Kentucky's ongoing attempt to end racing in state proceeds..

[Calzone Lord]

Is Bossert the guy who freaked out because they wouldn't show the Bengals in the press box?

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

Is Bossert the guy who freaked out because they wouldn't show the Bengals in the press box?

Could have been, I just know he's a serial NYRA hater whose opinion stinks.

[OTM Al]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

Could have been, I just know he's a serial NYRA hater whose opinion stinks.

He does such a good job at it on Gotham Day, on which 2 BC winners were racing on the inner, a thing unheard of, he didn't write a single word in his column about the card. The guy is worse than useless.

[pointman]

The logic of the supporters of the ban is twisted and warped, essentially they argue that a drug that helps the health of horses with no evidence that it masks other drugs, enhances performance or has negative genetic effects should be banned so that the sport does not have the appearance to the ignorant that horses performances are enhanced by drugs. Incredible.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pointman

The logic of the supporters of the ban is twisted and warped, essentially they argue that a drug that helps the health of horses with no evidence that it masks other drugs, enhances performance or has negative genetic effects should be banned so that the sport does not have the appearance to the ignorant that horses performances are enhanced by drugs. Incredible.

The thing is that they argue that all those things occur and keep repeating the mantra until people believe it. In the end all you are doing is taking the L in the program away and telling people that everything is good now. Of course when a guy starts to go on one of his patented runs where every horse runs off the screen or an unknown trainer emerges as a 47% winner no one will believe a damn thing changed. If you are going to do something and tell everyone that this is a game changer (for the good) well you better be right or you will just become chicken little which is directly where we are headed. It is a good thing that the horseplayer in general has a short memory or they might have recalled all the wonderous things and changes that banning anabolic steroids was going to do...

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The thing is that they argue that all those things occur and keep repeating the mantra until people believe it. In the end all you are doing is taking the L in the program away and telling people that everything is good now. Of course when a guy starts to go on one of his patented runs where every horse runs off the screen or an unknown trainer emerges as a 47% winner no one will believe a damn thing changed. If you are going to do something and tell everyone that this is a game changer (for the good) well you better be right or you will just become chicken little which is directly where we are headed. It is a good thing that the horseplayer in general has a short memory or they might have recalled all the wonderous things and changes that banning anabolic steroids was going to do...

I don't think anyone is saying that banning lasix is the cure-all. I think they are saying that it would be a good start. You can only do one thing at a time. Banning steroids was a good start. Banning lasix would be a good next step. There would still be an extremely long way to go. The sport needs comprehensive change. I do believe in the expression, "If it isn't broke, don't fix it." Unfortunately racing is broken in the U.S.

There needs to be major change. I don't know how you can support the status quo. Why would you want to continue to go do down the same broken path that has completely ruined racing in the U.S.?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I don't think anyone is saying that banning lasix is the cure-all. I think they are saying that it would be a good start. You can only do one thing at a time. Banning steroids was a good start. Banning lasix would be a good next step. There would still be an extremely long way to go. The sport needs comprehensive change. I do believe in the expression, "If it isn't broke, don't fix it." Unfortunately racing is broken in the U.S.

There needs to be major change. I don't know how you can support the status quo. Why would you want to continue to go do down the same broken path that has completely ruined racing in the U.S.?

A good start to what? Are you so delusional as to believe there is a real business plan that calls for the humiliation of the sport as to rid it of a simple duiretic? Banning lasix is the reddest of red herrings.

If you believe that banning lasix is going to have a positive effect on business I would love to know what evidence you base this misguided opinion on? The steroid ban was followed by a 2 year decline in handle and field size and obviously wasnt much of a positive PR move especially since Drape and company ignored it for the most part.

I find it odd that someone who doesnt agree with banning lasix is aways accused of maintaining the status quo? Like i said before if you polled players and gave them 2 choices, big competitive fields and reasonable takeout or getting rid of lasix I'm pretty sure that the poll would render a 99-1% vote for option A.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I don't think anyone is saying that banning lasix is the cure-all. I think they are saying that it would be a good start. You can only do one thing at a time. Banning steroids was a good start. Banning lasix would be a good next step. There would still be an extremely long way to go. The sport needs comprehensive change. I do believe in the expression, "If it isn't broke, don't fix it." Unfortunately racing is broken in the U.S.

