Is the Drug Bill about the destroy the business of Horse Racing?

[andymays]

http://trainingdays365.blogspot.com/2011/06/blind-appealing-to-stupid.html

Excerpt:

If you have gotten to this point I ask just one thing of you. Read the bill that is proposed. It is a piece of garbage that should cost Whitfield and Udall their seats for sponsoring such a joke of a bill. The severe lack of clarity or specifics is appalling for Communist China let alone America.

[FenceBored]

For those who would like to read the bill before they vote on it:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.1733:

[Robert Goren]

If horse racing continues to refuse to clean up its own act, then the Feds will. From a bettors point, this bill is better than what we have now, but then again anything would be.

[lamboguy]

the drug bill can only improve racing. i rather see 3 horse fields with horses that are not on drugs than 12 horses that have horses in them that are stoned out of their minds.

[rastajenk]

You'd rather see them, but would you rather bet on them?

I didn't think so.

[comet52]

Horsemen will adjust and eventually thank the congress for weaning them off their addiction to dope.

[thaskalos]

http://trainingdays365.blogspot.com/2011/06/blind-appealing-to-stupid.html

Excerpt:

If you have gotten to this point I ask just one thing of you. Read the bill that is proposed. It is a piece of garbage that should cost Whitfield and Udall their seats for sponsoring such a joke of a bill. The severe lack of clarity or specifics is appalling for Communist China let alone America.
The impassioned plea of "Horse Trainer" is duly noted...but I have a question for HIM:

While he was training horses and earning untold "millions" for his clients...did he ever stop to consider the plight of the horseplayer...who, after all, shoulders the burden of making sure that those MILLIONS of dollars remain available for the taking?

Why couldn't the racing "industry" take the proper measures to clean up this game BEFORE this government intervention? Didn't they have enough time?

Haven't there been enough veterinarians speaking out against this injustice, throughout the country?

I can still remember a "60 MINUTES" special in the mid-1970s...where Illinois veterinarians were revealing that illegal drug use in that state was getting so rampant...it was almost impossible for the horseplayer to make an educated choice while playing this game.

And yet, the industry continued with "business as usual"...with the horsemen getting "fat" on the subsequent full-card simulcasting and casino infused purses.

And now the horsemen are looking for sympathy from the horseplayers?

Truth IS stranger than fiction...

[Hanover1]

the drug bill can only improve racing. i rather see 3 horse fields with horses that are not on drugs than 12 horses that have horses in them that are stoned out of their minds.

Would keep a few more of them around longer as well, rather than go-go, retire, and on to the next crop. Surprised a shorter field with clean horses would not appeal to bettors vs the norm at present, but here again its just speculation as to field size once a bill like this ever gets the nod. Having sounder, clean horses would improve longevity of those racing, it would seem, but I'm sure we will have detractors yet again, if for no other reason than something like this having horsemen endorsement. And yes, I voted in favor of.....

[Southieboy]

This bill has NO shot of failing. It will get passed.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

I like Jerry Bailey's suggestion:

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?categoryid=2488837&id=6571806

[5k-claim]

For those who would like to read the bill before they vote on it:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.1733:Since I will have to live with this bill beyond just voting "Yes" after devoting about 10 seconds to saying, "It's about time something was done. The trainers are all a bunch of cheats.", I went ahead and took you up on your offer to read this.

I guess all of the "details" in the bill are to come later?

Under definitions:
(2) PERFORMANCE-ENHANCING DRUG- The term `performance-enhancing drug'-- `(A) means any substance capable of affecting the performance of a horse at any time by acting on the nervous system, cardiovascular system, respiratory system, digestive system, urinary system, reproductive system, musculoskeletal system, blood system, immune system (other than licensed vaccines against infectious agents), or endocrine system of the horse; and `(B) includes the substances listed in the Alphabetized Listing of Drugs in the January 2010 revision of the Association of Racing Commissioners International, Inc., publication entitled `Uniform Classification Guidelines for Foreign Substances. I have also read and/or referenced the 'Uniform Classification Guidelines for Foreign Substances' from time to time. It is noteworthy to me that the Guidelines go to great lengths to group drugs into Classifications ranging from 1-5. For example, Heroin gets a "1", and Tylenol gets a "4". It also recommends penalties based on those Classifications. The Classifications are what I reference, and all of this seems reasonable enough to me.

What is somewhat confusing to me is that the Alphabetized Listing of Drugs that the bill is using to define "The term `performance-enhancing drug'" is just that, an alphabetized listing of all of them. From heroin to tylenol. I don't know if the bill's authors do not even realize that the different Classifications even exist, but I would like to know what distinctions between drugs the bill intends to make. Is the intention to use the Classifications set forth by the ARCI?

As quoted from the bill above, the bill's definition of 'performance-enhancing drug' could really mean just about anything at the moment.

What I need is what people need all over the world, whether they are racing in the supposed utopia of "drug-free rest of the world" or "drug infested America"- and that is a simple list of withdrawal times. Heck, I can even live with the list the British Horseracing Authority provides for its horsemen to use in making sure the therapeutic drugs they are using during training are sufficiently out of the horse's system by the time the "drug free" raceday comes along.

Too bad the bill doesn't provide that list.

Without knowing any details about how this bill would actually work, it is hard for me to give it the "thumbs up" at the moment. And I have no idea how anyone else could, either.

Thanks again for the invitation to actually read this, FenceBored. There is either a more comprehensive version of this bill somewhere, or else there is still a lot of details to be worked out.

.

[JustRalph]

I don't have to read the bill. I don't have to go any further than knowing the guy who wrote this article is a trainer. That tells me where he is coming from. Enough said.

I hope the bill tears the ass end out of half the tracks in America and they shut down. Then maybe the game could be saved. For too long this game has been shitting on its fans. This bill passing might make some of these crooks go away. Things can't get much worse.

[Charli125]

There is either a more comprehensive version of this bill somewhere, or else there is still a lot of details to be worked out.

This is the main reason I chose the bottom two options in the poll. As the rule is written right now, we would all of the sudden have the strictest drug policy in the world with zero tolerance for everything. For this bill to be effective they need specific thresholds, lists of drugs, etc. If we suddenly took horses off of all drugs, we would really be hurting our horses.

I'm far from an expert, but the current bill, as it's written, is far too broad and strikes me as reactionary rather than progressive.

[5k-claim]

This is the main reason I chose the bottom two options in the poll. As the rule is written right now, we would all of the sudden have the strictest drug policy in the world with zero tolerance for everything. For this bill to be effective they need specific thresholds, lists of drugs, etc. If we suddenly took horses off of all drugs, we would really be hurting our horses.

I'm far from an expert, but the current bill, as it's written, is far too broad and strikes me as reactionary rather than progressive.I definitely agree with you.

At this point, I am suspecting that this is just a clever way to get all of us to just accept the "rest of the world" model. It is a way of saying, "Alright horsemen, we can either use the policies of the rest of the world or we will come up with something on our own of monumental, staggering stupidity. The choice is yours."

It is a good strategy because I do not trust that they actually know enough to be bluffing about this. I back down and choose the former.

.

[Robert Goren]

As usual, it is not to hard to tell which posters are horsemen and which ones only bet on the horses.

[toussaud]

Horsemen will adjust and eventually thank the congress for weaning them off their addiction to dope.
This post is so spot on it's not even funny.

Like a real person addicted to drugs, when someone tries to do the right thing and intervene, the person who is being intervened usually throws a temper tantrum, blames everyone else except themselves, makes threats and so on and so forth

and usually if that person can stay clean, a while later they are thankful that it happened.

The last person you should be hearing from in the case of an intervention, which is what the feds are doing now, is hearing from the drug addict. His thoughts on the subject are irrelevant because he's not coming from the right state of mind to provide an accurate assessment of what needs to be done. He is thinking, of what rue can he pull to keep his or her drug supply from drying up.

[Cannon shell]

the drug bill can only improve racing. i rather see 3 horse fields with horses that are not on drugs than 12 horses that have horses in them that are stoned out of their minds.
question #1- What track currently runs a bunch of 12 horse field?
question #2- Since you claim to be horse savvy do you really think a shot of Lasix makes horses "stoned out of their minds"?
question #3- Did you actually read the bill?

[Cannon shell]

Horsemen will adjust and eventually thank the congress for weaning them off their addiction to dope.
How can you adjust when they have basically eliminated all of the rules? You are far more likely to be addicted to dope than a racehorse.

Perhaps someday you will be sick and when you go to the doctor he will say just go rest in a field for a few months, we dont want you to get addicted to dope.

[Cannon shell]

The impassioned plea of "Horse Trainer" is duly noted...but I have a question for HIM:

While he was training horses and earning untold "millions" for his clients...did he ever stop to consider the plight of the horseplayer...who, after all, shoulders the burden of making sure that those MILLIONS of dollars remain available for the taking?

Why couldn't the racing "industry" take the proper measures to clean up this game BEFORE this government intervention? Didn't they have enough time?

Haven't there been enough veterinarians speaking out against this injustice, throughout the country?

I can still remember a "60 MINUTES" special in the mid-1970s...where Illinois veterinarians were revealing that illegal drug use in that state was getting so rampant...it was almost impossible for the horseplayer to make an educated choice while playing this game.

And yet, the industry continued with "business as usual"...with the horsemen getting "fat" on the subsequent full-card simulcasting and casino infused purses.

And now the horsemen are looking for sympathy from the horseplayers?

Truth IS stranger than fiction...
I wonder why you think horseman and horseplayer are mutually exclusive? What exactly is it that I could do for you? Do I have the ability to make the tracks or states lower takeout? Why do horseplayer's want sympathy from horseman? We acknowledge your importance in the grand scheme but we have a long list of our own issues to try to solve as well. Acting like horseman are getting "fat" is like saying that horseplayers are all getting fat on big pick 6 carryovers.

Perhaps if you read the piece you would have seen the part where I pointed out that among the real problems of the game, high takeout is a big problem.

And if you are convinced since the 70's that the game is fixed, why remain? That is a serious question.

I am asking for no sympathy, just pointing out the issues that this bill will create while solving no issues at all. Please keep in mind that the people who are behind this bill care less about you than about us and it is pretty obvious how they consider us. Keep getting the Feds involved and it won't be long until a Federal surcharge is slapped on all bets to pay for the bureaucratic monster that needs to be created.

[Cannon shell]

I don't have to read the bill. I don't have to go any further than knowing the guy who wrote this article is a trainer. That tells me where he is coming from. Enough said.

I hope the bill tears the ass end out of half the tracks in America and they shut down. Then maybe the game could be saved. For too long this game has been shitting on its fans. This bill passing might make some of these crooks go away. Things can't get much worse.

Did you have a bad day or something dude? I know it is hard for some to comprehend but this bill gives cheater a bigger edge.

[Cannon shell]

This post is so spot on it's not even funny.

Like a real person addicted to drugs, when someone tries to do the right thing and intervene, the person who is being intervened usually throws a temper tantrum, blames everyone else except themselves, makes threats and so on and so forth

and usually if that person can stay clean, a while later they are thankful that it happened.

The last person you should be hearing from in the case of an intervention, which is what the feds are doing now, is hearing from the drug addict. His thoughts on the subject are irrelevant because he's not coming from the right state of mind to provide an accurate assessment of what needs to be done. He is thinking, of what rue can he pull to keep his or her drug supply from drying up.
You better hope paceadvantage doesn't come up with an IQ requirement.

[FenceBored]

Since I will have to live with this bill beyond just voting "Yes" after devoting about 10 seconds to saying, "It's about time something was done. The trainers are all a bunch of cheats.", I went ahead and took you up on your offer to read this.

I guess all of the "details" in the bill are to come later?

Under definitions:
I have also read and/or referenced the 'Uniform Classification Guidelines for Foreign Substances' from time to time. It is noteworthy to me that the Guidelines go to great lengths to group drugs into Classifications ranging from 1-5. For example, Heroin gets a "1", and Tylenol gets a "4". It also recommends penalties based on those Classifications. The Classifications are what I reference, and all of this seems reasonable enough to me.

What is somewhat confusing to me is that the Alphabetized Listing of Drugs that the bill is using to define "The term `performance-enhancing drug'" is just that, an alphabetized listing of all of them. From heroin to tylenol. I don't know if the bill's authors do not even realize that the different Classifications even exist, but I would like to know what distinctions between drugs the bill intends to make. Is the intention to use the Classifications set forth by the ARCI?

As quoted from the bill above, the bill's definition of 'performance-enhancing drug' could really mean just about anything at the moment.

What I need is what people need all over the world, whether they are racing in the supposed utopia of "drug-free rest of the world" or "drug infested America"- and that is a simple list of withdrawal times. Heck, I can even live with the list the British Horseracing Authority provides for its horsemen to use in making sure the therapeutic drugs they are using during training are sufficiently out of the horse's system by the time the "drug free" raceday comes along.

Too bad the bill doesn't provide that list.

Without knowing any details about how this bill would actually work, it is hard for me to give it the "thumbs up" at the moment. And I have no idea how anyone else could, either.

Thanks again for the invitation to actually read this, FenceBored. There is either a more comprehensive version of this bill somewhere, or else there is still a lot of details to be worked out.

.

Details like that won't be in the bill. They'll be left up to regulators in the appropriate Federal agency.

[thaskalos]

I wonder why you think horseman and horseplayer are mutually exclusive? What exactly is it that I could do for you? Do I have the ability to make the tracks or states lower takeout? Why do horseplayer's want sympathy from horseman? We acknowledge your importance in the grand scheme but we have a long list of our own issues to try to solve as well. Acting like horseman are getting "fat" is like saying that horseplayers are all getting fat on big pick 6 carryovers.

Perhaps if you read the piece you would have seen the part where I pointed out that among the real problems of the game, high takeout is a big problem.

And if you are convinced since the 70's that the game is fixed, why remain? That is a serious question.

I am asking for no sympathy, just pointing out the issues that this bill will create while solving no issues at all. Please keep in mind that the people who are behind this bill care less about you than about us and it is pretty obvious how they consider us. Keep getting the Feds involved and it won't be long until a Federal surcharge is slapped on all bets to pay for the bureaucratic monster that needs to be created.
The industry and the horsemen have been in control long enough, WITHOUT any interference from the Feds, my friend...and we have all seen what a wonderful job they have done running this game. Did you guys really expect to be allowed to run this game COMPLETELY into the ground, before the Feds moved in?

