#21
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Take for example the fourth place finisher of the Melbourne Cup this past week, Signoff. These are his starts this season: Aug 30th 7f Sept 13 8.5f Sept 26 10f Oct 11 12f Oct 18 10f Nov 1 10.5f Nov 4 16f In a span of 9 and a half weeks he ran 7 times, five at group level. This is, as you may know, an extremely common occurrence down there. I cannot recall ANY horse at that level in North America running that many times in a short period of time, never mind the consistency. Add Lasix to these horses and the weeks between starts would slowly add up because they need a longer time to recover in between races. For the record, I am not for or against Lasix. I just think it's important to consider the dynamics of the drug, rather than say it's just a simple diuretic that somehow decreases pulmonary hemorrhaging. The majority of horses do bleed, but not at a level severe enough to affect performance. So instead of waiting a million years to selectively evolve, why not just use artificial selection as a method to simply decrease the chance of bleeding and the potential severity of it? Genetic traits can be tracked, you know. And from a gambling perspective, how often would bleeding affect performance? In a quarter of a percent of all starters? Judging by our posts in the playalong threads, I'd be more worried about other circumstances causing a ticket to be ripped up. |
#22
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
And you can't breed for a reduction in bleeding because there is just no way of telling if a horse is going to bleed. Yeah, the majority of horses won't suffer long-term damage, but what about the one who does, drops during a race and kills himself, his jockey and takes out half the field behind him? That's the problem- we do not know if a horse is going to bleed or not in a race. We have no way of knowing. Lasix is a preventive. It's not perfect; no preventive is, but it reduces the chance of EIPH and reduces its severity. Most people aren't going to be in a serious car accident; it doesn't mean wearing a seat belt every time you get into a car isn't still a good idea. Without Lasix horses will still go to the post dehydrated; they'll just have been denied water for 2 days before the race. Which is not as effective as Lasix. We're American; it's our nature to want a one-size-fits-all solution, but very few things in life are one-size-fits-all. Oddly, Lasix comes about as close as one can get, to a problem that is a part of the equine's evolutionary makeup. It's not going to make a slow horse fast, but it will reduce the chance of the horse breathing blood while he runs. Again, the Euros train on it, even if they aren't allowed it on race day. Why would they do that, unless they felt it was beneficial to the horse's health? And believe me, I was very anti-Lasix for years, but you do enough digging on a subject, and sometimes the evidence is just too persuasive.
__________________
Gentlemen! We're burning daylight! Riders up! -Bill Murray |