greater forces that affect the number of starts than lasix.

Hello? It will ruin the game? What do you think has been happening?

You obviously havent been paying close enough attention to the trends of the last 20 years. I know you have been but you are just being stubborn. Of course it is shortsighted of owners to think this way but that what they have been doing!!!!! Lukas get a lot of grief (and obviously his last 8-10 years havent been kind) but his disciples who now have a stranglehold on a huge amount of the good horses in this country dont really follow his model of success. He ran horses and ran them alot. The spacing stuff came from the sheets guys and when Frankel won everything for a few years and gave credit to this methodology everyone who could read figured this was the magic trick. Of course I'm not just talking about trainers either. There arent a handful of big owners that dont have an "advisor" whose sole purpose on life is deciding what to do with their bosses horses. Most of them wouldnt know a horse if it fell over them but they believe they can read sheets or TG's or some other methodology that tells them as soon as a horse runs a really good race you should "space" the races further or like Alpha stop running entirely. That is the exact opposite of how people felt 30 years ago. When a horse ran a big race they would want to strike while the iron was hot.

Behind a lot of this hate to lose stuff is the value of bloodstock which was a significant driver of business for the last 15 years. As soon a horse shows they can run the plot to "maximize" the horses value begins. That plan rarely includes running them where they will be challenged. Big trainers having 5 strings of horses makes it easy to transfer them to find the softest spot possible. The thing is that when owners listen to TVG or HRTV or the trade magazines, this style of management is praised and many smaller owners want to emulate that "winning" approach. Of course they dont talk about all the flameouts that are managed into oblivion (see Godolphim for multiple examples)

As for the rest, I'm not even sure you why you bothered. I don't disagree with any of this. Of course I know it has been going on for 20 years and is dragging down the game. Nobody wants competition any more. It is sad.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

It has nothing to do with 2yo horses being counted.

Of course it does. There probably arent 50 2 year olds that race this year that will run 7 times in 2012. Go back 30 years and tell me that you could say that? While I'm sure that 2 year olds have traditionally run fewer races than average 6 races a year versus 9 is a lot less difference than 1.5 versus 6.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Of course it does. There probably arent 50 2 year olds that race this year that will run 7 times in 2012. Go back 30 years and tell me that you could say that? While I'm sure that 2 year olds have traditionally run fewer races than average 6 races a year versus 9 is a lot less difference than 1.5 versus 6.

ALL horses run less, a lot less. Trying to blame it on two year olds starting less just seems a bit ridiculous to me. Seriously, you aren't trying to say 2yo start less, but all other horses run about the same are you? Really? Please tell me I'm misunderstanding something here.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Everyone loves to use the av starts per year stat but they fail to recognize 2 things that negatively effect that number. The fact that 2 year olds are included skews the numbers simply because nowdays virtually every 2 year old that runs will drag the number down. The 2nd is nowdays trainers are judged almost exclusively by win percentage. Giving a horse a prep race is hardly acceptable any longer. Even guys like Zito who would seem to be secure in their place have adjusted the way they train high dollar babies because the owners look at a loss as a huge negative even if the experience is beneficial for the horse. A guy like Whittingham would be scorned now as too old fashioned because he almost always gave his first timers a race or two. Even at the lower level tracks trainers are selected by win percentage. You solve that and trainers will be filling the box because for the most part we make money by running but if we have a barn full of empty stalls, well you know...

Some people think that lasix is one of the reasons why horses run less now than they did 30 years ago. I don't know whether this is true or not. I think it is certainly a reasonable hypothesis. I know that you do not think it is true.

My question to you is whether you think the opposite is true. Do you believe that the advent of lasix has actually increased the number of starts per horse, per year (when the other factors that have decreased starts are taken out of the equation)? If everything Riot says about lasix is true, lasix should actually increase the number of starts per year, per horse. Yet I think that all the evidence points to the opposite. Sure there may be other reasons why starts per year have gone down. But I still think the best case scenario is that lasix has had no effect on number of starts per horse, per year. If it has no effect, then I think all the supposed positive benefits are overstated. We know that when a horse bleeds in a race, that horse will need extra time off before his next race. If lasix is doing such a great job of preventing bleeding, then you would expect that lasix would lead to more starts per year, per horse. There is no evidence that this has happened. If anything, the evidence points to the opposite.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Some people think that lasix is one of the reasons why horses run less now than they did 30 years ago. I don't know whether this is true or not. I think it is certainly a reasonable hypothesis. I know that you do not think it is true.

My question to you is whether you think the opposite is true. Do you believe that the advent of lasix has actually increased the number of starts per horse, per year (when the other factors that have decreased starts are taken out of the equation)? If everything Riot says about lasix is true, lasix should actually increase the number of starts per year, per horse. Yet I think that all the evidence points to the opposite. Sure there may be other reasons why starts per year have gone down. But I still think the best case scenario is that lasix has had no effect on number of starts per horse, per year. If it has no effect, then I think all the supposed positive benefits are overstated. We know that when a horse bleeds in a race, that horse will need extra time off before his next race. If lasix is doing such a great job of preventing bleeding, then you would expect that lasix would lead to more starts per year, per horse. There is no evidence that this has happened. If anything, the evidence points to the opposite.

Some people think Obama is one of our best presidents too. Most people are stupid. I have no idea why anyone would think this is a reasonable hypothesis because there is ZERO evidence tying lasix to fewer starts except a trend which was already going strong long befre lasix was being used.

The number of starts per year has been decreasing since 1960.

You and many others use "stats" to try to convince yourself that you are right but that ignores that there is no logical reason that lasix would lead to less starts and also ignores every other factor that has an effect. Ask yourself why horses started more in 1960 than they did in 1950. Ask youself why they started less in 1970 than 1960. Lasix has nothing to do with either question obviously.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Some people think Obama is one of our best presidents too. Most people are stupid. I have no idea why anyone would think this is a reasonable hypothesis because there is ZERO evidence tying lasix to fewer starts except a trend which was already going strong long befre lasix was being used.

The number of starts per year has been decreasing since 1960.

You and many others use "stats" to try to convince yourself that you are right but that ignores that there is no logical reason that lasix would lead to less starts and also ignores every other factor that has an effect. Ask yourself why horses started more in 1960 than they did in 1950. Ask youself why they started less in 1970 than 1960. Lasix has nothing to do with either question obviously.

oh, come now cannon. it's obviously connected. and i'm surprised no one has mentioned the fact we haven't had a t.c. winner since the 70's-i have no doubt that's also the fault of lasix. it's obvious, look at the stats. lasix started in the 70's, and that was when we had our last 3. it's far-reaching at that. look at england; has there been a triple winner in england since nijunsky II?
matter of fact, we started having energy issues in the 70's-i bet there's a tie-in with that as well. it's so obvious, just look at the stats.

besides, if you remove lasix, obviously all issues in racing will completely disappear. new fans will line up at gates nationwide, take out will be reduced, there will be no more cheating at all. horses will all do their very best without pernicious race-day meds that are ruining the sport (somehow), the number of starts will double...nay, triple. all of racings ills fixed in one fell swoop!! then we can lead all the others worldwide who allow training and race day use to the promised land.


lol
or not.