Name me another industry which has as adversarial a relationship with its customers as THIS industry has!

Horsemen trying to deceive us by legal or illegal means...racetracks robbing us blind with escalating takeouts to make up for income lost because of gross mismanagement of their product...and then you say that YOU guys "have a long list of YOUR OWN issues to solve"...before you can concern yourselves with our affairs?

If you think training horses is a tough way to make a living...try betting on them!

[Kelso]

Keep getting the Feds involved and it won't be long until a Federal surcharge is slapped on all bets to pay for the bureaucratic monster that needs to be created.Or, perhaps the (popularly elected) feds will recognize that there are a HELL of a lot more handicappers than horsemen and will slap the surcharge on purses. Hey ... now THERE'S an idea!

[lamboguy]

question #1- What track currently runs a bunch of 12 horse field?
question #2- Since you claim to be horse savvy do you really think a shot of Lasix makes horses "stoned out of their minds"?
question #3- Did you actually read the bill?
i didn't read the bill. i hate lassix, kentucky red, bute and all the other stuff the vets stick in horses.

its pretty sad that horseracing needs the congress to straighten out what they should have done by themselves. of course the law is useless. all over the world where they don't allow drugs they have thousands of people at the racetracks watching the horses. some of the places have worse horses that run all day than they did at yavapai, or ferndale. yet they have people all over the place. they can get people to watch slow horses without drugs, yet we can't get em in the stands to watch fast horses all druged up.


i don't need to read bills, you need to watch racing overseas.

[Cannon shell]

The industry and the horsemen have been in control long enough, WITHOUT any interference from the Feds, my friend...and we have all seen what a wonderful job they have done running this game. Did you guys really expect to be allowed to run this game COMPLETELY into the ground, before the Feds moved in?

Name me another industry which has as adversarial a relationship with its customers as THIS industry has!

Horsemen trying to deceive us by legal or illegal means...racetracks robbing us blind with escalating takeouts to make up for income lost because of gross mismanagement of their product...and then you say that YOU guys "have a long list of YOUR OWN issues to solve"...before you can concern yourselves with our affairs?

If you think training horses is a tough way to make a living...try betting on them!
It is impossible to reason with those who are unreasonable.

If there was a bill that was slapping a 10% takeout on all winning bets do you think I would post here to gloat? What I am trying to convey is that 1. federal intervention is going to cost money. Where do you think that money is going to come from? and 2. the bill as written will not create the level playing field that everyone is looking for. It ignores the reality that horses are living creatures with physical issues like every other living being. Ignoring that they ALL have issues of some varying degree like this bill does will make it impossible to properly treat and care for them which will surely lead to more erratic form. Not to mention that there is no provisions for further research or investigation into illicit drugs that the genius trainers use so in effect they are getting a bigger head start. The idea that Lasix "masks" drugs is both incorrect and misses the point that you don't have to mask what they don't know how to test for.

But hey keep blaming me for your woes. You won't see me cursing or wishing you ill because you dont bet enough for my liking.

[Cannon shell]

Or, perhaps the (popularly elected) feds will recognize that there are a HELL of a lot more handicappers than horsemen and will slap the surcharge on purses. Hey ... now THERE'S an idea!
Do you seriously think that elected officials are going to help horseplayers? Seriously you cant be that naive. Just look at the big favor they do you with the withholding tax already in existence.

[thaskalos]

It is impossible to reason with those who are unreasonable.

If there was a bill that was slapping a 10% takeout on all winning bets do you think I would post here to gloat? What I am trying to convey is that 1. federal intervention is going to cost money. Where do you think that money is going to come from? and 2. the bill as written will not create the level playing field that everyone is looking for. It ignores the reality that horses are living creatures with physical issues like every other living being. Ignoring that they ALL have issues of some varying degree like this bill does will make it impossible to properly treat and care for them which will surely lead to more erratic form. Not to mention that there is no provisions for further research or investigation into illicit drugs that the genius trainers use so in effect they are getting a bigger head start. The idea that Lasix "masks" drugs is both incorrect and misses the point that you don't have to mask what they don't know how to test for.

But hey keep blaming me for your woes. You won't see me cursing or wishing you ill because you dont bet enough for my liking.
Cursing you and wishing you ill? NOTHING OF THE SORT!

I am just telling you guys that "you have made your bed...and now you have to lie in it."

And I find it very amusing that, after the horseplayer has been ignored for so long, he is now being told by the horseman that..."we are all in this together..."

[Cannon shell]

i didn't read the bill. i hate lassix, kentucky red, bute and all the other stuff the vets stick in horses.

its pretty sad that horseracing needs the congress to straighten out what they should have done by themselves. of course the law is useless. all over the world where they don't allow drugs they have thousands of people at the racetracks watching the horses. some of the places have worse horses that run all day than they did at yavapai, or ferndale. yet they have people all over the place. they can get people to watch slow horses without drugs, yet we can't get em in the stands to watch fast horses all druged up.


i don't need to read bills, you need to watch racing overseas.
Pretty sad that you couldn't be bothered to read a 7 page double spaced bill yet feel qualified to comment on it?

I not only have been to other countries I have friends that train in France, England and Hong Kong. Guess what??? They use drugs there too!

You know what they all want to know? What new drugs are there that they can get their hands on. The ironic part about this overseas nonsense is that horses in England and France make fewer starts per year than US horses.

[thaskalos]

Or, perhaps the (popularly elected) feds will recognize that there are a HELL of a lot more handicappers than horsemen and will slap the surcharge on purses. Hey ... now THERE'S an idea!As usual...the voice of reason! :ThmbUp:

[Cannon shell]

Cursing you and wishing you ill? NOTHING OF THE SORT!

I am just telling you guys that "you have made your bed...and now you have to lay on it."

And I find it very amusing that - after the horseplayer has been ignored for so long - he is now being told by the horseman that..."we are all in this together..."
The truth is that we haven't made any beds. The rules that are written weren't written or enforced by us. The racing commissions make the rules, we don't.

Again there are a lot of horse owners and trainers that bet, so acting as though they are completely separate entities is silly. The fact is the horseman have very little to say about many of the issues. I realize that you guys are all upset about the takeout deal in CA and I dont blame you. I thought it was a very short sighted deal but it wasn't done to screw the players. It was done out of desperation and because the powers that be in CA have made a lot of errors. The least represented party gets the short end of the stick but the state and track are complicit as well. The thing is that the vindictiveness shown towards horseman, most of whom aren't making much money at all, serves no purpose. The truth is that the horseman, jockeys, tracks and players should all be working in concert but pettiness and greed by all the parties seemingly will never let this happen

[Kelso]

Do you seriously think that elected officials are going to help horseplayers? Seriously you cant be that naive. Just look at the big favor they do you with the withholding tax already in existence.Are you really dumb enough to think people don't recognize your feeble efforts to put words in their mouths? I wrote nothing ... NOTHING ... about the feds helping horseplayers. I wrote of a logical alternative to your wagering surcharge scare tactic.

[Cannon shell]

Are you really dumb enough to think people don't recognize your feeble efforts to put words in their mouths? I wrote nothing ... NOTHING ... about the feds helping horseplayers. I wrote of a logical alternative to your wagering surcharge scare tactic.
Scare tactic? That is not a scare tactic, it is a logical assumption. They are going to look for the largest pool of money and attach to it. Only the naive believe that horseplayer's are going to come out of federal intervention unscathed. And only the truly naive believe that the Feds will be any different than the current state run administrations which everyone complains about.

[saratoga guy]

I've been an longtime advocate of going back to hay, oats and water -- BUT at the same time I realize there is another side to the issue and a that a drastic change in med policies - particularly if implemented quickly - could have unintended consequences.

The issue deserves thoughtful discussion from both sides. And any implementation should be cautious.

So it's kind of disheartening to read a thread like this.

Horses "that are stoned out of their minds."

"Stoned out of their minds"? Really?

"I hope the bill tears the ass end out of half the tracks in America and they shut down."

That's some positive thinking!

"The last person you should be hearing from in the case of an intervention, which is what the feds are doing now, is hearing from the drug addict."

So horsemen and trainers are "drug addicts"? Yeesh.

"Name me another industry which has as adversarial a relationship with its customers as THIS industry has!"

Hmmm, I vote: Airline industry.

As has been suggested - a suggestion that was taken up by some in this thread, and resulted in some thoughtful comments - read the bill.

And if you're for federal intervention - well, watch out what you wish for. And remember when pointing to foreign jurisdictions as models, the British flat season just started a couple of weeks ago and ends in October, in Hong Kong and Japan they race two or three days per week at two or three tracks. Meanwhile we're year-round at many tracks and we have a shrinking foal population. If you're worried about field size now - think what it might be in the immediate aftermath of this legislation.

And for those of you who see this as a battle between horsemen (against the legislation) and horseplayers (for) -- take a minute and read Steven Crist's take (gotta put him in the horseplayer camp): "Federal regulation could cripple horse racing"

http://www.drf.com/news/federal-regulation-could-cripple-horse-racing

[pandy]

Banning drugs, including lasix, has little to do with field size. They race horses clean all over the world, except here in North America, and field size is impressive in many places including Europe, Down Under, Japan, etc. When we raced horses without lasix both harness racing and thoroughbred racing had bigger fields than they do now and the racing was better.

[Cannon shell]

Banning drugs, including lasix, has little to do with field size. They race horses clean all over the world, except here in North America, and field size is impressive in many places including Europe, Down Under, Japan, etc. When we raced horses without lasix both harness racing and thoroughbred racing had bigger fields than they do now and the racing was better.
So there are no other differences except Lasix?

The Lasix issue aside the current bill doesn't, as Steve Crist point's out, show any distinction between aspirin and elephant juice.

[Deepsix]

Its been a pretty interesting exchange of views. Thanks all.

[JustRalph]

I have been for closing half of all tracks for years now. I dont have to have a bad day to realize who the bad guys are in this game.

The game is so much worse than it was ten years ago.......the disappointment is almost immeasurable on some levels. Between the super trainers cheating their way to wealth on the back of the players to the west coast imbeciles who actually believe raising the price on a declining product is good business sense, I have to ask why the hell do I care about this shit sport that is constantly in search of some new way to survive and pick my pocket at the same time.

That question is coming up more and more............

[lamboguy]

So there are no other differences except Lasix?

The Lasix issue aside the current bill doesn't, as Steve Crist point's out, show any distinction between aspirin and elephant juice.he's right. there is no diference, both are very bad for the horse.

how long does it take to figure out that the horse comes first, not the track, not the trainer, not the vet, and not the owner of the horse?

no lassix= more horses in the long run

no drugs period= better racing product and more people interested in it, and less handles pushing slot machines.

[Charli125]

They race horses clean all over the world, except here in North America

This is the biggest misconception regarding this issue. This was news to me as well, but the other racing jurisdictions that people say, "race clean", are not 100% clean. They actually have higher thresholds and are legally able to use MORE drugs than we are here, Lasix being the big exception.

This really shouldn't be a players vs. owners thing since we both want full fields of healthy horses with a fair chance to win. I really don't think the players or owners have any business making this decision, but I know for sure that congress doesn't. I'd love to see some vets and higher-ups from the "clean" jurisdictions come over and work with some vets here to build our policy.

[Cannon shell]

he's right. there is no diference, both are very bad for the horse.

how long does it take to figure out that the horse comes first, not the track, not the trainer, not the vet, and not the owner of the horse?

no lassix= more horses in the long run

no drugs period= better racing product and more people interested in it, and less handles pushing slot machines.
So there is no difference between other countries racing and ours except Lasix?

Yeah sure the horse comes first bs. Acting as though thoroughbred racehorses shouldn't benefit from modern medicine is laughable. There is a huge difference between giving a horse of shot of some illicit drug and basic care of the horse. Those acting like Lasix is some terrible drug that causes harm to horses obviously has no understand of horses. Tossing out human issues with the medication misses the obvious point that humans take the stuff every day versus a horse getting it a few times a year.

The most laughable theory yet is the idea that eliminating the treatment for an issue will ultimately eliminate the issue especially in the case of EIPH which has many causes and in a great deal of cases is a symptom of another issue. I have no great love of Lasix, if given another reasonable alternative I would most likely choose that. However acting as though a diuretic is some evil, nefarious drug is misguided. All it does is make them pee.

Again the idea that there is some huge crowd of gamblers waiting for the sport to get rid of the L in the program before they dive back in is crazy. There is a huge difference between an effective, workable anti-drug program and what is being proposed.

[thaskalos]

I agree that this issue should not have been left for Congress to decide...but there was ample time for another "more knowledgeable" group to step up with a more viable solution to this serious problem...and NONE did.

All we got were the slap-on-the-wrist fines for repeat offenders, resulting in 40%+ training "wizards" in every racing circuit...and petty excuses like..."Only a small percentage of the trainers cheat..."

Even in the article featured in this thread's initial post, "horse trainer" brings out the same tired argument of how "98.6 of the test samples come back negative...so it cannot be said with TRUTH that the drug use in this game is widespread."

Nary a mention of all the illegal drugs that manage to AVOID detection...because of the severely limited resources allocated to the proper testing of these samples.

I guess the bettors should have volunteered to pay for the "modernization" of the laboratories too...

[Robert Goren]

I have been for closing half of all tracks for years now. I dont have to have a bad day to realize who the bad guys are in this game.

The game is so much worse than it was ten years ago.......the disappointment is almost immeasurable on some levels. Between the super trainers cheating their way to wealth on the back of the players to the west coast imbeciles who actually believe raising the price on a declining product is good business sense, I have to ask why the hell do I care about this shit sport that is constantly in search of some new way to survive and pick my pocket at the same time.

That question is coming up more and more............Final something we can agree on. Well put.

[cj]

Cannon, has Lasix has been used as a masking agent? I'm no expert here, but that argument is used often. What do you say?

[Kelso]

Scare tactic? That is not a scare tactic, it is a logical assumption. They are going to look for the largest pool of money and attach to it.Not logical at all; simply self-serving. The politicians will tax the least potent voting group. That's you, horseman.

