Proposed weight breaks for horses not using lasix

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Riot

If you read the PDF proposal, the first thing that becomes clear is the overuse of words such as "perceived" advantage of lasix, etc.

Yes, because there isn't any factual scientific support. If there was, they'd quote it.

Secondly, this phrase stands out as the first sentence in their summary:



"High Risk".

When you know the high risks of eliminating lasix, against the advice of the veterinary medical community, and you acknowledge those risks as the first sentence in your summary conclusion - why are you persisting in trying to do so?

Again: racing has many problems with illegal medications. They need to be addressed. Furosemide, protecting athletic horses from lung damage, most certainly isn't one of them.

My take is that you are giving too much consideration to the word potential, treating it as if the high risks that at stake are GOING to happen and not potentially MAY happen. I feel like every time they send these horses out to race, they are potentially at high risk for a lot of things, not limited to bleeding but also including death. A bad step can be taken at any time. Should we not run them at all because of the potential for life ending injury? I play basketball and used to play at a fairly high level. I have seen numerous injuries to knees and ankles, some to the extent that they ended careers. Should all players wear knee and ankle braces to protect against the potential of that happening? Should I wear eye goggles to protect against the potential for getting a finger in the eye? I don't know if I'm in the majority or the minority on this but I just don't see the need to automatically assume that the horse needs something or should have it to protect against something that they may not even suffer from.