There needs to be major change. I don't know how you can support the status quo. Why would you want to continue to go do down the same broken path that has completely ruined racing in the U.S.?

What has been the benefit of banning steriods? Making unsound decisions that ultimately hurts the health of horses in favor of a hope that creating a false perception to the public helps the sport is not a fix. Is is creating an even bigger problem.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by pointman

The logic of the supporters of the ban is twisted and warped, essentially they argue that a drug that helps the health of horses with no evidence that it masks other drugs, enhances performance or has negative genetic effects should be banned so that the sport does not have the appearance to the ignorant that horses performances are enhanced by drugs. Incredible.

I think the logic of people who think we should use lasix is twisted. They race all over the world without lasix. How can you say that we need lasix here when they don't use it anywhere else? Do you think they should start using it in England, Dubai, and Hong Kong? Is our racing the model for the world? I don't think so. It's the exact opposite. We are the laughing stock of the world. To say we need lasix here, when it is not used anywhere else, is a losing argument.

By the way, there of plenty of trainers out there that will tell you lasix is a performance enhancing drug that does mask other drugs. In addition, it totally knocks horses out. Lasix completely dehydrates you. Do you think it a good idea to do any type of rigorous physical task while you are totally dehydrated? It's terrible for a person and it's terrible for a horse.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

We are the laughing stock of the world. To say we need lasix here, when it is not used anywhere else, is a losing argument.

Speak for yourself.

If we are the laughing stock of the world, why are our stallions and bloodlines so desirable the world over? And, furthermore, if lasix is such a problem for overseas outfits, why do they always use it when they race in the US?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Speak for yourself.

If we are the laughing stock of the world, why are our stallions and bloodlines so desirable the world over? And, furthermore, if lasix is such a problem for overseas outfits, why do they always use it when they race in the US?

We do have some good stallions here. I'm not saying that anyone thinks all of our stallions are bad.

With regards to the Europeans using lasix in the US, they use it because they thing it's performance enhancing and they think they would be at a disadvantage by not using it.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I think the logic of people who think we should use lasix is twisted. They race all over the world without lasix. How can you say that we need lasix here when they don;t use it anywhere else? Do you think they should start using it in England, Dubai, and Hong Kong? Is our racing the model fro the world? I don't think so. It's the exact opposite. We are the laughing stock of the world. To say we need lasix here, when it is not used anywhere else, is a losing argument.

By the way, there of plenty of trainers out there that will tell you lasix is a performance enhancing drug that does mask other drugs. In addition, it totally knocks horses out. Lasix completely dehydrates you. Do you think it a good idea to do any type of rigorous physical task while you are totally dehydrated? It's terrible for a person and it's terrible for a horse.

We are the laughingstock of the world? Yeah ok so when all those buyers come to Keeneland every year they are snickering as they write those checks?

Who gives a damn what they do elsewhere? I like basketball but don't follow the WNBA so don't give a **** what happens there just like I dont care about what is going on in Singapore or Ireland. If you knew enough about racing in other countries to know that the average racehorse in Ireland makes 3 starts a year and the average horse in France makes 4 starts a year perhaps you wouldnt be in such a hurry to emulate them. The idea that we should care what people who represent one tenth of one percent of our customers think is beyond stupid.

Plenty of trainers are f cking morons too. When the chemists at the labs say that when following the 4 hour protocols that Lasix doesn't mask any known medications I tend to believe them.

Funny that the millions of people that take lasix daily aren't all sitting home drinking water because they are so knocked out that they couldnt possibly go out and work.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I think the logic of people who think we should use lasix is twisted. They race all over the world without lasix. How can you say that we need lasix here when they don;t use it anywhere else? Do you think they should start using it in England, Dubai, and Hong Kong? Is our racing the model fro the world? I don't think so. It's the exact opposite. We are the laughing stock of the world. To say we need lasix here, when it is not used anywhere else, is a losing argument.

By the way, there of plenty of trainers out there that will tell you lasix is a performance enhancing drug that does mask other drugs. In addition, it totally knocks horses out. Lasix completely dehydrates you. Do you think it a good idea to do any type of rigorous physical task while you are totally dehydrated? It's terrible for a person and it's terrible for a horse.

You are taking the extemely myopic view that the supporters of the ban dispense. While Lasix may be banned outside of North Amercia, it is used in training of horses and banned on raceday when horses need it most. Please explain to me why it is ok to train on it but not race on it.