Your self-delusive "logical assumption" remains nothing other than a scare tactic ... and you failed miserably with it.

[Kelso]

Acting as though thoroughbred racehorses shouldn't benefit from modern medicine is laughable.

<SNIP>

Again the idea that there is some huge crowd of gamblers waiting for the sport to get rid of the L in the program before they dive back in is crazy.There ya go again ... inventing straw-men arguments that nobody but you has brought up. Neither Lambo nor anyone else has suggested that "racehorses shouldn't benefit from modern medicine." What HAS been stated is that horses shouldn't race while on medication.

Nobody suggested that any gamblers are waiting for the elimination of Lasix before they start betting more (or again), either. You drug-happy trainers are but one of the many unnecessary aspects of the current game that are destroying it.

Stop putting words into other people's posts. You're already having a difficult enough time making any sense with your own.

[Dahoss9698]

Stop putting words into other people's posts. You're already having a difficult enough time making any sense with your own.

The irony here is pretty funny.

Lumping all trainers together as "drug happy" really does wonders for your arguement. You're going after the wrong people and as usual are misguided in your anger.

The same people in this thread talking about how evil lasix is have their horses running on it. Does that make sense to you?

[Kelso]

Lumping all trainers together as "drug happy" really does wonders for your arguement.Cannon Shell's sorry habit of intentionally mischaracterizing other people's statements appears to now be contagious. With your post, you clearly reveal yourself to be suffering from it.

I criticized "drug-happy trainers." I did NOT say anything AT ALL about "all trainers."

It's long past due that you started getting your facts straight, hoss. A better understanding of basic English grammar might, in that regard, be of great assistance to you.

[Dahoss9698]

Cannon Shell's sorry habit of intentionally mischaracterizing other people's statements appears to now be contagious. With your post, you clearly reveal yourself to be suffering from it.

I criticized "drug-happy trainers." I did NOT say anything AT ALL about "all trainers."

It's long past due that you started getting your facts straight, hoss. A better understanding of basic English grammar might, in that regard, be of great assistance to you.

You characterized him as a drug happy trainer. You're wrong, as usual. Own it.

Wise of you to avoid the other stuff. But it should be addressed. The same owners here criticizing lasix run their horses on it. Pretend you're consistent and get after them. Or at least pretend you're more than a internet loudmouth and get YOUR facts straight.

[Cannon shell]

Cannon, has Lasix has been used as a masking agent? I'm no expert here, but that argument is used often. What do you say?
Probably in the 70's and 80's. They now test at a trillionth of a gram level. The testing is so much more sophisticated now than just 15 years ago. I have spoken to Dr Tobin and Dr Barker from LSU numerous times about the subject. The fact is CJ that I would be much more worried about guys using altered drugs that wont be caught by testing or newer things than masking.

[Cannon shell]

Not logical at all; simply self-serving. The politicians will tax the least potent voting group. That's you, horseman.

Your self-delusive "logical assumption" remains nothing other than a scare tactic ... and you failed miserably with it.
Do you seriously think that Udall or Whitfield are worried about this issue costing them votes? LOL! Do you really think this is about their desire to "help" horseracing?

Yeah the horseplayer voting caucus is a big player at the polls in Western KY and New Mexico

Face it there will be no sentiment for people who bet on horses from politicians. None. Zero.

[Cannon shell]

There ya go again ... inventing straw-men arguments that nobody but you has brought up. Neither Lambo nor anyone else has suggested that "racehorses shouldn't benefit from modern medicine." What HAS been stated is that horses shouldn't race while on medication.

Nobody suggested that any gamblers are waiting for the elimination of Lasix before they start betting more (or again), either. You drug-happy trainers are but one of the many unnecessary aspects of the current game that are destroying it.

Stop putting words into other people's posts. You're already having a difficult enough time making any sense with your own.
When you understand the issue maybe you will be able to post more intellegently.

By effectively banning everything with no timetable given for withdrawals you are basically saying that you cant give anything to horse at anytime and feel safe. So how exactly can you treat a horses physical issues and feel safe about running them? Or are you another of the belief that horses are impervious to all sickness?

Your vindictiveness is telling.

[Cannon shell]

Cannon Shell's sorry habit of intentionally mischaracterizing other people's statements appears to now be contagious. With your post, you clearly reveal yourself to be suffering from it.

I criticized "drug-happy trainers." I did NOT say anything AT ALL about "all trainers."

It's long past due that you started getting your facts straight, hoss. A better understanding of basic English grammar might, in that regard, be of great assistance to you.
I suppose that you can tell the difference between a "drug happy" trainer and a "non-drug happy trainer"?

You won't even listen to one trying to tell you the truth.

But hey suit yourself. Keep believing your own little delusions that life was wonderful back in the 60's when all the drug use was covered up.

[Robert Goren]

One thing is right, the gamblers are not behind this bill and we all know that. This bill is being pushed by the animal rights groups. The fact that it will also benefit horse players is incidental, but a good thing.

[onefast99]

As usual, it is not to hard to tell which posters are horsemen and which ones only bet on the horses.
Can you be both? I guess when the owners and trainers and jocks agents and anyone else associated with horses goes up to the windows they are probably just asking where the closest rest room is!:confused:

[Robert Goren]

Can you be both? I guess when the owners and trainers and jocks agents and anyone else associated with horses goes up to the windows they are probably just asking where the closest rest room is!:confused: Owners, trainers etc who bet often have very different opinions on how to run the sport than those people bet only. When I see those gambling horse people as group start fighting for things that non horsepeople bettors consider important, in the case drugs, then I will know we have made progress. The problem is that the gambling horse people still get most of their income from the horse end of the sport and will come down on the horse people side of any disagreement with the non horse people bettors. Case in point, I don't know of any non horse person bettor who doesn't want to get rid of Lasix, yet even betting horse people want to keep it. When you show me that you actually agree with non horse person bettors on something that they want, but horse people don't, then I will believe that you are not nothing more than a shill for the horse people. Why would any bettor who is not also a horse person want a horse running on any drugs?

[onefast99]

Owners, trainers etc who bet often have very different opinions on how to run the sport than those people bet only. When I see those gambling horse people as group start fighting for things that non horsepeople bettors consider important, in the case drugs, then I will know we have made progress. The problem is that the gambling horse people still get most of their income from the horse end of the sport and will come down on the horse people side of any disagreement with the non horse people bettors. Case in point, I don't know of any non horse person bettor who doesn't want to get rid of Lasix, yet even betting horse people want to keep it. When you show me that you actually agree with non horse person bettors on something that they want, but horse people don't, then I will believe that you are not nothing more than a shill for the horse people. Why would any bettor who is not also a horse person want a horse running on any drugs?
A lesson in equine physiology: the biological reasons for bleeding

The thoroughbred racehorse has been highly optimized over hundreds of years of breeding to be an extremely efficient runner. Why, then, do so many of the species suffer from bleeding in the lungs under the stress of running? The answer to this question requires a peek inside the horse; understanding the configuration of the horse's internal organs shows why some bleeding is inevitable during a race.

The technical name for "bleeding" is exercise-induced pulmonary hemorrhage (EIPH). This describes a condition in which the tiny blood vessels in a horse's lungs rupture due to stress sustained during physical exertion. EIPH occurs in three variations. Simple EIPH is an acute condition resulting from the strain of exercise. Patent pulmonary hemorrhage (PPH) involves bleeding in the lungs as a reaction to an allergen, infection, or due to hypertension. Some horses experience composite bleeding, which is the result of the combined effects of simple EIPH and PPH. PPH is a chronic condition which must be treated with various medications. The effects of simple EIPH heal naturally over the course of several days.

Simple EIPH occurs as the natural consequence of strenuous running due to the layout of the horse's organs and the way the equine body moves during high-speed galloping. The horse's body is divided into two halves. The front end of the horse's trunk contains the heart, lungs, and other major organs. The back half of the horse contains the intestines, which are suspended within the abdomen by ligaments. The two halves are divided by a thin sheet of muscle called the diaphragm.

When the diaphragm contracts, the effect is to increase the volume of the horse's front half, the chest cavity. This increased volume draws air into the lungs. When running, this movement is synchronized such that the horse inhales when his front feet hit the ground and his skeletal structure is stretched to its maximum length. When the horse's front feet leave the ground, the skeletal structure is compressed and the diaphragm relaxes. The constricting chest cavity forces air out of the lungs, and the horse exhales.

Due to the back-and-forth motion of galloping, the horse's intestines swing like a pendulum at the end of the suspensory ligaments. When running at full speed, especially in the fastest sprint races, the movement of the intestines can get out of phase with the movement of the diaphragm in such a way that the intestinal mass is swinging forward as the horse is trying to exhale. This causes the diaphragm to be slammed forward and slightly upward. The diaphragm, in turn, squeezes part of the lungs against the chest wall.

The lungs are filled with alveoli, tiny air sacs, and capillaries, miniscule blood vessels. The alveoli and capillaries are so fine and so interconnected that oxygen from the inhaled air can pass into the bloodstream, and carbon dioxide in the blood can pass out of the blood into the lungs to be exhaled. The capillaries are at their smallest and most efficient near the rear, tapered end of the lungs where they abut the diaphragm.

It is exactly these most efficient, extremely fine capillaries which are repeatedly impacted by the forward-surging intestinal mass. As they rupture under the stress, the horse's air passages become clogged with blood. Obviously, this causes difficulty in breathing which causes difficulty in running.

Some studies suggest that airborn debris, such as dust and pollen, play a role in EIPH. Increased fluid and mucous or inflammation due to these irritants obstruct the horse's airways and require even harder breathing during a race.

Once EIPH starts in a horse, it tends to be a lifelong problem.

The role of Lasix

The medication Furosemide, sold under the trade name, "Lasix", is a powerful diuretic that causes fluids locked up in the horse's body tissues to be released and expelled in the urine. This has the effect of lowering the horse's blood pressure, particularly in the aorta and pulmonary artery. The lower blood pressure in the capillaries mitigates the problem of EIPH; thus, the horse's performance returns to a normal level. Lasix is treatment of choice for EIPH, though study results of its effectiveness vary.

[BillW]

A lesson in equine physiology: the biological reasons for bleeding



Simple EIPH occurs as the natural consequence of strenuous running due to the layout of the horse's organs and the way the equine body moves during high-speed galloping. The horse's body is divided into two halves. The front end of the horse's trunk contains the heart, lungs, and other major organs. The back half of the horse contains the intestines, which are suspended within the abdomen by ligaments. The two halves are divided by a thin sheet of muscle called the diaphragm.

When the diaphragm contracts, the effect is to increase the volume of the horse's front half, the chest cavity. This increased volume draws air into the lungs. When running, this movement is synchronized such that the horse inhales when his front feet hit the ground and his skeletal structure is stretched to its maximum length. When the horse's front feet leave the ground, the skeletal structure is compressed and the diaphragm relaxes. The constricting chest cavity forces air out of the lungs, and the horse exhales.

Due to the back-and-forth motion of galloping, the horse's intestines swing like a pendulum at the end of the suspensory ligaments. When running at full speed, especially in the fastest sprint races, the movement of the intestines can get out of phase with the movement of the diaphragm in such a way that the intestinal mass is swinging forward as the horse is trying to exhale. This causes the diaphragm to be slammed forward and slightly upward. The diaphragm, in turn, squeezes part of the lungs against the chest wall.



Once EIPH starts in a horse, it tends to be a lifelong problem.



Imagine what happens in this scenario to a horse that has bled before and built up scar tissue in the lung as a consequence, making the lungs less flexible and more prone to tear under the stress of expansion and contraction.

[Robert Goren]

You can put all the stuff you want about what Lasix does or doesn't do. There is no way that it is needed by almost every horse that starts in this country. There is a reason for that they used it that widely and I have not seen any reason to believe that it is medical. As I a bettor and like most bettors I think it should be banned.

[thaskalos]

If lasix is not a performance-enhancing drug...why are horseplayers so concerned about these "first-time"...and "second-time" lasix horses?

[FenceBored]

If lasix is not a performance-enhancing drug...why are horseplayers so concerned about these "first-time"...and "second-time" lasix horses?

shh, let the man rest.

[Cannon shell]

You can put all the stuff you want about what Lasix does or doesn't do. There is no way that it is needed by almost every horse that starts in this country. There is a reason for that they used it that widely and I have not seen any reason to believe that it is medical. As I a bettor and like most bettors I think it should be banned.
So you don't really know anything but your opinion should be respected?

This is what gets me about this issue. There are a bunch of "experts" on the subject that have zero actual knowledge.

The reason that most people give it is the same reason that so many people take an aspirin everyday, preventative measures. Or should a person have to have a heart attack first before starting an aspirin regime? Or don't you believe that helps either?

[Cannon shell]

If lasix is not a performance-enhancing drug...why are horseplayers so concerned about these "first-time"...and "second-time" lasix horses?
Don't you think a horse might run better without bleeding or with greatly reduced bleeding? First time blinkers is a factor too. Are we going to ask they be eliminated as well? I mean their addition sometimes greatly enhances performance. True?

[thaskalos]

Don't you think a horse might run better without bleeding or with greatly reduced bleeding? First time blinkers is a factor too. Are we going to ask they be eliminated as well? I mean their addition sometimes greatly enhances performance. True?
Yes...but is lasix REALLY only administered to "bleeders"?

[PaceAdvantage]

You can put all the stuff you want about what Lasix does or doesn't do. There is no way that it is needed by almost every horse that starts in this country. There is a reason for that they used it that widely and I have not seen any reason to believe that it is medical. As I a bettor and like most bettors I think it should be banned.One of the reasons it's so widely used is because it's so widely used.

Trainers have a nasty habit of copying each other. Once one trainer sees another using something legally and successfully, then they'll all jump on board.

Why do you think horses run much less often these days then they did in the past? Do you honestly believe horses AS A WHOLE are THAT much more fragile today then they were 15-20 years ago?

Do you know how long it would take for something like that to work its way throughout the ENTIRE gene pool, such that it weakens the ENTIRE breed?

