How could this possibly happen!!!!!
 

http://www.drf.com/news/keeneland-st...rse-prior-race

Of particular interest:

"LEXINGTON, Ky. – For the second time in nearly three weeks, state veterinarians failed to administer furosemide to a horse entered at Keeneland to run on the anti-bleeding medication, forcing the horse, the heavy favorite in the race, to run without it.

Infrattini, trained by Paul McGee and owned by Mike Zlaket’s Z Thoroughbreds, finished first anyway in the fourth race Wednesday without the medication, the first time he has run in his 14 races without the drug."

Horses only lose without lasix in Dubai ;p

Mistakes shouldn't happen, of course. The error rate has to be zero.

The question is: do you want a state vet giving the lasix, or do you want to go back to a private vet giving a shot before a race?

Once the state vet has been in the stall after the morning pre-race exam of each horse, then later the lasix shot, there is zero reason for any vet to be anywhere near the horse.

Remember what this is intended to do regarding the integrity of horse racing for the public, and for the well-being and safety of the horse.

It's a brand new program that just began with the Keeneland meet October 5th.

All lasix shots (100-110 horses a day) have to be given to the horses in each race within a time window precisely 4 to 4 1/2 hours prior to the published post time (or the horse is scratched). Horses are spread over 35+ barns including ship-in's in separate barns, and the two Keeneland and Keeneland Training Center barn areas.

Two mistakes in over 1000 horses in a brand new program, 2 weeks old, seems like something readily resolvable.

you'd think the way some on here talk, he'd have finished up the track without it, since it's such an enhancer.

I took the total opposite away from it. If it's needed so much, why did the horse run so well without it? Did he ever need it to begin with, because if he didn't, why are they using it on him?

I agree with Hoss. Can somebody post his lifetime PP, and then today's race conditions and his times/margins?

It's the beginning of a new handicapping angle.............'Lasix Off'

Hey, I fixed your typos for you Danzig!

It is a concern during the transition. I would absolutely take 1-2 lengths off (more for a sprint) a horse's anticipated performance with "lasix off" if he always ran with it before.

There is nothing new about 'Lasix Off' and it can actually be a favorable handicapping angle at times.

I thought it was a preventive injection?

I'll be happy to post his past and today's figures after I finish them.

Great, thanks. It is a preventive. That's why I'm interested, not in the fact he won his race, but in how he performed compared to his 14 previous races. I would guess 1-2 lengths slower, but that depends on race distance, setup, etc.

Be interested in hearing how you evaluate it.

I'm guessing he wasn't scoped after he ran (at least not info released publicly) so we can't speculate on if he bled or not (we only know he was not a Grade 4)

Remember that seminar on lasix held earlier this month? Here's the transcript at The Horse:

http://www.thehorse.com/ViewArticle.aspx?ID=20732

but i thought in all the discussion on here that there's no way to know if a horse will bleed beforehand-and that's why many err on the side of caution? perhaps he bled in the past, and that's why they used it?
i know, i know, i give people benefit of the doubt probably too often, so in this regard i take the 'doing it to prevent harm' line of reasoning.

ic, that's not necessarily a 'fix' of what i wrote.

yeah it was.

and giving drugs willy nilly does do harm. plain and simple. it might not be immediate or readily apparent, but long term? hell yes.

i haven't seen anyone yet post exactly what harm lasix does. and it's not from lack of asking. and having a vet administer-that's 'willy nilly'?

it doesn't matter. it seems that everyone has made up their mind and i tire of the whole discussion. it's why i hesitated on this thread, and pretty much steer clear much of the time anymore when i see something about it on here.

i can tell.

These were the horses most recent 11 figures, including yesterday, most recent to the left. The : represents a layoff.

Agreed............my comment was 'tongue in cheek'.............

But I am curious about Riot's speculation of taking 1-2 lengths off......

Because even she thinks it's a performance enhancer.

Horses tend to improve generally 1-2 lengths (depending upon distance of race, speed, etc - more pronounced shorter races under a mile) running with lasix than without. Not talking "1st time lasix", but talking general improvement from not having occult EIPH vs bleeding.

You can read this, here: http://www.thehorse.com/ViewArticle.aspx?ID=20732