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

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I just got off the phone with one of my trainers. He says that there is almost always an underlying reason as to why a horse is bleeding. He said if you dig deep enough, you will almost find that something is bothering the horse that is stressing him and causing him to bleed. This trainer doesn't care either way as to whether they ban lasix. He said that as long as they allow it, he will use it. He thinks there is no doubt that it is a performance enhancing drug. He says that if you follow sheet numbers, most horses move way up on lasix.

This trainer tells me that in his 20 years in the business, he can think of only one horse that he couldn't stop from bleeding. This particular horse was the only horse that he's ever had that needed lasix for his workouts. Some trainers give lasix to a lot of their horses for workouts.

This trainer went on to say that if you have a horse that runs 5 times in a row without bleeding, and then in his 6th race he bleeds (let's say he bleeds a 3 on a 1-5 scale), then you better go over that horse with a fine-tooth comb because there is almost certainly something going on with the horse.

Ok so in effect the your trainer has shot down the breeding theory as to why we should ban lasix.

I dont disagree with him at all about triggers that may very well be underlying causes. Certainly stress can cause many issues and because they cant talk we often are clued in after the fact as well as viral or bacterial infections.
And once a horse bleeds once they are more prone to do it again. So with round about reasoning he is giving a solid reason why we should not ban lasix.

While your trainer may be a good horseman he obviously isnt skilled in statistical analysis because there is no sample size great enough of non-lasix horses to come up with an accurate assessment of sheet numbers for those types versus regular lasix horses. The sample pool would also be tainted as the vast majority of horses that run without lasix are 1st time starters and young horses, the vast majority of which are due to improve with time regardless of all other factors including lasix. And since you dont know the severity of a bleeding incident that would cause a horse to be placed on lasix couldnt the fact that the horse didnt bleed w/ medication allow the number to go back where it should be considering the bleeding may have artificially depressed the number?

Not to mention if everyone has equal access to the same medication and no advantage is being gained than why would lasix not be considered something that is leveling the playing field? And wouldnt the elimination of the medicine lead to replacement by various other remedies which will not only be unknown to the public and other participants and work with vastly different effectiveness causing more potential form changes?

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

While your trainer may be a good horseman he obviously isnt skilled in statistical analysis because there is no sample size great enough of non-lasix horses to come up with an accurate assessment of sheet numbers for those types versus regular lasix horses.

This is true now, but it hasn't always been the case. There were plenty of numbers to go around back in the 80s and 90s. Of course back then, horses actually bled in a race before getting lasix, so they usually ran poorly, but they improved a lot given first lasix.

However, I've seen the "Champions" book advertised here. Check out the performance of some really good horses and the Beyers they earn before and after lasix. Many of these did not come after poor races. There is an obvious improvement time and time again of at least a few lengths.

In the last 5 years or so, 1st timers with Lasix return 77 cents on the dollar. Those without return 47. The sample size is huge. Euro shippers with Lasix return 66 cents on the dollar, those without 38 cents. Obviously the sample size isn't as large, but it includes over 8000/2000 in those categories.

I personally don't care about banning Lasix. There are WAY bigger issues. But, anyone racing without it is racing at a disadvantage.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

This is true now, but it hasn't always been the case. There were plenty of numbers to go around back in the 80s and 90s. Of course back then, horses actually bled in a race before getting lasix, so they usually ran poorly, but they improved a lot given first lasix.

However, I've seen the "Champions" book advertised here. Check out the performance of some really good horses and the Beyers they earn before and after lasix. Many of these did not come after poor races. There is an obvious improvement time and time again of at least a few lengths.

In the last 5 years or so, 1st timers with Lasix return 77 cents on the dollar. Those without return 47. The sample size is huge. Euro shippers with Lasix return 66 cents on the dollar, those without 38 cents. Obviously the sample size isn't as large, but it includes over 8000/2000 in those categories.

I personally don't care about banning Lasix. There are WAY bigger issues. But, anyone racing without it is racing at a disadvantage.

I dont think that 1st timers or euro imports are of particularly valid use. The fact that a first timer is on lasix or isnt on could be conceived as trainer intent and as such muddies the water there. And plenty of euros that bleed are sent here specifically to get lasix which would also signal intent. The problem in analyzing the numbers is it isnt clear what horses improve because they are being helped by eliminating or reducing bleeding and what horses are running better simply because they are on it. I have had plenty of horses not improve much if at all on lasix. When I worked for Jerkens he was one of the last guys who ran a lot of horses w/o lasix and we had quite a few not improve much at all when the owners insisted we put them on it.

And being that not using lasix is voluntary no one has to be at a disadvantage unless they choose to be.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I dont think that 1st timers or euro imports are of particularly valid use. The fact that a first timer is on lasix or isnt on could be conceived as trainer intent and as such muddies the water there. And plenty of euros that bleed are sent here specifically to get lasix which would also signal intent. The problem in analyzing the numbers is it isnt clear what horses improve because they are being helped by eliminating or reducing bleeding and what horses are running better simply because they are on it. I have had plenty of horses not improve much if at all on lasix. When I worked for Jerkens he was one of the last guys who ran a lot of horses w/o lasix and we had quite a few not improve much at all when the owners insisted we put them on it.

And being that not using lasix is voluntary no one has to be at a disadvantage unless they choose to be.