[cj]

Probably in the 70's and 80's. They now test at a trillionth of a gram level. The testing is so much more sophisticated now than just 15 years ago. I have spoken to Dr Tobin and Dr Barker from LSU numerous times about the subject. The fact is CJ that I would be much more worried about guys using altered drugs that wont be caught by testing or newer things than masking.

Thanks...I thought that argument was probably a thing of the past.

[cj]

Yes...but is lasix REALLY only administered to "bleeders"?

This is my biggest problem with lasix. Nearly every horse these days debuts with lasix. So, while it may have a purpose, it is being abused by trainers. Either that, or it does in fact enhance performance.

[onefast99]

You can put all the stuff you want about what Lasix does or doesn't do. There is no way that it is needed by almost every horse that starts in this country. There is a reason for that they used it that widely and I have not seen any reason to believe that it is medical. As I a bettor and like most bettors I think it should be banned.
Read the reasons why a horse bleeds and why a horse needs lasix, not every horse but many. The big question here is which horses needs lasix, the vet will be the one to determine if it will be used. When we use it the vet has done a thorough examination of the horse including scoping the horse.

[Kelso]

You characterized him as a drug happy trainer. You're wrong, as usual. Own it.
I gladly accept that I'm correct in regarding trainers ... such as Cannon Shell ... who advocate business-as-usual on drugging horses as "drug happy." Never denied it, despite your erroneously implying that I did. So, yet again, you're conclusion is complete nonsense.


Wise of you to avoid the other stuff. But it should be addressed. The same owners here criticizing lasix run their horses on it. Pretend you're consistent and get after them. Or at least pretend you're more than a internet loudmouth and get YOUR facts straight.I have no idea whether you're correct or, yet again, blatantly incorrect with YOUR allegation. Therefore, I have no facts on the issue ... nor have I offered any ... to get straight, obtuse, accute or circular.

So, why don't YOU tell us whom YOU know to be critical of Lasix while running their horses on it???

Then we can ask that THEY tell us ... and YOU ... if YOU know what you're talking about, or are merely a bombastic simpleton who is willing to swear to the truth of any lie whenever he senses a threat to his unsavory livelihood.

[Dahoss9698]

I gladly accept that I'm correct in regarding trainers ... such as Cannon Shell ... who advocate business-as-usual on drugging horses as "drug happy." Never denied it, despite your erroneously implying that I did. So, yet again, you're conclusion is complete nonsense.


I have no idea whether you're correct or, yet again, blatantly incorrect with YOUR allegation. Therefore, I have no facts on the issue ... nor have I offered any ... to get straight, obtuse, accute or circular.

So, why don't YOU tell us whom YOU know to be critical of Lasix while running their horses on it???

Then we can ask that THEY tell us ... and YOU ... if YOU know what you're talking about, or are merely a bombastic simpleton who is willing to swear to the truth of any lie whenever he senses a threat to his unsavory livelihood.

Lamboguy said in a thread this week his horses run on lasix, even though he is apparently against it according to this thread. So after you take your meds, ask him why he is against lasix, but lets his trainers use it on his horses.

Once again, you're wrong. The only thing you've gotten right so far is that you have no idea....about anything. I was going to post that last sentence in red, does that make it extra important if I do that?

[Kelso]

Do you seriously think that Udall or Whitfield are worried about this issue costing them votes? LOL! Do you really think this is about their desire to "help" horseracing?No, and I NEVER suggested that they did ... so why do you bother asking?

(BTW, "this issue," to Udall and Whitfield, is about drugging horses. It's not about taxing winning gamblers. That 'issue' arose only when your tossed it out as a scare tactic.)


Face it there will be no sentiment for people who bet on horses from politicians. None. Zero.Didn't suggest THAT one, either. Never. Not ever. (Why do you persist in making these things up?)

But (and only since YOU brought it up) there is ALWAYS plenty of "sentiment" for people who might vote a politician out of office ... such as might happen, say, when a tax is invented or increased ... and weighing the relative strengths of constituencies is among a politician's most highly valued job-protection devices.

Your "tax the gambler" threat remains an empty scare tactic. (However, horsemen beware.)

[Cannon shell]

One of the reasons it's so widely used is because it's so widely used.

Trainers have a nasty habit of copying each other. Once one trainer sees another using something legally and successfully, then they'll all jump on board.

Why do you think horses run much less often these days then they did in the past? Do you honestly believe horses AS A WHOLE are THAT much more fragile today then they were 15-20 years ago?

Do you know how long it would take for something like that to work its way throughout the ENTIRE gene pool, such that it weakens the ENTIRE breed?
It is widely used because we know that it is effective in preventing horses from bleeding. Why is this so hard to understand? Why must we let the horse bleed if it is preventable?

[Cannon shell]

This is my biggest problem with lasix. Nearly every horse these days debuts with lasix. So, while it may have a purpose, it is being abused by trainers. Either that, or it does in fact enhance performance.
It is hardly "abuse" when you are trying to prevent your horse from bleeding.

[Kelso]

When you understand the issue maybe you will be able to post more intellegently.I understand that drug-happy trainers have demonstrated their complete indifference to the genuine welfare of their horses and to the continued viablility of the game in which you make your living. That's more than sufficient understanding of "the issue."


So how exactly can you treat a horses physical issues and feel safe about running them?I'll leave the treatment issues to the vets. (Are YOU a vet?) As to when they should run ... run them when the regulations (that follow passage of a bill) say you can run them. I certainly won't presume to hazard a guess as to when a sick or injured animal is ready to run.


Or are you another of the belief that horses are impervious to all sickness? ."Another?"
"ANOTHER?!?"
Who, specifically, has expressed such belief?

C'mon ... spill it. WHO has said or written such a thing? Name the names. (Or is this just one more thing you've made up in order to keep drugging horses on your own terms?)


Your vindictiveness is telling..And your callous greed is disgraceful.

[Cannon shell]

No, and I NEVER suggested that they did ... so why do you bother asking?

(BTW, "this issue," to Udall and Whitfield, is about drugging horses. It's not about taxing winning gamblers. That 'issue' arose only when your tossed it out as a scare tactic.)


Didn't suggest THAT one, either. Never. Not ever. (Why do you persist in making these things up?)

But (and only since YOU brought it up) there is ALWAYS plenty of "sentiment" for people who might vote a politician out of office ... such as might happen, say, when a tax is invented or increased ... and weighing the relative strengths of constituencies is among a politician's most highly valued job-protection devices.

Your "tax the gambler" threat remains an empty scare tactic. (However, horsemen beware.)


Are you having a bad day or are you always this bitter?

Your inference that there may be a surcharge placed on purses opened up the discussion. The natural progression of a discussion usually allows those within the discussion to make inferences based on the content of posts.

If you were a horse, gelding would definitely be on the docket

[Kelso]

I suppose that you can tell the difference between a "drug happy" trainer and a "non-drug happy trainer"?It's not difficult at all. Those who say the status quo is acceptable, regarding the current rules on (and enforcement of) drugging horses ... and who desperately oppose efforts to legislatively protect race horses where the racing industry has shamefully refused to do the job itself ... are the "drug happy" ones. Clear to you?


You won't even listen to one trying to tell you the truth.Well, those self-serving type "truths" do have a pattern of turning up ... dare I say it ... lame. So, to that extent you are correct. I don't listen to tripe disguised as "truth."


But hey suit yourself. Keep believing your own little delusions that life was wonderful back in the 60's when all the drug use was covered up.And so we have yet another ignorant and completely unfounded "truth" from Cannon Shell.

[Dahoss9698]

Wonder why my post was ignored. Usually happens when one has no response. Bummer, I was hoping for another irrational, anger fueled, whiny post by Kelso.

[Kelso]

Imagine what happens in this scenario to a horse that has bled before and built up scar tissue in the lung as a consequence, making the lungs less flexible and more prone to tear under the stress of expansion and contraction.Sounds to me like that's a horse who should not be further subjected to the stresses of racing; another example of some having what it takes, some not.

[Cannon shell]

I understand that drug-happy trainers have demonstrated their complete indifference to the genuine welfare of their horses and to the continued viablility of the game in which you make your living. That's more than sufficient understanding of "the issue."


I'll leave the treatment issues to the vets. (Are YOU a vet?) As to when they should run ... run them when the regulations (that follow passage of a bill) say you can run them. I certainly won't presume to hazard a guess as to when a sick or injured animal is ready to run.


[/color]"Another?"
"ANOTHER?!?"
Who, specifically, has expressed such belief?

C'mon ... spill it. WHO has said or written such a thing? Name the names. (Or is this just one more thing you've made up in order to keep drugging horses on your own terms?)


And your callous greed is disgraceful.

Listen, it is ok to admit that you really don't understand the issue. I mean how could you? You are blinded by contempt for people you don't know about things that you have no comprehension of.

"Genuine welfare of the horse"? What would you know about this? To people like you they are but numbers on a page. You think you know something about horses because you read some quotes in the form but lets face it you probably couldn't tell a filly from a colt.

Where exactly do you think the drugs come from dude? You think we don't consult with Vets? You don't think 30 years of experience would allow someone to maybe know a little something about horses?

Your baseless attacks on me are the disgrace. You wouldn't know a horse if it fell over you yet you feel qualified to tell me that I am a greedy, drug happy trainer? All because I have enough balls to try to tell you the truth? Despite the presumed importance of some anonymous people on the internet , your opinion really doesn't mean much to me because you have proven in just a few posts to be a simpleton.

[Cannon shell]

It's not difficult at all. Those who say the status quo is acceptable, regarding the current rules on (and enforcement of) drugging horses ... and who desperately oppose efforts to legislatively protect race horses where the racing industry has shamefully refused to do the job itself ... are the "drug happy" ones. Clear to you?


Well, those self-serving type "truths" do have a pattern of turning up ... dare I say it ... lame. So, to that extent you are correct. I don't listen to tripe disguised as "truth."


And so we have yet another ignorant and completely unfounded "truth" from Cannon Shell.
Oh so being against a terrible bill means you are saying the staus quo is acceptable? Who is putting words in whose mouth now?

Protect the horse? Yeah I'm sure you're SO concerned about the horses welfare.

[Kelso]

Lamboguy said in a thread this week his horses run on lasix, even though he is apparently against it according to this thread. So after you take your meds, ask him why he is against lasix, but lets his trainers use it on his horses.YOU're the one who's bothered by it. YOU ask him. (And that's only one name. You said "owners" ... plural ... were criticizing while using. So who are the others and why didn't you name them, too?)

I was going to post that last sentence in red, does that make it extra important if I do that?When quoting your nonsense, it highlights your specific ... as opposed to your general ... ignorance. However, there is nothing about you or your infantile posts that is "important," extra or otherwise.

[Cannon shell]

Sounds to me like that's a horse who should not be further subjected to the stresses of racing; another example of some having what it takes, some not.
But you don't know anything so who cares about your opinion?

So who makes these calls? The Feds? You? Should we adopt the damaged lung-o-meter to make the call?

It is easy for a creep like you to tell someone what to do with their horse yet you don't know anything about horses. I'm sure that you want other people who dont know anything telling you what to do. Keep acting like this is an exact science and trainers/owners can just read the expiration label on the horse and retire them off to retired horsey land.

[Kelso]

Are you having a bad day or are you always this bitter?Your self-serving willingness, and that of others like you, to abuse horses as a way of earning money has made many people ... including those sitting in Congress ... bitter.

And reading such as your selfish rants will often turn a day bad.


Your inference that there may be a surcharge placed on purses opened up the discussion.A damnable lie! It was YOUR feeble attempt at scaring bettors into opposing the drugging bill that "opened" this debate. And I made no "inference."

I outright said (to paraphrase) that taxing the horsemen in order to police their druggy ways was an idea worth pursuing. Perhaps I should thank you for inspiring the idea!


The natural progression of a discussion usually allows those within the discussion to make inferences based on the content of posts.The only thing "natural" about the progression of this debate is that it appears to be natural for you to rely on straw-man arguments (in other words, you desperately attempt to change the subject) whenever your earlier comments are subjected to the weight of rational analysis.


If you were a horse, gelding would definitely be on the docketYou're clearly a threat to the gene pool, yourself.

[Kelso]

Wonder why my post was ignored. Usually happens when one has no response. Bummer, I was hoping for another irrational, anger fueled, whiny post by Kelso.Try using that thing in your hand ... no, the OTHER thing in your hand ... to scroll up to post #71.

Then get someone smarter than you ... the neighbor's second-grader will do ... to explain it to you. Your conceit will be more than satisfied.

[Dahoss9698]

YOU're the one who's bothered by it. YOU ask him. (And that's only one name. You said "owners" ... plural ... were criticizing while using. So who are the others and why didn't you name them, too?)


I didn't think you had the balls to. You're the typical internet blowhard. Lots of blather and no substance. You're bothered by trainers who use lasix, but not bothered by owners who criticize it, but allow their horses to run on it.

Makes perfect sense....if you lived in a mental hospital.

[Dahoss9698]

Try using that thing in your hand ... no, the OTHER thing in your hand ... to scroll up to post #71.

Then get someone smarter than you ... the neighbor's second-grader will do ... to explain it to you. Your conceit will be more than satisfied.

This is more what I was looking for. Thanks crazy.

[Kelso]

Listen, it is ok to admit that you really don't understand the issue.If it should arise that I, in fact, do not understand some aspect of the issue, I shall. But I am not so naive as to rely on the conflicted, self-centered bleatings of a greedy, drug-happy horseman to do so. Perhaps YOU are; but I'm not.


You are blinded by contempt for people you don't know about things that you have no comprehension of.And YOU are blinded by greed and outrage that the people who ultimately pay your way in life have so easily caught wise to your selfish scam.



"Genuine welfare of the horse"? What would you know about this? To people like you they are but numbers on a page. You think you know something about horses because you read some quotes in the form but lets face it you probably couldn't tell a filly from a colt.You know nothing of substance about me. On the other hand, the bulk of this thread has turned out to be about YOU ... the guy who wants to keep drugging horses on his own terms.

So lets, indeed, "face it." You have been exposed for the selfish, horse-drugging whiner that you are. You have little to teach anyone about any issue other than greed.



