Quote:
Originally Posted by pointman
I'm sorry Rupert, he did not run any at the Spa yesterday. I confused him with Eric Guillot, I guess the confusion stems from two trainers that consistently get high priced stock and consistently underperform with them.
Having said that, he ran one at Del Mar yesterday without lasix and is running one today with lasix.
If there is so much bad about lasix, I just don't get why every trainer runs their horses on it. It is clearly beneficial to the horses.
If it takes so much weight off horses why are Europeans training on it? How could they get the weight back on by race time?
I just don't buy the anti-lasix crap. What is going to happen to bleeders that can't race, there are already too many unwanted horses as it stands.
|
I think practically all trainers believe lasix is beneficial overall. Trainers look at the benefits compared to the cost and they think they are better off running on lasix. I think on practically every measure, lasix has been shown to move up most horses. But that doesn't mean that horses need it. It just means that if you don't use it while others are using it, you are at a disadvantage.
In terms of training on it, they usually get a much smaller dose than they get in a race. The reason some trainers will use it for workouts is because they would rather be safe than sorry. Lets say that you are going to work your horse tomorrow and he is scheduled to run in 8 days. Many trainers will give the horse lasix for the work because if they don't give it to him and he happens to bleed, then they are going to miss the race. If the horse bleeds you are going to have to put him on antibiotics and back off a little bit and it's going to set you back a week or two. Many trainers don't want to take that chance.