25 trainers urge Lasix-ban; THA says issue debated, decided

[Aly-Sheba]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

There is no bigger falsehood than lasix adds days to how long a horse can run back. While that excuse might be given by one of those guys wanting to keep their win percentage high but unless you are talking about running your horse back in less than a week for most horses it is bunk.

I belive you, but you always hear them talk about lasix dehydrating the horse and they can't run back as soon, so horses don't run as much in a year as they used to. I'm sure the day money plays a big factor in it also.

[pointman]

I am all for rooting cheaters out of the game, but I find it really comical how some trainers are considered absolute juicers and others 100% clean when there is no definitive evidence either way.

[ateamstupid]

I love the false equivalence marathon going on here. So because Linda Rice made a smart claim that she eventually turned into a G1 horse, that's the same as Dutrow and his "paramour" ROUTINELY moving horses way up in their FIRST STARTS off the claim. It takes a serious bias or willful ignorance to explain all that away as nothing more than good horsemanship.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

I love the false equivalence marathon going on here. So because Linda Rice made a smart claim that she eventually turned into a G1 horse, that's the same as Dutrow and his "paramour" ROUTINELY moving horses way up in their FIRST STARTS off the claim. It takes a serious bias or willful ignorance to explain all that away as nothing more than good horsemanship.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Danzig

So smart claims are exclusive to people who "we" deem to be highly skilled professionals, that the peanut gallery is of the opinion are "clean". So people like Michele Nevin aren't capable of making successful claims that the "clean" trainers are privy to because we assume they are cheating.. #Gotcha.. Now its crystal clear, depending on your name we judge skill vs. chemicals. Proof is not necessary just the pronunciation of your last name in determining judgement.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by freddymo

So smart claims are exclusive to people who "we" deem to be highly skilled professionals, that the peanut gallery is of the opinion are "clean". So people like Michele Nevin aren't capable of making successful claims that the "clean" trainers are privy to because we assume they are cheating.. #Gotcha.. Now its crystal clear, depending on your name we judge skill vs. chemicals. Proof is not necessary just the pronunciation of your last name in determining judgement.

what?

until or unless someone is found to be dirty, i will have to think they're clean. consistently getting caught with violations-well, how would anyone trust they're clean?

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Danzig

what?

until or unless someone is found to be dirty, i will have to think they're clean. consistently getting caught with violations-well, how would anyone trust they're clean?

Michele Nevin has violations?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pointman

I am all for rooting cheaters out of the game, but I find it really comical how some trainers are considered absolute juicers and others 100% clean when there is no definitive evidence either way.

I am often puzzled by who is considered a "good guy" and who is considered a "bad guy".

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by pointman

I am all for rooting cheaters out of the game, but I find it really comical how some trainers are considered absolute juicers and others 100% clean when there is no definitive evidence either way.

it's true that those who haven't ever been caught may not have been caught 'yet'.
but when you've got trainers who have rap sheets a mile long...well, i think it's pretty clear that they're cheaters.
take patrick biancone-a year out of the game. did that harm the game? the owners who had to hire other trainers? i doubt it.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Aly-Sheba

I belive you, but you always hear them talk about lasix dehydrating the horse and they can't run back as soon, so horses don't run as much in a year as they used to. I'm sure the day money plays a big factor in it also.

I was told that Eoin Harty did an experiment where he weighed every horse before they ran and after they ran. He did this with horses that ran on lasix and horses that didn't run on lasix. The horses that ran on lasix lost an average of about 80 pounds in the race. It took them about 2-3 weeks to put the weight back on. The horses that ran without lasix lost less than 10 pounds and they put the weight back on in 3 days.

I don't see how anyone can say that horses that run on lasix can run back as quick as horses that don't, when it takes horses that run on lasix 2-3 weeks just to put the weight back on that they lost.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I was told that Eoin Harty did an experiment where he weighed every horse before they ran and after they ran. He did this with horses that ran on lasix and horses that didn't run on lasix. The horses that ran on lasix lost an average of about 80 pounds in the race. It took them about 2-3 weeks to put the weight back on. The horses that ran without lasix lost less than 10 pounds and they put the weight back on in 3 days.

I don't see how anyone can say that horses that run on lasix can run back as quick as horses that don't, when it takes horses that run on lasix 2-3 weeks just to put the weight back on that they lost.

He ran 2 horses at the Spa yesterday. Both had lasix. If this is the case, why is he running his horses on lasix?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by pointman

He ran 2 horses at the Spa yesterday. Both had lasix. If this is the case, why is he running his horses on lasix?

I would assume the reason he still runs on lasix is because he believes the pros outweigh the cons. Most people believe that it moves horses up. In addition, most guys aren't looking to run their horses every 2-3 weeks. If your horses only run every 4-6 weeks, the weight loss is probably not a big issue.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I would assume the reason he still runs on lasix is because he believes the pros outweigh the cons. Most people believe that it moves horses up. In addition, most guys aren't looking to run their horses every 2-3 weeks. If your horses only run every 4-6 weeks, the weight loss is probably not a big issue.

I'm sorry Rupert, he did not run any at the Spa yesterday. I confused him with Eric Guillot, I guess the confusion stems from two trainers that consistently get high priced stock and consistently underperform with them.

Having said that, he ran one at Del Mar yesterday without lasix and is running one today with lasix.