Where exactly do you think the drugs come from dude? You think we don't consult with Vets? You don't think 30 years of experience would allow someone to maybe know a little something about horses[QUOTE=Cannon shell]Many of the drugs come from vets who "understand" who signs THEIR checks. And 30 years of experience has taught both vets and horsemen about ... among other things ... the importance of cash flow.


[QUOTE=Cannon shell]your opinion really doesn't mean much to me because you have proven in just a few posts to be a simpleton.Oh, come now. My opinions have demonstrably driven you to desperately and repeatedly attempt to camouflage yourself as someone who is aware of, and genuinely interested in, "truth." In fact, all you're trying to do is turn down the heat on the drugged-horses problem to which you, and those like you, have been central.

You continue to fool nobody, horseman.

[Kelso]

Oh so being against a terrible bill means you are saying the staus quo is acceptable? Who is putting words in whose mouth now?We've seen nothing from you even acknowledging the problem of drugged horses. All you've done is defend whatever drug-related practices that have been criticized. You've propsed NOTHING at all to address those problems.

So, yes. Your posts in this thread have made clear your satisfaction with the current legal environment. That's not putting words into your mouth. That's just acknowledging what you have consistantly, yourself, demonstrated in this thread.



Protect the horse? Yeah I'm sure you're SO concerned about the horses welfare.Congratulations, horseman. You FINALLY got one right! :jump:

[Kelso]

But you don't know anything so who cares about your opinion?Don't recall ever saying that anyone does ... or even should.


So who makes these calls? The Feds? You? Should we adopt the damaged lung-o-meter to make the call?Hmmm, are you now telling me that you, even if nobody else, "care about" my opinon? :confused:

Well, then, in order to enlighten you with my opinion: Someone without a vested interest in the abuse of any horse, even if he has to be paid to do so, should make such decisions. Clearly that excludes selfish horsemen who are willing to abuse their animals with drugs for the sake of a purse ... or a day rate. They're the reason for the drugged-horse problems in the first place.


It is easy for a creep like you to tell someone what to do with their horse yet you don't know anything about horses.Oh, it appears I've hurt the sensitive, selfish, drug-happy horseman's feelings. Deal with it, cretin.


Keep acting like this is an exact science and trainers/owners can just read the expiration label on the horse and retire them off to retired horsey land.Never said, nor even implied, that it's an exact science. But, because of self-serving horsemen such as you, it can and must be made a better ... unconflicted ... policy.

When a horse needs drugs in order to run ... as opposed to in order to heal ... he should be retired. If you gave two unselfish damns about the welfare of your horses, you'd agree. But, of course, you've made quite clear that you don't.

[Kelso]

You're bothered by trainers who use lasix, but not bothered by owners who criticize it, but allow their horses to run on it..Never said that ... never will. Owners are just as much to blame as trainers for abusing horses with drugs ... arguably, more.

But YOU are the one with a case of the ass at owners who both criticize and use; so YOU take them on about their choices. I didn't raise the issue. YOU did that, remember? It was your transparant attempt ... as with Cannon Shell's tax-the-winners ruse ... to change the subject. (Neither one worked.)

My beef is with horsemen who put purse money ... and day rates ... ahead of the well-being of their horses. I'll stick with that issue. YOU deal with the hypocricy issue, if it truly bothers you enough.

[Kelso]

You need drugs worse than any horse does.You've been wrong many, many times before ... in just this thread, even! No surprise at all that you're wrong yet again. We've come to expect it of you, horseman.

[saratoga guy]

Oh, it appears I've hurt the sensitive, selfish, drug-happy horseman's feelings.

Why don't you take it down a notch? That's probably at least the fifth time you've insulted the guy with the "drug-happy", "selfish", "greedy" nonsense.

Take my word for it, you're so far off-base you're embarassing yourself.

If you've got a decent argument to make for the bill, do it.

Start here: Give me some concrete positives for the sport of horse-racing you anticipate would result from the passage of this bill...

And again I'll refer to the Steven Crist article: He, too, is against the bill. Where do you think Crist misses the mark?

http://www.drf.com/news/federal-regulation-could-cripple-horse-racing

[PaceAdvantage]

Listen, it is ok to admit that you really don't understand the issue. I mean how could you? You are blinded by contempt for people you don't know about things that you have no comprehension of.

"Genuine welfare of the horse"? What would you know about this? To people like you they are but numbers on a page. You think you know something about horses because you read some quotes in the form but lets face it you probably couldn't tell a filly from a colt.

Your baseless attacks on me are the disgrace. You wouldn't know a horse if it fell over you yet you feel qualified to tell me that I am a greedy, drug happy trainer? All because I have enough balls to try to tell you the truth? Despite the presumed importance of some anonymous people on the internet , your opinion really doesn't mean much to me because you have proven in just a few posts to be a simpleton.Let's forget about Kelso for a moment, and focus on the nonsense posted above.

Why is it that "horsemen" automatically assume that "horse players" have absolutely no clue when it comes to horsemanship? How the heck would you know whether any of us own horses or have been around horses for a substantial part of our lives?

And why would you automatically assume this? Is it because you think anyone who wagers on horses is destitute by default, and couldn't possibly scape up enough money to own and care for an actual living, breathing horse?

I get so tired of the horsemen on here (and there are only a handful of you who do this, thank goodness) who use this as a put down during a debate. Plenty of us own horses, both for racing and for pleasure, and a great number of us have been around horses for many years.

[PaceAdvantage]

It is widely used because we know that it is effective in preventing horses from bleeding. Why is this so hard to understand? Why must we let the horse bleed if it is preventable?It used to be a horse had to actually bleed before they were allowed to run on Lasix. These days, in places like Kentucky, a trainer can simply enter his horse on Lasix without ever being looked at by a vet.

In fact, at places like Churchill these days, they pretty much DISCOURAGE a horse being certified a bleeder (via a vet) by penalizing them in terms of preference dates. That's why the CERTIFIED bleeder list in Kentucky SWELLS exponentially right before Saratoga is set to open...because in order to run on Lasix in NY, you need to be certified by a vet as a bleeder, and Kentucky trainers don't want to lose their Churchill preference dates, so they wait until the last moment to certify before they ship to NY.

NY has gotten easier to certify as well. The horse doesn't even actually have to be scoped...the vet just basically signs off that the horse looks like a bleeder... :lol:

Maybe Cannon Shell can explain to us why the requirements to run on Lasix have become so relaxed in recent years...

A side component of this whole debate which nobody has mentioned is the pharmaceutical industry. Is Lasix along with all the other race day medications a big enough revenue source for them that they will lobby hard against this bill.

If so, that could be a game changer. They have one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington D.C.

[Cannon shell]

Let's forget about Kelso for a moment, and focus on the nonsense posted above.

Why is it that "horsemen" automatically assume that "horse players" have absolutely no clue when it comes to horsemanship? How the heck would you know whether any of us own horses or have been around horses for a substantial part of our lives?

And why would you automatically assume this? Is it because you think anyone who wagers on horses is destitute by default, and couldn't possibly scape up enough money to own and care for an actual living, breathing horse?

I get so tired of the horsemen on here (and there are only a handful of you who do this, thank goodness) who use this as a put down during a debate. Plenty of us own horses, both for racing and for pleasure, and a great number of us have been around horses for many years.
Give me a break. It was obviously pointed at one person. The fact is that simply owning or being around horses is far different than training racehorses. While I don't have the luxury of knowing who the vast majority of people who post are or what their experience is, most posters probably have some idea of my experience. When a poster repeatedly make ridiculously inaccurate statements as well as personal attacks...well you get what you get.

I am not sure why you would write that garbage about me assuming anything negative about horse players. I have a lot more friends that are horseplayer's than are horseman. Again owning a horse, a living, breathing horse doesn't exactly make anyone an expert on this issue. They don't come with guidelines or playbooks.

It is amazing to me how sensitive you seem to be by making something said to an obnoxious, over the top poster into "you horseman think we are clueless, I think I will take offense".

I get tired of people who constantly whine about drugs and trainers without having a semblance of a clue as to what they are talking about. Let me just wrap this up by saying that the horseman/horseplayer hate really only goes one way. I have never heard a single horseman say that he hates horseplayers or a horseplayer or hopes they get locked up or wishes they would lose their livelihood or some other insane thing that gets written at here about trainers in about 50% of the threads. It is really just childish that we can't discuss an issue without the hate.

Sorry to make it so long. I've got to go down to the horse crack den we call stables and shoot 'em up now. See you later.

[lamboguy]

just curious, are you refering to me?

[PaceAdvantage]

Give me a break. It was obviously pointed at one person. The fact is that simply owning or being around horses is far different than training racehorses. While I don't have the luxury of knowing who the vast majority of people who post are or what their experience is, most posters probably have some idea of my experience. When a poster repeatedly make ridiculously inaccurate statements as well as personal attacks...well you get what you get.

I am not sure why you would write that garbage about me assuming anything negative about horse players. I have a lot more friends that are horseplayer's than are horseman. Again owning a horse, a living, breathing horse doesn't exactly make anyone an expert on this issue. They don't come with guidelines or playbooks.

It is amazing to me how sensitive you seem to be by making something said to an obnoxious, over the top poster into "you horseman think we are clueless, I think I will take offense".

I get tired of people who constantly whine about drugs and trainers without having a semblance of a clue as to what they are talking about. Let me just wrap this up by saying that the horseman/horseplayer hate really only goes one way. I have never heard a single horseman say that he hates horseplayers or a horseplayer or hopes they get locked up or wishes they would lose their livelihood or some other insane thing that gets written at here about trainers in about 50% of the threads. It is really just childish that we can't discuss an issue without the hate.

Sorry to make it so long. I've got to go down to the horse crack den we call stables and shoot 'em up now. See you later.50% of the threads have people writing that they hate trainers, or hope they got locked up or wish they lose their livelihood? Really? That's an interesting statistic, and one you obviously pulled out of thin air.

Now, back to the subject at hand. You are not the first horseman to come on here and accuse someone of not knowing how to tell a colt from a filly. That's a far cry from "Again owning a horse, a living, breathing horse doesn't exactly make anyone an expert on this issue." Nobody ever said it did. I'm sensitive because I keep seeing it over and over again from "horsemen" on here. It's not quite at the mythical "50% of threads" level, but who knows, maybe I'm using the wrong math.

And like I said, forget about Kelso. He's gone and he won't be coming back.

Perhaps now we can stop slinging mud and start having a little more mutual respect for each other in this thread.

[andymays]

Race-day drug ban gaining ground

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20110605/BUSINESS/306060008/1037/sports/Race-day-drug-ban-gaining-ground?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CSports%7Cp

Excerpt:

But industry leaders will meet next week under the threat of federal legislation introduced in early May to ban race-day medication and provide stiffer penalties for abuse. Perhaps more importantly, the bills would reopen debate on the law allowing interstate wagering on horse racing — an advantage the sport has over other forms of gambling that few in the industry want to risk.

[andymays]

http://cs.bloodhorse.com/blogs/wgoh/archive/2011/06/01/the-battle-of-salix.aspx

Excerpt:

Trainer Rick Hiles, a member of the Kentucky Equine Drug Research Council, recently related a story about an individual who asked why a European country had no positives for phenylbutazone, the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug called Bute. The drug can be administered no later than 24 hours before a race in the U.S. The reason for the lack of positives, Hiles was told, was that the jurisdiction didn’t test for the drug.

[Cannon shell]

50% of the threads have people writing that they hate trainers, or hope they got locked up or wish they lose their livelihood? Really? That's an interesting statistic, and one you obviously pulled out of thin air.

Now, back to the subject at hand. You are not the first horseman to come on here and accuse someone of not knowing how to tell a colt from a filly. That's a far cry from "Again owning a horse, a living, breathing horse doesn't exactly make anyone an expert on this issue." Nobody ever said it did. I'm sensitive because I keep seeing it over and over again from "horsemen" on here. It's not quite at the mythical "50% of threads" level, but who knows, maybe I'm using the wrong math.

And like I said, forget about Kelso. He's gone and he won't be coming back.

Perhaps now we can stop slinging mud and start having a little more mutual respect for each other in this thread.

Well the shoe certainly seemed to fit for Kelso. Why you took offense to something aimed at Kelso who quite obviously doesn't have any hidden horsemanship knowledge, I dont know.

Regardless of your liking it or not the fact is that many horseplayers are basing their opinion on the topic on flawed information they read somewhere often written by someone else who did the same thing, not from personal experience.

As for as Kelso I would think that it was pretty apparent that his entire mission was to engage me in a hostile manner. Honesty I thought I was fairly restrained.

[Cannon shell]

It used to be a horse had to actually bleed before they were allowed to run on Lasix. These days, in places like Kentucky, a trainer can simply enter his horse on Lasix without ever being looked at by a vet.

In fact, at places like Churchill these days, they pretty much DISCOURAGE a horse being certified a bleeder (via a vet) by penalizing them in terms of preference dates. That's why the CERTIFIED bleeder list in Kentucky SWELLS exponentially right before Saratoga is set to open...because in order to run on Lasix in NY, you need to be certified by a vet as a bleeder, and Kentucky trainers don't want to lose their Churchill preference dates, so they wait until the last moment to certify before they ship to NY.

NY has gotten easier to certify as well. The horse doesn't even actually have to be scoped...the vet just basically signs off that the horse looks like a bleeder... :lol:

Maybe Cannon Shell can explain to us why the requirements to run on Lasix have become so relaxed in recent years...

A side component of this whole debate which nobody has mentioned is the pharmaceutical industry. Is Lasix along with all the other race day medications a big enough revenue source for them that they will lobby hard against this bill.

If so, that could be a game changer. They have one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington D.C.
The rules were relaxed because making horses bleed instead of preventing it seemed like a bad idea in hindsight.

I doubt that the drug companies sell nearly enough Lasix for it to be a factor.

[lamboguy]

in pensylvania they have outlawed the race day use of kentucky red. they will get rid of all the rest of the bull shit raceday drugs with good reason, and i think that will happen before the congress passes any bill in front of them.

this will put racing on a much firmer ground in pa. you will have people running to race there without the stuff and have an equal playing field. you will see that they will get full fields when this happens.

[the little guy]

this will put racing on a much firmer ground in pa. you will have people running to race there without the stuff and have an equal playing field. you will see that they will get full fields when this happens.