What do owners in jurisdictions that ban Lasix do when their horses can't compete because of bleeding? They either ship their horses to North America and race them here or sell them to North American owners. They are laughing alright, all the way to the bank. The vast majority who ship here for one or two races run their horses on Lasix when they do.

I would love to see those trainers who say that Lasix is a performance enhancing drug come up with any credible scientific study to support that position. It won't happen because it does not exist.

If Lasix is such a drain on horses, than why are 99% of horses racing in North America racing with it? There is no rule against trainers running their horses without Lasix, so why are many more not doing that? Just because someone says something is true does not make it so, and that is the type of slippery slope BS that Chuck is talking about that divides the industry. Then again, Obama won an election and will run for a second term with the same type of if we say it enough people will believe it nonsense which is proven to work.

I am sure as a horseplayer you look forward to horses being taken out of training more often, retired earlier in their careers, less incentive for people to own a horse which will have a more limited racing career, more unwanted horses in need of a home, smaller fields and being duped by betting a horse that will bleed and burn money. Sounds like a great idea.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by pointman

You are taking the extemely myopic view that the supporters of the ban dispense. While Lasix may be banned outside of North Amercia, it is used in training of horses and banned on raceday when horses need it most. Please explain to me why it is ok to train on it but not race on it.

What do owners in jurisdictions that ban Lasix do when their horses can't compete because of bleeding? They either ship their horses to North America and race them here or sell them to North American owners. They are laughing alright, all the way to the bank. The vast majority who ship here for one or two races run their horses on Lasix when they do.

I would love to see those trainers who say that Lasix is a performance enhancing drug come up with any credible scientific study to support that position. It won't happen because it does not exist.

If Lasix is such a drain on horses, than why are 99% of horses racing in North America racing with it? There is no rule against trainers running their horses without Lasix, so why are many more not doing that? Just because someone says something is true does not make it so, and that is the type of slippery slope BS that Chuck is talking about that divides the industry. Then again, Obama won an election and will run for a second term with the same type of if we say it enough people will believe it nonsense which is proven to work.

I am sure as a horseplayer you look forward to horses being taken out of training more often, retired earlier in their careers, less incentive for people to own a horse which will have a more limited racing career, more unwanted horses in need of a home, smaller fields and being duped by betting a horse that will bleed and burn money. Sounds like a great idea.

You say they train on lasix overseas. How often do horses in Europe get lasix?

The arguments that most of these trainers make are total BS. They want to try to pretend that banning lasix would be the end of racing as we know it. They make all these completely exaggerated claims that are complete nonsense. Are there some horses that are bad bleeders that would be hurt by a ban on lasix? Absolutely. I'm not denying that. But I think the overall positive effects of a lasix ban would far outweigh the negatives.

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I think the logic of people who think we should use lasix is twisted. They race all over the world without lasix. How can you say that we need lasix here when they don't use it anywhere else? Do you think they should start using it in England, Dubai, and Hong Kong? Is our racing the model for the world? I don't think so. It's the exact opposite. We are the laughing stock of the world. To say we need lasix here, when it is not used anywhere else, is a losing argument.

By the way, there of plenty of trainers out there that will tell you lasix is a performance enhancing drug that does mask other drugs. In addition, it totally knocks horses out. Lasix completely dehydrates you. Do you think it a good idea to do any type of rigorous physical task while you are totally dehydrated? It's terrible for a person and it's terrible for a horse.

As Dale Romans said today on ATR, 'Who cares what they do in Europe' -- or anywhere else?'. Should we adopt the Euro too? We have a different sport that generally races on a different surface. The stresses placed on horses here are different than those in the rest of the world. We don't have 6 month seasons where horses are off more than they race. We don't have private backstretches where track-run vets & dispensaries operate. Meanwhile, iinternational outfits train on Lasix readily and would use it on raceday happily.

Seriously still clinging to the 'lasix masks other drugs' nonsense? That crap is old enough to vote. File it with the other grand lie that 'bleeding is hereditary and we need to purge it from the gene pool'. It's amazing that someone who is 'in the business' is perpetuating the same misinformation being peddled by the uninformed on facebook and the like.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Kasept

As Dale Romans said today on ATR, 'Who cares what they do in Europe' -- or anywhere else?'. Should we adopt the Euro too? We have a different sport that generally races on a different surface. The stresses placed on horses here are different than those in the rest of the world. We don't have 6 month seasons where horses are off more than they race. We don't have private backstretches where track-run vets & dispensaries operate. Meanwhile, iinternational outfits train on Lasix readily and would use it on raceday happily.