If there is so much bad about lasix, I just don't get why every trainer runs their horses on it. It is clearly beneficial to the horses.

If it takes so much weight off horses why are Europeans training on it? How could they get the weight back on by race time?

I just don't buy the anti-lasix crap. What is going to happen to bleeders that can't race, there are already too many unwanted horses as it stands.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by pointman

I'm sorry Rupert, he did not run any at the Spa yesterday. I confused him with Eric Guillot, I guess the confusion stems from two trainers that consistently get high priced stock and consistently underperform with them.

Having said that, he ran one at Del Mar yesterday without lasix and is running one today with lasix.

If there is so much bad about lasix, I just don't get why every trainer runs their horses on it. It is clearly beneficial to the horses.

If it takes so much weight off horses why are Europeans training on it? How could they get the weight back on by race time?

I just don't buy the anti-lasix crap. What is going to happen to bleeders that can't race, there are already too many unwanted horses as it stands.

I think practically all trainers believe lasix is beneficial overall. Trainers look at the benefits compared to the cost and they think they are better off running on lasix. I think on practically every measure, lasix has been shown to move up most horses. But that doesn't mean that horses need it. It just means that if you don't use it while others are using it, you are at a disadvantage.

In terms of training on it, they usually get a much smaller dose than they get in a race. The reason some trainers will use it for workouts is because they would rather be safe than sorry. Lets say that you are going to work your horse tomorrow and he is scheduled to run in 8 days. Many trainers will give the horse lasix for the work because if they don't give it to him and he happens to bleed, then they are going to miss the race. If the horse bleeds you are going to have to put him on antibiotics and back off a little bit and it's going to set you back a week or two. Many trainers don't want to take that chance.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Aly-Sheba

I belive you, but you always hear them talk about lasix dehydrating the horse and they can't run back as soon, so horses don't run as much in a year as they used to. I'm sure the day money plays a big factor in it also.

Win % and the fact that there rarely are races back quickly for most classes of horses.

Harness horses run 3-4 times a month on lasix, with no hydration issues. Different breeds but in terms of hydration and mineral loss, physiologically the same.

Sure sometimes in the summer when it is consistently hot you might need a little more time. If you have a nervous horse that is prone to wash out even training, you might need a little more time. But those arent the norm.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Harness horses run 3-4 times a month on lasix, with no hydration issues. Different breeds but in terms of hydration and mineral loss, physiologically the same.

I went googling for sources to back this up (not that I doubted you; I just spent too many years working at a science organization) and came across this op-ed piece. It's about trotters, but looks at very similar arguments TB fans make, including the argument that it weakens the breed:

http://xwebapp.ustrotting.com/absolu...7932&zoneid=29

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

I went googling for sources to back this up (not that I doubted you; I just spent too many years working at a science organization) and came across this op-ed piece. It's about trotters, but looks at very similar arguments TB fans make, including the argument that it weakens the breed:

http://xwebapp.ustrotting.com/absolu...7932&zoneid=29

Im often embarrassed for the sport when people claim that the breed was been "weakened" by the use of a diuretic. It wasnt weakened by indiscriminate steroid use, or stallions being bred to 500% more mares a year or the physical manipulation of foals via surgeries, or a bloodstock expansion that once had 80000 foals on the ground ever year during the 80's, or the rise of statebred programs based upon generally inferior stock. Nope, just lasix.

Whether lasix is banned or not the thing that bothers me the most is that the aggressive campaign by the anti-lasix people has led to far, far too much unnecessary bad PR for the sport. People have short memories but this issue had been put to bed over 20 years ago. There was no betting public issue. There was (and still is) plenty of foreign buyers at our sales. The elimination of lasix doesnt figure to add one extra dollar to the handle or an extra person to the stands (unless they buy a NYRA season pass in which they are counted as being there regardless of where they actually are).

The moral or ethical dilemma of treating horses on raceday with lasix seems to confuse some into believing that there will be some economical gain by stopping it. Maybe if we were all still in 3rd grade and the world was a black and white place I could understand people thinking this way.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Im often embarrassed for the sport when people claim that the breed was been "weakened" by the use of a diuretic. It wasnt weakened by indiscriminate steroid use, or stallions being bred to 500% more mares a year or the physical manipulation of foals via surgeries, or a bloodstock expansion that once had 80000 foals on the ground ever year during the 80's, or the rise of statebred programs based upon generally inferior stock. Nope, just lasix.

Whether lasix is banned or not the thing that bothers me the most is that the aggressive campaign by the anti-lasix people has led to far, far too much unnecessary bad PR for the sport. People have short memories but this issue had been put to bed over 20 years ago. There was no betting public issue. There was (and still is) plenty of foreign buyers at our sales. The elimination of lasix doesnt figure to add one extra dollar to the handle or an extra person to the stands (unless they buy a NYRA season pass in which they are counted as being there regardless of where they actually are).

The moral or ethical dilemma of treating horses on raceday with lasix seems to confuse some into believing that there will be some economical gain by stopping it. Maybe if we were all still in 3rd grade and the world was a black and white place I could understand people thinking this way.

People like easy one-size-fits-all solutions. And the media also prefers them because they make for 800 word columns. Complex is boring and hard and takes too long to explain.

I was intrigued that the op-ed said that Europeans don't usually scope their horses if there's no visible sign of bleeding so Americans and Europeans are really working with two totally different sets of data when it comes to reported incidences of EIPH.