As usual, I completely disagree with everything you say. Do your horses run on Lasix?

[Cannon shell]

in pensylvania they have outlawed the race day use of kentucky red. they will get rid of all the rest of the bull shit raceday drugs with good reason, and i think that will happen before the congress passes any bill in front of them.

this will put racing on a much firmer ground in pa. you will have people running to race there without the stuff and have an equal playing field. you will see that they will get full fields when this happens.
LOL! three words...Juan Carlos Guerrero...

Think KY red was his big secret?

[saratoga guy]

this will put racing on a much firmer ground in pa. you will have people running to race there without the stuff and have an equal playing field. you will see that they will get full fields when this happens.

Why do you think a ban on race-day medication will prove to be such a panacea that it will somehow increase field size???

It's certainly not going to change the economy. It won't change the decrease in the foal population.

Are you hypothesizing that trainers and owners will flock to a "clean" jurisdiction? That's forgetting history. New York allowed Lasix because - as the last holdout - neighboring states were taking horses away.

And when NYRA took a pro-active anti-cheat stance with their detention barn - it certainly didn't have horsemen flocking there.

And pro-ban people keep pointing to Europe and Asia as the model -- and they seem to imply that racing is much healthier elsewhere. In fact, many of the global racing jurisdictions are fighting the same problems we are vis-a-vis declining popularity of the sport -- regardless of their drug policies.

[comet52]

A side component of this whole debate which nobody has mentioned is the pharmaceutical industry. Is Lasix along with all the other race day medications a big enough revenue source for them that they will lobby hard against this bill.

If so, that could be a game changer. They have one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington D.C.

Winner winner chicken dinner...

[the little guy]

LOL! three words...Juan Carlos Guerrero...

Think KY red was his big secret?

No, silly, he rubs his cheek on their legs.

[Cannon shell]

Why do you think a ban on race-day medication will prove to be such a panacea that it will somehow increase field size???

It's certainly not going to change the economy. It won't change the decrease in the foal population.

Are you hypothesizing that trainers and owners will flock to a "clean" jurisdiction? That's forgetting history. New York allowed Lasix because - as the last holdout - neighboring states were taking horses away.

And when NYRA took a pro-active anti-cheat stance with their detention barn - it certainly didn't have horsemen flocking there.

And pro-ban people keep pointing to Europe and Asia as the model -- and they seem to imply that racing is much healthier elsewhere. In fact, many of the global racing jurisdictions are fighting the same problems we are vis-a-vis declining popularity of the sport -- regardless of their drug policies.
Stop making sense, some of the wild theories are funny.

[Cannon shell]

No, silly, he rubs his cheek on their legs.
I've tried this with strippers and never saw similar results

[classhandicapper]

The only thing that's going to satisfy me is:

1. No race day medication at all and no training/racing while a previously administered and approved drug/procedure could still be having a positive impact or pain masking impact on the horse

2. Approved veterinary procedures/drugs permissible to treat injured, sick, etc... horses while being removed from training

IMO that's the only way to keep the integrity of the sport, ensure that only sound horses that can withstand the rigors of racing win the most prestigious events and go on to breeding careers, and to treat the animals with dignity and respect.

[5k-claim]

This is my biggest problem with lasix. Nearly every horse these days debuts with lasix. So, while it may have a purpose, it is being abused by trainers. Either that, or it does in fact enhance performance.One impact on the "debut" figure is the fact that in my home state, Kentucky, entering on Lasix in your first race is the logistically (paperwork) easiest thing to do. There is no paperwork whatsoever, from anyone. You just say "yes" over the phone when the racing office asks you about Lasix when you enter the horse for that first start. It is the the path of least (paperwork) resistance in the horse's entire career.

I have had many conversations with vets about Lasix. It isn't the no-brainer that people may think it is. There are side effects, obviously. Ultimately I look at the numbers (from all over the world) about the high percentage of runners who will develop some form of EIPH during their career and note the 2009 international study that showed the efficacy of Lasix in trying to deal with it. Those are weighed against the side effects.

I don't know that I would personally consider that "abusing" Lasix.

It is a thought process not unlike the one that leads me to giving things to try and soothe or prevent ulcers. There is such a very high number likely to develop them, it is just something that is always on my mind and default list to try and alleviate.

I think that something that was able to target EIPH more precisely than a general diuretic (and its side effects) would be a WONDERFUL thing... and I think more trainers would switch to it than what you might think. Heck, I will go one further: give me that and I wouldn't even care if it was widely known as an unmasking agent for other drugs, making them easier to detect.

Illegal drugs are not even on my radar.

.

[cj]

One impact on the "debut" figure is the fact that in my home state, Kentucky, entering on Lasix in your first race is the logistically (paperwork) easiest thing to do. There is no paperwork whatsoever, from anyone. You just say "yes" over the phone when the racing office asks you about Lasix when you enter the horse for that first start. It is the the path of least (paperwork) resistance in the horse's entire career.

I have had many conversations with vets about Lasix. It isn't the no-brainer that people may think it is. There are side effects, obviously. Ultimately I look at the numbers (from all over the world) about the high percentage of runners who will develop some form of EIPH during their career and note the 2009 international study that showed the efficacy of Lasix in trying to deal with it. Those are weighed against the side effects.

I don't know that I would personally consider that "abusing" Lasix.

It is a thought process not unlike the one that leads me to giving things to try and soothe or prevent ulcers. There is such a very high number likely to develop them, it is just something that is always on my mind and default list to try and alleviate.

I think that something that was able to target EIPH more precisely than a general diuretic (and its side effects) would be a WONDERFUL thing... and I think more trainers would switch to it than what you might think. Heck, I will go one further: give me that and I wouldn't even care if it was widely known as an unmasking agent for other drugs, making them easier to detect.

Illegal drugs are not even on my radar.

.

To me, giving drugs to an animal when we don't even know if it needs them is abuse, especially when there are side effects. The "preventive" argument makes no sense until the horse has shown it needs preventing. I personally feel it does enhance performance. It is really impossible to prove/disprove given all the variables involved, but why does everyone pay for something they might not need if they don't think it gives the horse an edge?

[5k-claim]

To me, giving drugs to an animal when we don't even know if it needs them is abuse, especially when there are side effects. The "preventive" argument makes no sense until the horse has shown it needs preventing. Yep. I understand that. And that is an opinion that virtually everyone starts out with. After you have personally proceeded over a few full-blown bleeding episodes, however, things get a little "grayer" from then on with other horses. Especially after you look at the stats and weigh that against waiting for a full-blown episode. It still doesn't end up so black-and-white. Like I said, a great alternative in the treatment of EIPH will be very welcomed.

I personally feel it does enhance performance. It is really impossible to prove/disprove given all the variables involved, but why does everyone pay for something they might not need if they don't think it gives the horse an edge? There are many well-respected (even on this board!) trainers and owners who run their horses on Lasix. See "Animal Kingdom" for an example. I guess you could ask each trainer individually what performance enhancement (beyond trying to stave off bleeding) they feel they are getting. Depending on the horse, I don't even think the weight loss is necessarily that fantastic. Some horses are light enough as it is.

The treatment of a potential episode of EIPH is the chief "performance enhancement" that I personally attribute to Lasix. Again, the numbers for such are high. Even worldwide.

.

[thaskalos]

To me, giving drugs to an animal when we don't even know if it needs them is abuse, especially when there are side effects. The "preventive" argument makes no sense until the horse has shown it needs preventing. I personally feel it does enhance performance. It is really impossible to prove/disprove given all the variables involved, but why does everyone pay for something they might not need if they don't think it gives the horse an edge?
That's a very valid question...IMO.

After all - in the "outside" world - it is rather uncommon to administer powerful drugs strictly for "preventive" purposes...to animals and humans alike.

[saratoga guy]

To me, giving drugs to an animal when we don't even know if it needs them is abuse, especially when there are side effects. The "preventive" argument makes no sense until the horse has shown it needs preventing.


After all - in the "outside" world - it is rather uncommon to administer powerful drugs strictly for "preventive" purposes...to animals and humans alike.


OK - what about vaccines? They're given to virtually every kid. They have side effects that are potentially life-threatening. And they're purely preventative.

[thaskalos]

OK - what about vaccines? They're given to virtually every kid. They have side effects that are potentially life-threatening. And they're purely preventative.
I am not a horseman, and I certainly don't presume to know as much about the day-to-day care of these wonderful animals as some of the trainers here...

I therefore offer the following quote...made by someone who knows considerably more than I do about the subject at hand:


"Today, over 99 percent of thoroughbred racehorses and 70 percent of standardbred racehorses have a needle stuck in them four hours before a race.

This just does not pass the smell test with the public, or anyone else...except for the horse trainers who think it necessary to win a race."

-- William Koester, the new Chairman of the Association of Racing Commissioners International...which represents racing jurisdictions across the United States and Canada.


He made this comment about three months ago...

[saratoga guy]

"It is likely that racing jurisdictions will reconsider their [anti-Lasix] position ... The challenge will now be for countries such as Australia, England, Hong Kong and South Africa that do not currently permit race-day use of furosemide, to balance the animal-welfare aspect of being able to prevent or reduce the condition against the imperatives for drug-free racing."

-- Statement from the veterinarians and researchers who authored the 2009 study that deemed Lasix effective in reducing bleeding in to the lungs.

These guys thought their study made such a strong case for the effectiveness of Lasix in preventing bleeding that anti-Lasix countries might change their policies and allow it - for the welfare of the horse!

As I said in the first post I made in this thread - I tend towards wanting to go back to hay, oats and water, but I would like the decision to do so to be well-thought out. So we know it's the right thing to do and the decision is being made for the right reasons.

The racing industry has not proven itself to be particularly effective at countering negative PR - and, as Steve Crist implied in his article, the timing of some announcements from the racing community supporting a med ban came probably not so coincidentally shortly before the proposed federal legislation was announced. In other words - racing was making a preemptive gesture. Again, instead of effectively answering the negative perceptions.

The ARCI chair says, "This just does not pass the smell test with the public..." rather than taking the time to point that public to the comprehensive study that validates Lasix as being beneficial to the welfare of horses.

I'd just rather these decisions were made based on the science, as opposed to a knee-jerk reaction to the negative perceptions of people who simply might not know any better.

[pandy]

I haven't read all the posts but it seems as if there are people on here who think that lasix is a good thing. Let's not forget that lasix was initially approved to be used for bleeders but now it's used on virtually every horse in every race. Obviously this is abusive and not what was intended. The best thing would be a 100% ban because there is too much doping in the sport and you have to start somewhere. We got by without lasix for years and the sport flourished and they don't use lasix anywhere else except U.S. and Canada.

[Exacta Bob]

Sorry to make it so long. I've got to go down to the horse crack den we call stables and shoot 'em up now. See you later.

I took this as a tip and went to the windows. Thank you.

http://www.equibase.com/static/chart/pdf/PEN060611USA2.pdf

[Exacta Bob]

Banning medications does not get rid of the cheaters. Ban all you want, the cheaters will still cheat.

I don't need, or want, any more government in my life.

[cj]

OK - what about vaccines? They're given to virtually every kid. They have side effects that are potentially life-threatening. And they're purely preventative.

One time deal, not every day they head off to school.

[andymays]

If they want to do away with Lasix it can't be "cold turkey". How are Horseplayers going to feel when they bet on a horse and he bleeds during the race even though it happens now when they bleed through the lasix on occasion? What do you do with all the horses that can't race anymore because they are bleeders? How do you handle the horse shortage that will be much worse if the bill is passed.

Maybe this can be done over time but the bill as is would be catastrophic in my opinion.

[saratoga guy]

One time deal, not every day they head off to school.

Well, vaccines aren't "one time" -- a kid will get, what?, a dozen by the time they're six. (Then toss in seasonal flu shots for good measure.)

And Lasix use isn't "every day". The average number of starts per year these days is something just over six.

[BillW]

In all the Lasix discussion, what is never discussed are the alternative treatments for horses that bleed. One of the "hay, oats and water" alternatives is dehydration by minimizing a horse's water a few days before a race. There are other therapies that have been used including herbal etc. I can't see how the discussion can be complete without discussing the alternatives.

[cj]

Well, vaccines aren't "one time" -- a kid will get, what?, a dozen by the time they're six. (Then toss in seasonal flu shots for good measure.)

And Lasix use isn't "every day". The average number of starts per year these days is something just over six.

I thought horses train on lasix...or isn't it important if they suffer trauma in training?

[Track Phantom]

Let me just wrap this up by saying that the horseman/horseplayer hate really only goes one way. I have never heard a single horseman say that he hates horseplayers or a horseplayer or hopes they get locked up or wishes they would lose their livelihood or some other insane thing that gets written at here about trainers in about 50% of the threads. It is really just childish that we can't discuss an issue without the hate.

Idiotic. The reason it goes one way is because horse"players" don't commit a felonious act of parimutual tampering (which directly affects the financial well-being of a trainer). Trainers that use drugs are, in fact, CHEATING, and, by law, committing a prisonable offense...a felony.

No matter how you spin it, this act is illegal and deserves punishment. Are you seriously a trainer? Wow. Seems like you have a lot of time on your hands to post 17,000 times about gibberish.

[saratoga guy]

I thought horses train on lasix...or isn't it important if they suffer trauma in training?

I wasn't excluding training - add in the training days, it's still not close to an "every day" thing.

...But this is veering from the point I was trying to make in answer to your supposition that "giving drugs to an animal when we don't even know if it needs them is abuse," and "the 'preventive' argument makes no sense until the horse has shown it needs preventing," and thaskalos' idea that "after all - in the 'outside' world - it is rather uncommon to administer powerful drugs strictly for 'preventive' purposes...to animals and humans alike," - those ideas might have people nodding and thinking, "hmm, sounds right," at first blush...

But, in fact, such preventative medicine is practiced commonly -- and it's welcomed by the recipients, not thought of as "abuse" at all.

That's my problem with some of the arguments for the med-ban: I think they're anecdotal - if that - and sound good at first blush, but are, in fact, worth examining and thinking about a little more critically.