Seriously still clinging to the 'lasix masks other drugs' nonsense? That crap is old enough to vote. File it with the other grand lie that 'bleeding is hereditary and we need to purge it from the gene pool'. It's amazing that someone who is 'in the business' is perpetuating the same misinformation being peddled by the uninformed on facebook and the like.

If I am not mistaken, didn't one of the vets that you respect most (Steve Allday) say that we don't need lasix?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Kasept

As Dale Romans said today on ATR, 'Who cares what they do in Europe' -- or anywhere else?'. Should we adopt the Euro too? We have a different sport that generally races on a different surface. The stresses placed on horses here are different than those in the rest of the world. We don't have 6 month seasons where horses are off more than they race. We don't have private backstretches where track-run vets & dispensaries operate. Meanwhile, iinternational outfits train on Lasix readily and would use it on raceday happily.

Seriously still clinging to the 'lasix masks other drugs' nonsense? That crap is old enough to vote. File it with the other grand lie that 'bleeding is hereditary and we need to purge it from the gene pool'. It's amazing that someone who is 'in the business' is perpetuating the same misinformation being peddled by the uninformed on facebook and the like.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I think the logic of people who think we should use lasix is twisted. They race all over the world without lasix. How can you say that we need lasix here when they don't use it anywhere else?

Has anyone addressed this question other than with an "I don't care about the rest of the world" response? Someone said horses only average 3 or 4 starts a year in Ireland and France. What about Australia and Hong Kong? Are horses in those areas making fewer starts per year than here?

To read this thread, one would think we are currently in a Golden Age of horseracing, and that to go back to the pre-1995 situation in New York is absolutely unthinkable. Were New York horses making fewer starts per year before 1995 than now?

Rupert's point, I think, is that "the sky is falling, the end is near" may be an over-reaction in the face of the experience of the rest of the world. That seems like a reasonable point to me, especially considering our own long experience pre-Lasix.

--Dunbar

[Calzone Lord]

Banning lasix probably isn't going to do any good for the horse player.

It's also extremely unpopular with a strong majority of trainers and vets...who are both far more powerful groups in the industry than betting customers.

A lasix ban is basically a bid for more worthless PR from industry do-gooders. It would make the New York Times feel like it did some good.

It's unfortunate that it's an issue at all right now.

Meanwhile, poker is still on TV ... and everytime I go to the track I see the poker tables, slot machines, craps tables, blackjack tables, and Roulette tables all kicking the sh!t out of the horse racing simulcast section.

At-least horse racing is still holding its own with Pai-Gow when both are being offered in the same place...as the Asian population in Erie isn't so large.

However, I have no doubt Pai-Gow is handling far more than 30-track full card simulcasting here...and that's not because the local horse bettors are going the Internet and rebate shop route. It should be a wildly superior game to all -- and it's laughably uncompetitive when people have the option.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

Has anyone addressed this question other than with an "I don't care about the rest of the world" response? Someone said horses only average 3 or 4 starts a year in Ireland and France. What about Australia and Hong Kong? Are horses in those areas making fewer starts per year than here?

What the international aspect of the argument boils down to in general is: year-round racing (NA) vs. seasonal racing (elsewhere).

Do racehorses, as athletes, need a signficant period of rest from competition annually?

A lot of comparisons are made between racehorses and human athletes to make points about medication. But what human athletes are asked to train and compete indefinitely during the length of their careers?

Which of these schedules would tend to favor the health of the horse?

Year-round racing is necessary for a lot of people in the industry to stay in business. Furthermore, it does not appear to be economically viable to voluntarily give horses time off. This was one of the arguments used to oppose the ban on anabolic steroids. If horses couldn't be helped artificially to recover from their races, how could they continue to race year-round? A similar argument was used by Dale Romans recently about lasix. The wealthy owners can afford to give horses time off after a significant bleeding episode, the average horseman cannot.

This issue will underly every future medication debate beyond the lasix one. Therapeutic medications are used in racing to promote the well-being of the racehorse, but are they also being relied upon to avoid the cost of resting the horse? If so, will be banning medications make it impossible to race horses in the current year-round fashion?