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

[cmorioles]

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.

[Rupert Pupkin]

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]

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.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

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.

What are you talking about? He asked a question and I answered it. There are other things that can be used to prevent bleeding but as I said none are currently legal to give in the timeframe that they would need to be given.

What do Euros have to do with anything that I said?

[Cannon Shell]

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.

Can I borrow your crystal ball sometime?

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Can I borrow your crystal ball sometime?

Why bother? If you used it, all you'd see are advertisements for Lasix.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

Why bother? If you used it, all you'd see are advertisements for Lasix.

Uh ok. Maybe the magic 8 ball?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Can I borrow your crystal ball sometime?

I know it's not an exact science. I'm not claiming that it is. I was speaking in general terms. Is it impossible that not having lasix could have a dramatic effect on any of the BC Juvenille races? Sure it is possible, but it is very unlikely.

If you had a 2 year old that was going to run in the BC Juvenille this year, would you be nervous about running without lasix? Tell us the truth. I'm sure you would rather run with it if your horse had used it in all of his previous races. I understand that. But would you truly be worried if you couldn't use it?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I know it's not an exact science. I'm not claiming that it is. I was speaking in general terms. Is it impossible that not having lasix could have a dramatic effect on any of the BC Juvenille races? Sure it is possible, but it is very unlikely.

If you had a 2 year old that was going to run in the BC Juvenille this year, would you be nervous about running without lasix? Tell us the truth. I'm sure you would rather run with it if your horse had used it in all of his previous races. I understand that. But would you truly be worried if you couldn't use it?

Depends on the horse.

I've run plenty of horses w/o lasix before and worked for Jerkens who probably used lasix less than any big trainer over the last 25 years. The catch is that you rarely have a clue that your horse is going to bleed otherwise you wouldnt run them. Its all pretty much conjecture. If one bleeds w/o lasix as you said they might have bled with it. Of course they also might not have either. Plus it isnt as though a single minor bleeding incident is certain to cause a poor performance. The issue as stated seemingly a thousand times is that once a horse has that first episode they are far more likely to do it again and more likely for it to be progressively worse. That can lead to infection which can lead to short and long term health issues. We are already using far more powerful antibiotics than we used to, mostly because of overuse of them.

If I'm betting the race I pretty much ignore the issue but more because there is virtually no way to quantify it not because it isnt going to be a factor. I'm am certain that some of the horses that run poorly will have bleeding be used as an excuse. That should piss off plenty of people regardless of the validity of the reports.

[PatCummings]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I'm am certain that some of the horses that run poorly will have bleeding be used as an excuse. That should piss off plenty of people regardless of the validity of the reports.

That seems a near certainty.

[Rupert Pupkin]

There is actually an article today in the DRF about this subject. It's a good article. They interveiw several trainers. Most of the trainers don't sound too concerned.

Breeders' Cup: Lasix ban puts trainers in uncharted territory
By Marcus Hersh
http://www.drf.com/news/breeders-cup...rted-territory

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

What are you talking about? He asked a question and I answered it. There are other things that can be used to prevent bleeding but as I said none are currently legal to give in the timeframe that they would need to be given.

What do Euros have to do with anything that I said?

OK, so you are only talking drugs then. That wasn't clear to me.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

There is actually an article today in the DRF about this subject. It's a good article. They interveiw several trainers. Most of the trainers don't sound too concerned.

Breeders' Cup: Lasix ban puts trainers in uncharted territory
By Marcus Hersh
http://www.drf.com/news/breeders-cup...rted-territory

Yeah lasix is preventing us from seeing "hard nose 4 and 5 year olds". I guess lasix is making those breeders retire all those horses to stud?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Yeah lasix is preventing us from seeing "hard nose 4 and 5 year olds". I guess lasix is making those breeders retire all those horses to stud?

yeah, it's the lasix.

when they ban it altogether, and nothing changes, i wonder what will be the bogeyman then?

[Cannon Shell]

“If you look at the numbers, about the time Lasix became prevalent everywhere – somewhere in the early 90s – look at the starts per horse and starts per year,” said Seth Hancock, whose family owns storied Claiborne Farm, a signatory to the no-2-year-old-Lasix pledge. “If you charted it on a graph, you’d see a big drop off.”

This is not true.

http://www.jockeyclub.com/factbook.asp?section=10

The trend of declining starts per year per horse began in the early 60's.