[5k-claim]

"It is likely that racing jurisdictions will reconsider their [anti-Lasix] position ... The challenge will now be for countries such as Australia, England, Hong Kong and South Africa that do not currently permit race-day use of furosemide, to balance the animal-welfare aspect of being able to prevent or reduce the condition against the imperatives for drug-free racing."

-- Statement from the veterinarians and researchers who authored the 2009 study that deemed Lasix effective in reducing bleeding in to the lungs.

These guys thought their study made such a strong case for the effectiveness of Lasix in preventing bleeding that anti-Lasix countries might change their policies and allow it - for the welfare of the horse!They obviously do not think like politicians. In the end, science is not going to matter. The public relations train is running away on this one. Even handicappers on this board who are math and statistics experts and database gurus -- the very segment of the public who one would think would have natural and intellectual instincts towards getting some actual data to look at-- are putting up quotes from guys talking about the "public smell test". If the most sophisticated segment of the public cannot be bothered to slow down and consider these results, then there is almost no hope for the rest of the public.

The ARCI chair says, "This just does not pass the smell test with the public..." rather than taking the time to point that public to the comprehensive study that validates Lasix as being beneficial to the welfare of horses.The ARCI is a fancy-named, Lexington based organization that is going about the business of building its public clout and political power on this issue. If I am a young politician the first thing I learn in Building Political Clout 101 is to pick simple slogans like "It's time to get tough on crime around here!" and "We need to give the government back to the people!".

There is almost nothing to gain from attempting a futile effort to educate the public as to the study on Lasix and the mere possibility of another side to this issue. From a strategic standpoint, it is a loser.

I'd just rather these decisions were made based on the science, as opposed to a knee-jerk reaction to the negative perceptions of people who simply might not know any better.I would, too. But I'll let you hold your breath first.

I wish there was a simple, one size fits all answer to the EIPH issue. And as I have stated in earlier posts (like #111)- a more specialized and effective treatment than a general diuretic will get my cash. Until then, Lasix is the extremely imperfect, yet most effective course.

.

[cj]

I wasn't excluding training - add in the training days, it's still not close to an "every day" thing.

...But this is veering from the point I was trying to make in answer to your supposition that "giving drugs to an animal when we don't even know if it needs them is abuse," and "the 'preventive' argument makes no sense until the horse has shown it needs preventing," and thaskalos' idea that "after all - in the 'outside' world - it is rather uncommon to administer powerful drugs strictly for 'preventive' purposes...to animals and humans alike," - those ideas might have people nodding and thinking, "hmm, sounds right," at first blush...

But, in fact, such preventative medicine is practiced commonly -- and it's welcomed by the recipients, not thought of as "abuse" at all.

That's my problem with some of the arguments for the med-ban: I think they're anecdotal - if that - and sound good at first blush, but are, in fact, worth examining and thinking about a little more critically.

I really don't think there is enough evidence one way or the other. However, I would bet there is simply no way that 99.9% of horses should be on Lasix. It is kind of funny to me that now it has become a preventive drug, which if very convenient for horsemen and vets to throw around.

[classhandicapper]

I can't believe that anyone other than those with a short term economic interest in putting themselves above the integrity of the sport, welfare of the animals, and interests of horse players could be arguing for allowing any drugs except to treat horses out of training.

IMO the standards in racing should be HIGHER than for human beings because animals are not in a position to agree to compete while injured and drugged up, the integrity of the sport is critical to its popularity and ability to attract dollars, and the entire breeding industry (and thus owners) would be best served by buying and selling horses (and their offspring) who reputations were not drug enhanced.

This is a long term no brainer in every way. The problem is short term and self centered thinking.

[Jeff P]

They obviously do not think like politicians. In the end, science is not going to matter. The public relations train is running away on this one. Even handicappers on this board who are math and statistics experts and database gurus -- the very segment of the public who one would think would have natural and intellectual instincts towards getting some actual data to look at-- are putting up quotes from guys talking about the "public smell test". If the most sophisticated segment of the public cannot be bothered to slow down and consider these results, then there is almost no hope for the rest of the public.
I see it much the same way as the bolded part of the above quote.

I have a really hard time seeing anyone in Congress or the Senate railing against the bill - not because of science - but because of PR reasons. No one holding an elected office wants to be known for getting in the way of outlawing performance enhancing drugs in any sport (including racing.)

FWIW, at HANA, we have been asking ourselves "What drug policy would be in the best interest of the horse? What drug policy would be in the overall best interest of the game?"...

Unfortunately, I don't think answering those questions even matters.

The stamp out drugs PR train has significant momentum.


-jp

.

[5k-claim]

FWIW, at HANA, we have been asking ourselves "What drug policy would be in the best interest of the horse? What drug policy would be in the overall best interest of the game?"...

Unfortunately, I don't think answering those questions even matters.

The stamp out drugs PR train has significant momentum.


-jp

.Jeff, as someone who absolutely respects you personally and also your efforts to keep HANA a reputable organization, I have wondered if HANA had an official position on the bill, but forgot to ask. Does this mean HANA does not have a position? Some of the chatter on here aside, I do not think it is as easy as one might assume- would that be accurate for the organization?

.

[Jeff P]

HANA has not taken a formal position - We want to make sure we get it right before we do that.

We have been approaching it by asking the following of some highly educated people:

Q. "What drug policy would truly be in the best interest of the horse?"

Q. "What drug policy would be in the overall best interest of the game?"

Clearly, what we have now is not in the overall best interest of the game.

But if you are going to make changes (changes that are going to be around for a while) then you want to get it right. The issues when looked at in depth, are complex.

-jp

.

[5k-claim]

HANA has not taken a formal position - We want to make sure we get it right before we do that.

We have been approaching it by asking the following of some highly educated people:

Q. "What drug policy would truly be in the best interest of the horse?"

Q. "What drug policy would be in the overall best interest of the game?"

The issues here, if you want to get it right, are complex.

-jp

.Fair enough, for sure. It looks like you guys are going about this issue in a very worthwhile manner. I will definitely be very interested to see what the results of your research are.

Thanks!

.

[cj]

This is a long term no brainer in every way. The problem is short term and self centered thinking.

I agree completely. Unfortunately, most of this sport is run in that way.

[lamboguy]

I can't believe that anyone other than those with a short term economic interest in putting themselves above the integrity of the sport, welfare of the animals, and interests of horse players could be arguing for allowing any drugs except to treat horses out of training.

IMO the standards in racing should be HIGHER than for human beings because animals are not in a position to agree to compete while injured and drugged up, the integrity of the sport is critical to its popularity and ability to attract dollars, and the entire breeding industry (and thus owners) would be best served by buying and selling horses (and their offspring) who reputations were not drug enhanced.

This is a long term no brainer in every way. The problem is short term and self centered thinking.YES YES YES YES YES YES

[thaskalos]

They obviously do not think like politicians. In the end, science is not going to matter. The public relations train is running away on this one. Even handicappers on this board who are math and statistics experts and database gurus -- the very segment of the public who one would think would have natural and intellectual instincts towards getting some actual data to look at-- are putting up quotes from guys talking about the "public smell test". If the most sophisticated segment of the public cannot be bothered to slow down and consider these results, then there is almost no hope for the rest of the public.

Listen friend...

It is not just "the sophisticated segment of the public" that needs to slow down...the horsemen need to slow down too...

We all know that the trainers are much closer to the "behind the scenes" version of this game than we are...but that doesn't mean that all of us horseplayers are completely ignorant of the goings on of the backstretch.

Some of us have friends who are, or have worked with trainers...

Others - myself included - have had the dubious pleasure of owning thoroughbreds...so we have been lied to by some trainers first hand.

Here is the deal...as I see it:

There is little doubt that the drug laws were initially put in place with good intentions. But - as the trainers have gotten more and more desperate to win races - these laws are being bent way out of shape...and NOBODY in the industry seems to be in any hurry to do anything about it.

Now that this new bill threatens the very existence of this sport...the horsemen are telling the players that "we are all in this together"!

We seem to be on the same team now!

But when it comes to "darkening" a horse's form - by legal or illegal means - in order to win a purse and cash a bet at our expense...well, that's just business - nothing personal - and our "team" concept is conveniently forgotten.

If this game is to survive in the coming years...it has to concern itself with much more than just allowing the trainers to win races and cash bets!

It has to concern itself with the welfare of the horses and the jockeys...and of the plight of the horseplayers.

That's when we are REALLY..."ALL IN THIS TOGETHER"!

You speak of SCIENCE...

Let's wait until our racing laboratories are a little better equipped before we start using the words "science" and "horse racing" in the same paragraph...

Astronomy would not be considered much of a science today, if we were still using Galileo's telescope...

[Robert Goren]

The bettors don't want to bet on drugged horses. That is pretty clear. Why not give the customers what they want?

[5k-claim]

Listen friend...
...

You speak of SCIENCE...

Let's wait until our racing laboratories are a little better equipped before we start using the words "science" and "horse racing" in the same paragraph...

Astronomy would not be considered much of a science today, if we were still using Galileo's telescope... OK, well, thanks for all of that.

But the original post that I was responding to was a specific statement about a specific study in regards to a specific subject.

My response, the one you quoted in post #137, was likewise a specific statement about a specific study in regards to a specific subject.

I am not exactly sure how it got morphed into trainers cashing tickets on horses with darkened forms or Galileo's telescope... but I think you may have just illustrated my point for me. Thanks.

And by the way, yes I really do believe that we are all on the same team.

.

[FenceBored]

For those curious as to how the ARCI list compares to that of the WADA (which oversees human athletes) and the FEI list which controls for international competitions in endurance, eventing, show jumping, dressage, reining, and a couple of others disciplines:
The 2011 Prohibited List (http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/World_Anti-Doping_Program/WADP-Prohibited-list/To_be_effective/WADA_Prohibited_List_2011_EN.pdf) of the WADA (http://www.wada-ama.org/en/)

The 2011 Prohibited Substance List (http://www.horsesport.org/sites/default/files/file/VETERINARY/Doping_and_Controlled_Medication/2011_Equine_Prohibited_List.pdf) of the FEI (http://www.horsesport.org/)

The Uniform Classification of Foreign Substances (http://www.arci.com/druglisting.pdf) from the ARCI (http://www.arci.com/about.html)

[thaskalos]

And by the way, yes I really do believe that we are all on the same team.

.
Some team...

Some members of the team are being taxed to death and squeezed out of existence - while other members are collecting $25,000 purses for winning $5,000 claiming races...with five starters!

[5k-claim]

Some team...

Some members of the team are being taxed to death and squeezed out of existence - while other members are collecting $25,000 purses for winning $5,000 claiming races...with five starters!I am with you on the takeout issue, thaskalos. Through this board I have come to believe in the concept of "optimal takeout" rates and think everyone in the sport, including track operators, trainers and other horsemen should get on board to committing to using them. People who are experienced and talented in such matters should be the ones to figure out what those rates should be and then the rest of us just trust in the process (of optimal rates) and go from there.

The current rates are probably too high and that is bad for business on multiple fronts. I would not feel any confidence whatsoever in giving an opinion as to what the rates should be. That is for people who know what they are doing.

.

[lamboguy]

i just wonder, how can takeout be the problem when it is less than it was 40 years ago and the stands were packed?

[cj]

i just wonder, how can takeout be the problem when it is less than it was 40 years ago and the stands were packed?

I've always read the takeout was much lower years ago, and even if not, racing was the only game in town.

[Robert Goren]

In the 60s when I first started betting the takeout was 12-13%. I think you would have look long and hard to find a takeout of 15% on anything anywhere during the 60s. I watched the takeout creep upward a percentage point at a time over the years. I have watch the crowds get smaller and smaller during the same time. It is hard not to think the two are related.

[lamboguy]

with the rebate it is much lower. if you aren't getting a good enough rebate contact me and i will get you straightened out so you to will be paying less takeout no matter what size player you are. and this is completely legal

[thaskalos]

with the rebate it is much lower. if you aren't getting a good enough rebate contact me and i will get you straightened out so you to will be paying less takeout no matter what size player you are. and this is completely legal
Is your offer extended to us Illinois residents too Lambo...or do we have to sell our houses and relocate?

[thaskalos]

I am with you on the takeout issue, thaskalos. Through this board I have come to believe in the concept of "optimal takeout" rates and think everyone in the sport, including track operators, trainers and other horsemen should get on board to committing to using them. People who are experienced and talented in such matters should be the ones to figure out what those rates should be and then the rest of us just trust in the process (of optimal rates) and go from there.

The current rates are probably too high and that is bad for business on multiple fronts. I would not feel any confidence whatsoever in giving an opinion as to what the rates should be. That is for people that know what they are doing.

.
Nothing personal 5k-claim, I respect your opinion...and I agree with the crux of what you are saying.

That's our game's major problem, IMO...

Too many decisions are being made by people who don't know what they are doing...

[Track Phantom]

In the 60s when I first started betting the takeout was 12-13%. I think you would have look long and hard to find a takeout of 15% on anything anywhere during the 60s. I watched the takeout creep upward a percentage point at a time over the years. I have watch the crowds get smaller and smaller during the same time. It is hard not to think the two are related.

I don't think takeout and declining attendance are related at all. As much as takeout is an issue and a seperate problem, I doubt VERY highly that a single average player of the 60's 70's 80's, etc has left because the takeout rate is too high. Now, maybe they have left because they aren't winning overall at the percentage they expect and, INDIRECTLY, the takeout rate has made an impact. I do believe the takeout rate is ridiculous. However, I would GLADLY pay 25% takeout across the board on every bet if the game was clean. Can't live with high takeout and fake racing. That's too hard to deal with.

[GatetoWire]

Careful what you wish for.

I spent several years on the backstretch, I worked for a vet at the track for a year when I first graduated college and have been a bettor most of my life.

I do believe that we need stronger drug penalties for known cheaters but I really worry that the horses form will become so wildly inconsistent if we adopt this bill that it might make the game unplayable.

Right now I think the medication (mostly legal) that is used makes a horses form more consistent.

I think that this drug bill could be the next invention of poly track. Something that sounded good but in practice makes the game tougher to play as a bettor.

You are right the horsemen will adapt but I have a bad feeling that the effect this bill has on a horses form might make us all regret pushing it.

