Quote:
Originally Posted by Danzig
force those that don't need it to use it-did you see how many horses bleed? you have to give it as a preventive, as there's no way to know that a horse will bleed-and many do at some point. any anti-bleeder, and right now Lasix is the only one I know of, has to be given as a preventive as there's no way to know beforehand that a horse will bleed. and it can be no bleeding to a bad case, or even cause death.
you'd rather it not be given because you feel it gives an edge, knowing that not using it would cause bleeders to bleed worse, and could cause serious injury or death?
|
Then we need to find something better than Lasix. It isn't all that effective anyway. There has to be a better way. But racing is never forward thinking in any aspect of the sport, and that includes medicine. Of course I'm not including illegal drugs where some are very forward thinking.
I don't buy the preventative argument. I've been around this game a long time. Never once was this mentioned when Lasix was being legalized. It was going to be a savior drug that helped known bleeders compete more often. The EXACT opposite has happened.
Like I said, I can live with Lasix for known bleeders, but they should be penalized. It clearly gives an edge. If you don't believe me, ask Jerry Brown. Like I just said in another post, in this day and age, if you have to drug nearly every horse so they can compete, the sport won't be around long. I'd bet anything on that.