Repole, citing juvenile Lasix ban, won't send horses to Breeders' Cup

Scav · #1 10-17-2012, 04:03 PM

Good for Repole, absolutely great.

I personally won't be betting any of the Juvy races because of the ban. Its ridiculous to put gamblers in a situation where we now have to guess which horses are gonna hemorage and which ones won't. Its hard enough already.

Dahoss · #2 10-17-2012, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scav

I personally won't be betting any of the Juvy races because of the ban. Its ridiculous to put gamblers in a situation where we now have to guess which horses are gonna hemorage and which ones won't. Its hard enough already.

I agree, but aren't we sort of doing that anyway?

pweizer · #3 10-17-2012, 04:14 PM

I also applaud the decision. This is the only way the policy will ever change. What is going to happen next year when it is all races, not just two year olds?

Paul

alysheba4 · #4 10-17-2012, 05:27 PM

who was the Einstein that thought of this? too bad horse racing is run by Fcking bafoons.

Merlinsky · #5 10-18-2012, 01:00 PM

This couldn't have anything to do with the record of east coast horses in the last 2 Santa Anita Breeders' Cup races when it came to placing, could it?

I'm sure it's totally about lasix.

cmorioles · #6 10-18-2012, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Merlinsky

This couldn't have anything to do with the record of east coast horses in the last 2 Santa Anita Breeders' Cup races when it came to placing, could it?

I'm sure it's totally about lasix.

I guess the surface change doesn't matter?

pweizer · #7 10-18-2012, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Merlinsky

This couldn't have anything to do with the record of east coast horses in the last 2 Santa Anita Breeders' Cup races when it came to placing, could it?

I'm sure it's totally about lasix.

In the article, he does say this is the reason for not running Stay Thirsty. However, the overall lasix point is still a good one.

Paul

PatCummings · #8 10-18-2012, 02:14 PM

Policy debate aside, it's not like the BC announced last week no Lasix for the Juvy races in 2012. Everyone knew this all year, except maybe Alysheba4, so the comments out now seem just like fuel to some fading fire.

If he had the expected favorite, and then didn't go - sure, a much bigger deal. I'm not fretting over the lack of Notacatbutallama.

Calzone Lord · #9 10-18-2012, 02:25 PM

Not even including the nose sticker, don't they have more expensive alternatives to lasix?

Is it really the only thing that stops bleeding?

Cannon Shell · #10 10-18-2012, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

Not even including the nose sticker, don't they have more expensive alternatives to lasix?

Is it really the only thing that stops bleeding?

Not legal things. Or I should say not legal to give during a time period that would be effective things.

Calzone Lord · #11 10-18-2012, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Not legal things. Or I should say not legal to give during a time period that would be effective things.

In that case, it's a bad idea to run BC races without it. Hopefully the nose bands will work.

cmorioles · #12 10-18-2012, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Not legal things. Or I should say not legal to give during a time period that would be effective things.

Then why don't Euro horses start spewing blood all over without it. Lets be real here, there are other alternatives that will keep the majority of horses from bleeding. Further, you said yourself, top class 2yos are a lot less likely to bleed than old claimers. I already mentioned the report in Bloodhorse where hardly any horses that ran without it at Saratoga showed the slightest trace of EIPH.

Indian Charlie · #13 10-18-2012, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

Not even including the nose sticker, don't they have more expensive alternatives to lasix?

Is it really the only thing that stops bleeding?

Of course it isn't.

alysheba4 · #14 10-18-2012, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatCummings

Policy debate aside, it's not like the BC announced last week no Lasix for the Juvy races in 2012. Everyone knew this all year, except maybe Alysheba4, so the comments out now seem just like fuel to some fading fire.

If he had the expected favorite, and then didn't go - sure, a much bigger deal. I'm not fretting over the lack of Notacatbutallama.

yes i did know about it. what purpose does it serve?

