Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell
Im often embarrassed for the sport when people claim that the breed was been "weakened" by the use of a diuretic. It wasnt weakened by indiscriminate steroid use, or stallions being bred to 500% more mares a year or the physical manipulation of foals via surgeries, or a bloodstock expansion that once had 80000 foals on the ground ever year during the 80's, or the rise of statebred programs based upon generally inferior stock. Nope, just lasix.
Whether lasix is banned or not the thing that bothers me the most is that the aggressive campaign by the anti-lasix people has led to far, far too much unnecessary bad PR for the sport. People have short memories but this issue had been put to bed over 20 years ago. There was no betting public issue. There was (and still is) plenty of foreign buyers at our sales. The elimination of lasix doesnt figure to add one extra dollar to the handle or an extra person to the stands (unless they buy a NYRA season pass in which they are counted as being there regardless of where they actually are).
The moral or ethical dilemma of treating horses on raceday with lasix seems to confuse some into believing that there will be some economical gain by stopping it. Maybe if we were all still in 3rd grade and the world was a black and white place I could understand people thinking this way.
|
People like easy one-size-fits-all solutions. And the media also prefers them because they make for 800 word columns. Complex is boring and hard and takes too long to explain.
I was intrigued that the op-ed said that Europeans don't usually scope their horses if there's no visible sign of bleeding so Americans and Europeans are really working with two totally different sets of data when it comes to reported incidences of EIPH.