It may just turn horse racing betting into a giant roulette wheel.

[Track Phantom]

Careful what you wish for.

I spent several years on the backstretch, I worked for a vet at the track for a year when I first graduated college and have been a bettor most of my life.

I do believe that we need stronger drug penalties for known cheaters but I really worry that the horses form will become so wildly inconsistent if we adopt this bill that it might make the game unplayable.

Right now I think the medication (mostly legal) that is used makes a horses form more consistent.

I think that this drug bill could be the next invention of poly track. Something that sounded good but in practice makes the game tougher to play as a bettor.

You are right the horsemen will adapt but I have a bad feeling that the effect this bill has on a horses form might make us all regret pushing it.

It may just turn horse racing betting into a giant roulette wheel.

Great insight. I think you could be right but I think it will be that way only for the short term. As trainers adapt to the drug-free world, they will be forced to rely on solid training principles (layoffs, workouts, etc) to gain the desired consistency. In the longterm I believe the horses will be more consistent or, at least, more predictable.

The only horses that are consistent today are the ones that are winning at low odds. I'd rather take the roulette wheel approach.

[Cannon shell]

Idiotic. The reason it goes one way is because horse"players" don't commit a felonious act of parimutual tampering (which directly affects the financial well-being of a trainer). Trainers that use drugs are, in fact, CHEATING, and, by law, committing a prisonable offense...a felony.

No matter how you spin it, this act is illegal and deserves punishment. Are you seriously a trainer? Wow. Seems like you have a lot of time on your hands to post 17,000 times about gibberish.
Claim your horse and get back to me in a few months

[Cannon shell]

I thought horses train on lasix...or isn't it important if they suffer trauma in training?


Even if you gave it to a horse every time they worked it would still only be 3 or 4 times a month. The side effects you hear about are like the potential side effects you hear about on Drug ad on TV. Rarely happen

[Cannon shell]

I can't believe that anyone other than those with a short term economic interest in putting themselves above the integrity of the sport, welfare of the animals, and interests of horse players could be arguing for allowing any drugs except to treat horses out of training.

IMO the standards in racing should be HIGHER than for human beings because animals are not in a position to agree to compete while injured and drugged up, the integrity of the sport is critical to its popularity and ability to attract dollars, and the entire breeding industry (and thus owners) would be best served by buying and selling horses (and their offspring) who reputations were not drug enhanced.

This is a long term no brainer in every way. The problem is short term and self centered thinking.
So if my horse in training steps on a rock and has a sore foot I should not be able to treat him for a few days?

Or should I "take him out of training"?

You can't just send them to the beach for a week so they can have a break. It isn't as clear cut as people want to make out.

The standards are significantly higher than human sports.

[Cannon shell]

In all the Lasix discussion, what is never discussed are the alternative treatments for horses that bleed. One of the "hay, oats and water" alternatives is dehydration by minimizing a horse's water a few days before a race. There are other therapies that have been used including herbal etc. I can't see how the discussion can be complete without discussing the alternatives.
Good point

[Cannon shell]

HANA has not taken a formal position - We want to make sure we get it right before we do that.

We have been approaching it by asking the following of some highly educated people:

Q. "What drug policy would truly be in the best interest of the horse?"

Q. "What drug policy would be in the overall best interest of the game?"

Clearly, what we have now is not in the overall best interest of the game.

But if you are going to make changes (changes that are going to be around for a while) then you want to get it right. The issues when looked at in depth, are complex.

-jp

.
Good point as well

[Cannon shell]

Nothing personal 5k-claim, I respect your opinion...and I agree with the crux of what you are saying.

That's our game's major problem, IMO...

Too many decisions are being made by people who don't know what they are doing...
True

[Cannon shell]

Great insight. I think you could be right but I think it will be that way only for the short term. As trainers adapt to the drug-free world, they will be forced to rely on solid training principles (layoffs, workouts, etc) to gain the desired consistency.
I would love to hear your insight into solid training principles

[FenceBored]

So if my horse in training steps on a rock and has a sore foot I should not be able to treat him for a few days?

Or should I "take him out of training"?

You can't just send them to the beach for a week so they can have a break. It isn't as clear cut as people want to make out.

The standards are significantly higher than human sports.

What standards are higher than those for human sports? Are there provisions for out-of-competion testing as occurs in human sports? Nope. Does it even ban training use of items like clenbuterol? Nope, just don't have it in the detectable amounts in a competing horse.

This bill only addresses "in-competition" use. If a horse has a sore foot and his trainer needs to give him something for a few days, is it really too much to ask that the horse not be allowed to enter a race run during that period of time he is under treatment and the specified withdrawal time for the drug after treatment ends?

[thaskalos]

So if my horse in training steps on a rock and has a sore foot I should not be able to treat him for a few days?

Or should I "take him out of training"?

You can't just send them to the beach for a week so they can have a break. It isn't as clear cut as people want to make out.

The standards are significantly higher than human sports.
If a horse has a sore foot...and giving it a break from training and racing is not an option, what else is there?

Shooting it up with a numbing agent and sending it right back to the warzone?

[RXB]

I do believe that we need stronger drug penalties for known cheaters but I really worry that the horses form will become so wildly inconsistent if we adopt this bill that it might make the game unplayable.

Right now I think the medication (mostly legal) that is used makes a horses form more consistent.

I think that this drug bill could be the next invention of poly track. Something that sounded good but in practice makes the game tougher to play as a bettor.

You are right the horsemen will adapt but I have a bad feeling that the effect this bill has on a horses form might make us all regret pushing it.

It may just turn horse racing betting into a giant roulette wheel.

I don't recall form swings being any wilder in the days before widespread medication compared to now.

[5k-claim]

This bill only addresses "in-competition" use. If a horse has a sore foot and his trainer needs to give him something for a few days, is it really too much to ask that the horse not be allowed to enter a race run during that period of time he is under treatment and the specified withdrawal time for the drug after treatment ends? I am not as sure what the bill "only addresses" because it does not actually specify very much. I guess it is open to interpretation. (I did see where it took the time to specify that the winner should be tested along with one other random starter. I'm not sure how they chose to include that detail and not a host of others.)

No, what you are asking is definitely not too much to ask. That is what happens now. I cannot speak for Cannon, but the Detection Times found on the following pages seem fair enough:


British Horseracing Authority (http://www.britishhorseracing.com/resources/equine-science-and-welfare/medication-control.asp)
THE EUROPEAN HORSERACE SCIENTIFIC LIAISON COMMITTEE (http://www.ehslc.com/detection/)


Would this make us part of the "drug free utopia" and allow everyone to move on to complaining about other things?

.

[FenceBored]

I am not as sure what the bill "only addresses" because it does not actually specify very much. I guess it is open to interpretation.


`(b) Prohibition on Entering Horses Under the Influence of Performance-Enhancing Drugs in Races Subject to Interstate Off-Track Wagering- A person may not--







`(1) enter a horse in a race that is subject to an interstate off-track wager if the person knows the horse is under the influence of a performance-enhancing drug; or









`(2) knowingly provide a horse with a performance-enhancing drug if the horse, while under the influence of the drug, will participate in a race that is subject to an interstate off-track wager.


I don't see anything in this section that applies to horses that are not entered/competing in a race (for which interstate wagers will be accepted). Now, I will say I don't care for the wording of (1). If you take a horse off a med on Monday which will be out of its system by Thursday there shouldn't any question that it's not a violation to enter it in a race for Saturday (even if entries are taken on Wednesday).


(I did see where it took the time to specify that the winner should be tested along with one other random starter. I'm not sure how they chose to include that detail and not a host of others.)


Isn't that just a restatement of current practice in many jurisdictions, indicating that they're not trying to say that every horse has to be tested every race (which would have solidified the racetracks against it on financial grounds)?



No, what you are asking is definitely not too much to ask. That is what happens now. I cannot speak for Cannon, but the Detection Times found on the following pages seem fair enough:





British Horseracing Authority (http://www.britishhorseracing.com/resources/equine-science-and-welfare/medication-control.asp)
THE EUROPEAN HORSERACE SCIENTIFIC LIAISON COMMITTEE (http://www.ehslc.com/detection/)
Would this make us part of the "drug free utopia" and allow everyone to move on to complaining about other things?

.

[5k-claim]

Isn't that just a restatement of current practice in many jurisdictions, indicating that they're not trying to say that every horse has to be tested every race (which would have solidified the racetracks against it on financial grounds)? Yep. It sure is. But instead of specifying for me how many horses they plan on testing post-race, a very minor concern, I wish they were more specific in regards to:


What exactly they mean by "under the influence"- a term used multiple times in the document. This is about 1,000 times more important to me than whether they plan on testing one horse, or two, or all of them....
The recongnition (or not) of different CLASSES of drugs- especially in regards to handing out punishments- which they do go into some detail about.


I know you said once already that some things are just going to be left up to whoever enforces this, but I am not so keen on those two things being in the "to be decided later" column... does that make sense?

This still seems to me like something that was hashed out during lunch at Applebee's one afternoon...

.

[Cannon shell]

What standards are higher than those for human sports? Are there provisions for out-of-competion testing as occurs in human sports? Nope. Does it even ban training use of items like clenbuterol? Nope, just don't have it in the detectable amounts in a competing horse.

This bill only addresses "in-competition" use. If a horse has a sore foot and his trainer needs to give him something for a few days, is it really too much to ask that the horse not be allowed to enter a race run during that period of time he is under treatment and the specified withdrawal time for the drug after treatment ends?
Football and baseball players are tested twice a season with no out of competition testing. The levels at which a human are tested at are far higher than a horse. Football players can go into the lockerroom at halftime and get shot up. If I give my horse an Aleve the day before a race he will come back positive, a baseball player can take it between innings if he wishes.

The problem if you read the bill is there is no specified withdrawal times anymore. Read the bill. ANY substance ...at any time.

[Cannon shell]

If a horse has a sore foot...and giving it a break from training and racing is not an option, what else is there?

Shooting it up with a numbing agent and sending it right back to the warzone?

The problem is that most injuries are fairly minor and in a lot of cases keeping them in training to some degree is beneficial.

The language of the bill seems to say that I can't give anything at any time.

[FenceBored]

Football and baseball players are tested twice a season with no out of competition testing. The levels at which a human are tested at are far higher than a horse. Football players can go into the lockerroom at halftime and get shot up. If I give my horse an Aleve the day before a race he will come back positive, a baseball player can take it between innings if he wishes.

The problem if you read the bill is there is no specified withdrawal times anymore. Read the bill. ANY substance ...at any time.

I've read the bill. You're overreacting.

[FenceBored]

Football and baseball players are tested twice a season with no out of competition testing. The levels at which a human are tested at are far higher than a horse. Football players can go into the lockerroom at halftime and get shot up. If I give my horse an Aleve the day before a race he will come back positive, a baseball player can take it between innings if he wishes.


Oh, you want to be like the alcoholic, drug abusing pros of the NFL and MLB?
Talk about setting your low standards for comparison.

Here I thought you were talking about those athletes in "Olympic tradition," the ones who compete in national and international competitions and have to adhere to the WADA code. My mistake.

[Tom]

Perhaps racing could improve itself if they gave drugs to the bettors as they came through the turnstiles. Beats the hell of Tee shirt day.

[papillon]

I can't believe that anyone other than those with a short term economic interest in putting themselves above the integrity of the sport, welfare of the animals, and interests of horse players could be arguing for allowing any drugs except to treat horses out of training.

IMO the standards in racing should be HIGHER than for human beings because animals are not in a position to agree to compete while injured and drugged up, the integrity of the sport is critical to its popularity and ability to attract dollars, and the entire breeding industry (and thus owners) would be best served by buying and selling horses (and their offspring) who reputations were not drug enhanced.

This is a long term no brainer in every way. The problem is short term and self centered thinking.

this! :ThmbUp:

horses could be switched from lasix to flair strips today if the concern is truly only to prevent bleeding--numerous high quality studies using BAL (which is the most definitive test for bleeding outside of autopsies--the only 100% definitive test for bleeding), have shown that FLAIR strips work as well as lasix, and they have no adverse side effects, except maybe the loss of a few hairs on the horse's nose when the strip is removed.

i disagree that lasix is making the horses more consistent. horses seem much less consistent today than they ever have in the past, tbh--the horses of the 1940s and 1950s ran many more times a year and had far more consistent results than the horses of today, and look at how frequently aussie horse run without lasix and yet seem pretty consistent. US horses today can run lights out in one race and then show up a few months later and lolly-gag all over the course coming in dead last for no apparent reason (coil anyone?).

maybe i'm just naive and all the horses in the US have always been doped (i am aware that in the 1930s many were hop-headed heroin addicts because horses on heroin will literally run until their hearts burst...but...even if that's true it doesn't change the fact that lasix without steroids is not producing consistency in anything other than career ending injuries, despite only racing in a minimal number of races a year).

[andymays]

I don't think horseplayers are going to be too happy when a horse they need for a score bleeds and doesn't finish. How are they going to account for that in the PP's? They would have to scope every runner and somehow indicate the level of bleeding if any. I know that once in a while we see a notation that a horse bled but without lasix I give it about a month before Horseplayers start screaming.

I don't know much about his so maybe someone else on the board like a Trainer can comment of the levels of bleeding and how much a small amount of bleeding can affect performance.

[matthewsiv]

The only drug that should be allowed IS Lasix's.

I do not think that race goers would like to see horses bleed after a race.

What is the percentage of bleeders?

I would guess 50%+

Without this drug horses will not last 2 years and especially in hot climates.

[classhandicapper]

So if my horse in training steps on a rock and has a sore foot I should not be able to treat him for a few days?

Or should I "take him out of training"?

You can't just send them to the beach for a week so they can have a break. It isn't as clear cut as people want to make out.

The standards are significantly higher than human sports.

IMO you should treat him, but take him out of training until the treatment is over, he is healthy, and pain free without treatment. Then resume training.

That standard is higher than for athletes who might continue to play through the treatment and pain etc... But the only reason players are doing that is because they are being compensated. They weigh the risks to health and career vs. the money and making the final decision for themselves. IMO human beings with an economic interest can't be trusted to make decisions for animals in pain or that are unhealthy.