Average starts per horse per year
1960- 11.31
1965- 10.88
1970- 10.22
1975- 10.23
1980- 9.21
1985- 8.28
1990- 7.94
1995- 7.73
2000- 7.10
2005- 6.45
2011- 6.20

This number has been trending down far before lasix was being used. There was a larger drop off between1960-1990 (pre widely used lasix) than 1990-2011 timeframe which Hancock uses. Using these numbers as evidence that lasix is the chief cause for horses running less often is a joke or as Riot would say, a lie.

At some point I wish someone would point out this little chart to them which is especially ironic considering that the information is free to all at the Jockey Club website. Regardless of what side of the issue you are on it is typical of this industry to use made up theoretical numbers because thats what people believe is their recollection as opposed to actual data which is big reason why things never get fixed.

[Merlinsky]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

“If you look at the numbers, about the time Lasix became prevalent everywhere – somewhere in the early 90s – look at the starts per horse and starts per year,” said Seth Hancock, whose family owns storied Claiborne Farm, a signatory to the no-2-year-old-Lasix pledge. “If you charted it on a graph, you’d see a big drop off.”

This is not true.

http://www.jockeyclub.com/factbook.asp?section=10

The trend of declining starts per year per horse began in the early 60's.

Average starts per horse per year
1960- 11.31
1965- 10.88
1970- 10.22
1975- 10.23
1980- 9.21
1985- 8.28
1990- 7.94
1995- 7.73
2000- 7.10
2005- 6.45
2011- 6.20

This number has been trending down far before lasix was being used. There was a larger drop off between1960-1990 (pre widely used lasix) than 1990-2011 timeframe which Hancock uses. Using these numbers as evidence that lasix is the chief cause for horses running less often is a joke or as Riot would say, a lie.

At some point I wish someone would point out this little chart to them which is especially ironic considering that the information is free to all at the Jockey Club website. Regardless of what side of the issue you are on it is typical of this industry to use made up theoretical numbers because thats what people believe is their recollection as opposed to actual data which is big reason why things never get fixed.

Seems to be more of a descent from the 80s on. Is that due to a greater emphasis on breed to sell and record auction prices vs. the traditional homebred operations? It was my understanding that the decade of the 1980s was where a yearling sales bubble developed. Surely there's a shortening of careers as a result when getting their babies in the ring is an objective of increasing importance.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

“If you look at the numbers, about the time Lasix became prevalent everywhere – somewhere in the early 90s – look at the starts per horse and starts per year,” said Seth Hancock, whose family owns storied Claiborne Farm, a signatory to the no-2-year-old-Lasix pledge. “If you charted it on a graph, you’d see a big drop off.”

This is not true.

http://www.jockeyclub.com/factbook.asp?section=10

The trend of declining starts per year per horse began in the early 60's.

Average starts per horse per year
1960- 11.31
1965- 10.88
1970- 10.22
1975- 10.23
1980- 9.21
1985- 8.28
1990- 7.94
1995- 7.73
2000- 7.10
2005- 6.45
2011- 6.20

This number has been trending down far before lasix was being used. There was a larger drop off between1960-1990 (pre widely used lasix) than 1990-2011 timeframe which Hancock uses. Using these numbers as evidence that lasix is the chief cause for horses running less often is a joke or as Riot would say, a lie.

At some point I wish someone would point out this little chart to them which is especially ironic considering that the information is free to all at the Jockey Club website. Regardless of what side of the issue you are on it is typical of this industry to use made up theoretical numbers because thats what people believe is their recollection as opposed to actual data which is big reason why things never get fixed.

They were using a lot of lasix in the early 1980s. There was a bigger drop percentage wise from 1980 until now than there was before 1980. Is it partly because of lasix? I don't know for sure but I think it is certainly a reasonable hypothesis that lasix could be a contributing factor.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Merlinsky

Seems to be more of a descent from the 80s on. Is that due to a greater emphasis on breed to sell and record auction prices vs. the traditional homebred operations? It was my understanding that the decade of the 1980s was where a yearling sales bubble developed. Surely there's a shortening of careers as a result when getting their babies in the ring is an objective of increasing importance.

I think your hypothesis makes sense with regards to stakes horses who have value as stallions. But what percentage of horses is that, maybe 1 or 2%?

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I think your hypothesis makes sense with regards to stakes horses who have value as stallions. But what percentage of horses is that, maybe 1 or 2%?

The 2009 North American foal crop was around 32,000 in size.

1% of 32,000 is 320. Safer to say it's more like .1%, the answer to your question.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

The 2009 North American foal crop was around 32,000 in size.

1% of 32,000 is 320. Safer to say it's more like .1%, the answer to your question.

Yes, you are probably right. It is probably closer to .1%.