Call me cynical but my sense is that the "perception is reality" refrain among supporters of the Lasix ban has nothing to do with gamblers' perception of the impact of therapeutic medications upon our racing product. The anti-Lasix brigade hide behind such arguments, but if they were really concerned about integrity in the racing industry, why do the same people resist disclosure of so-called "dual agency" (known as conflict of interest in all other industries) or disclosure of corrective surgeries on foals?
This current push to ban Lasix has far more to do with a two decades long decline in foreign spending at the prominent American yearling sales. In the current economic climate, there has been a huge effort to recruit foreign buyers to the sales to prop up a weaker domestic bloodstock market (caused by a dearth of owners). Notwithstanding these efforts, foreign spending at the major sales has continued to decline. Rather than admitting that this decline is largely attributable to the fact that over the past few decades they have increasingly produced horses with dirt-oriented and distance-challenged pedigrees that are less appealing to foreign buyers, the arrogant Kentucky commercial breeders who run the alphabet soup organizations (and the Breeders Cup) pushing the Lasix ban seek to place blame elsewhere by asserting that foreign buyers are less inclined to purchase American-bred horses because the use of Lasix has "tainted" our gene pool. A few weeks ago, the DRF weekend edition had an interview with British trainer Mark Johnston that essentially debunked this notion, but why let facts get in the way.
|