Of course it is their choice, I never said differently. I disagree about a sample including 100,000 horse not being relevant. That is a HUGE discrepancy in ROI among the maidens. I study this stuff all the time and you won't find one factor with that kind of difference very often.

I have no doubt Lasix enhances performance. Just because everyone uses it now making it difficult to test doesn't erase a few decades of evidence.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Of course it is their choice, I never said differently. I disagree about a sample including 100,000 horse not being relevant. That is a HUGE discrepancy in ROI among the maidens. I study this stuff all the time and you won't find one factor with that kind of difference very often.

I have no doubt Lasix enhances performance. Just because everyone uses it now making it difficult to test doesn't erase a few decades of evidence.

If you are talking about horses with established form being enhanced it would be a much clearer picture. How exactly can you show an enhanced performance with horses who have no baseline performance? Comparing those with and without simply on the basis of one factor and drawing an absolute conclusion? Who is good with first time starters that starts them without lasix nowdays? Anybody? You may be correct in your assessment but the data used is not really pertinent except in a roundabout fashion.

I have no doubt that horses treated aggressively with gastrogard for stomach ulcers perform far greater than those who arent treated but because those horses are not designated no one talks about that. Using the logic that some do, Gastrogard would be considered a performance enhancer as well.

[Bigsmc]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

If you are talking about horses with established form being enhanced it would be a much clearer picture. How exactly can you show an enhanced performance with horses who have no baseline performance? Comparing those with and without simply on the basis of one factor and drawing an absolute conclusion? Who is good with first time starters that starts them without lasix nowdays? Anybody? You may be correct in your assessment but the data used is not really pertinent except in a roundabout fashion.

I have no doubt that horses treated aggressively with gastrogard for stomach ulcers perform far greater than those who arent treated but because those horses are not designated no one talks about that. Using the logic that some do, Gastrogard would be considered a performance enhancer as well.

Exactly, seems logical to me that horses have bled during a race would "move up" when they aren't bleeding. Is their performance enhanced or are you eliminating a barrier that was not allowing him to perform? Semantics.

Going after Lasix is like deciding to trim a dog's nails when he is covered with fleas.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

If you are talking about horses with established form being enhanced it would be a much clearer picture. How exactly can you show an enhanced performance with horses who have no baseline performance? Comparing those with and without simply on the basis of one factor and drawing an absolute conclusion? Who is good with first time starters that starts them without lasix nowdays? Anybody? You may be correct in your assessment but the data used is not really pertinent except in a roundabout fashion.

I have no doubt that horses treated aggressively with gastrogard for stomach ulcers perform far greater than those who arent treated but because those horses are not designated no one talks about that. Using the logic that some do, Gastrogard would be considered a performance enhancer as well.

You can believe what you want, but since I do this for a living, I can tell with certainty that the numbers I provided for maidens almost guarantee the maidens without lasix are at a disadvantage. The betting public isn't dumb. They know the good trainers, and which horses are working good, and which are bred to win early. In a sample as large as I'm talking, all those things even out between the Lasix and non-Lasix horses. The difference is return is staggering. Remember, I'm not talking win percentage, I'm talking how the horses perform in relation to how they were bet.

With the Euro horses, we do have a baseline, and the results are strikingly similar. I also mentioned the book "Champions" where you can find plenty of examples. I've looked it up in the past, and I'm not going to do it again to try to prove a point. It is there for anyone bothering to look. You just have to do it with the blinkers off.

I honestly don't care one way or the other about Lasix. There are way bigger problems in the game. However, in my opinion, denying it is a performance enhancer is about as silly as you make all the arguments for banning it appear to be, and probably rightfully so. Why is it banned for human competitors, by the way? I'm curious of your take on that.

I have to ask, do you still think Shane Battier is a better player than Rudy Gay? (You don't have to answer, we all know that was ridiculous, and it is off topic)

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

You can believe what you want, but since I do this for a living, I can tell with certainty that the numbers I provided for maidens almost guarantee the maidens without lasix are at a disadvantage. The betting public isn't dumb. They know the good trainers, and which horses are working good, and which are bred to win early. In a sample as large as I'm talking, all those things even out between the Lasix and non-Lasix horses. The difference is return is staggering. Remember, I'm not talking win percentage, I'm talking how the horses perform in relation to how they were bet.

With the Euro horses, we do have a baseline, and the results are strikingly similar. I also mentioned the book "Champions" where you can find plenty of examples. I've looked it up in the past, and I'm not going to do it again to try to prove a point. It is there for anyone bothering to look. You just have to do it with the blinkers off.

I honestly don't care one way or the other about Lasix. There are way bigger problems in the game. However, in my opinion, denying it is a performance enhancer is about as silly as you make all the arguments for banning it appear to be, and probably rightfully so. Why is it banned for human competitors, by the way? I'm curious of your take on that.

I have to ask, do you still think Shane Battier is a better player than Rudy Gay? (You don't have to answer, we all know that was ridiculous, and it is off topic)

Of course the term performance enhancer in terms of drugs in racing has always referred to illegal drugs that gave the horse using it an unfair edge over the other competitors, not something that is reported to the public and regulated but you knew that. Declaring lasix a performance enhancer is simply an attempt to attach a morality issue to its use.

I dont recall saying that Battier was better but that his loss might be bigger to the team than when they lost Gay last year and did better without him.

As for lasix being banned in human competition what sport are you referring to? It isnt banned in boxing.