Danzig · #15 10-18-2012, 02:43 PM

i think repole made good points. he's unhappy with the rules change regarding lasix-and made a great point about how it affects bettors. not often you see us mentioned.
then there's his beef about the bc and belmont-can't argue with his take on that either.
i'd imagine he'd have gone with all, even stay thirsty, had the rule on lasix not been there. but i can see not wanting to ship just the one horse if he thought the rest wouldn't be well-served by going.
when the lasix ban was announced is a non-issue-i doubt repole would have a different opinion regardless of when the change was implemented. it's not a 'fading fire'. it's an issue and he's not alone with his opinion.

PatCummings · #16 10-18-2012, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alysheba4

yes i did know about it. what purpose does it serve?

Sorry, didn't get that impression from your original post.

alysheba4 · #17 10-18-2012, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatCummings

Sorry, didn't get that impression from your original post.

......i was just being a smart ass, but i see it as a big mistake which seems to be the norm in the racing world.

3kings · #18 10-18-2012, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatCummings

Policy debate aside, it's not like the BC announced last week no Lasix for the Juvy races in 2012. Everyone knew this all year, except maybe Alysheba4, so the comments out now seem just like fuel to some fading fire.

If he had the expected favorite, and then didn't go - sure, a much bigger deal. I'm not fretting over the lack of Notacatbutallama.

You don't think it is an issue for the bettors? Most of these horses have been running on lasex and now they won't. This is an un-needed variable because you will have no idea how individual horses will react.

Rupert Pupkin · #19 10-18-2012, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scav

Good for Repole, absolutely great.

I personally won't be betting any of the Juvy races because of the ban. Its ridiculous to put gamblers in a situation where we now have to guess which horses are gonna hemorage and which ones won't. Its hard enough already.

That is ridiculous. If a horse bleeds badly with no lasix, he is still going to bleed with lasix. He may bleed less but he's still going to bleed. It's not as if lasix eliminates bleeding. On a scale of 1-10, if a horse bleeds a 10 without lasix, what's he going to bleed with lasix? He'll still probably bleed a 7. They don't use 1-10 scales for bleeding but I used it for simplicity. Now if a horse bleeds a 1 or a 2 without lasix, he might not bleed with lasix. Lasix will help a little bit but it's not a cure-all.

In terms of handicapping, it is a non-issue. None of the horses will have lasix. They're all on the same boat. As I said before, if a horse does end up bleeding badly, that horse was not going to win the race even if he had lasix.

I wonder if Repole will refuse to run horses in the Dubai World Cup. There is no lasix allowed in Dubai. I don't hear people complaining about that. It would actually be a bigger factor in that race. If you have an older horse who has a history of bleeding and you have to go to Dubai where it is very hot, that may be a small concern. That would certainly be a bigger concern than in the BC Juvenille races, but even in Dubai I wouldn't worry about it too much. In the BC Juvenille races, it is a non-issue.

By the way, eight horses from the US that raced on lasix went over to Dubai and won the Dubai World Cup without lasix.

3kings · #20 10-18-2012, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

That is ridiculous. If a horse bleeds badly with no lasix, he is still going to bleed with lasix. He may bleed less but he's still going to bleed. It's not as if lasix eliminates bleeding. On a scale of 1-10, if a horse bleeds a 10 without lasix, what's he going to bleed with lasix? He'll still probably bleed a 7. They don't use 1-10 scales for bleeding but I used it for simplicity. Now if a horse bleeds a 1 or a 2 without lasix, he might not bleed with lasix. Lasix will help a little bit but it's not a cure-all.

In terms of handicapping, it is a non-issue. None of the horses will have lasix. They're all on the same boat. As I said before, if a horse does end up bleeding badly, that horse was not going to win the race even if he had lasix.

I wonder if Repole will refuse to run horses in the Dubai World Cup. There is no lasix allowed in Dubai. I don't hear people complaining about that. It would actually be a bigger factor in that race. If you have an older horse who has a history of bleeding and you have to go to Dubai where it is very hot, that may be a small concern. That would certainly be a bigger concern than in the BC Juvenille races, but even in Dubai I wouldn't worry about it too much. In the BC Juvenille races, it is a non-issue.

By the way, eight horses from the US that raced on lasix went over to Dubai and won the Dubai World Cup without lasix.

Helpful, thank you.