Taking horses off lasix in certain races IS ANIMAL CRUELTY
 

And it happening a lot.

Of course, taking the Devil's Advocate position (and the obvious PETA response to the above)...if a horse needs Lasix in order to race without bleeding...that horse shouldn't be racing, period.

The other day it was announced that a pretty nice horse who excelled at Del Mars 5F sprints would be sent to Canada so it could race on lasix.

First of all Politically correct (Idiots) California can't afford to lose one horse and secondly what about all the Gamblers who bet on these horses?

Not that it negates the overarching debate, but there is a significant confounder regarding Imprimis bleeding out the nose yesterday.

He broke through the gate prior to the start, the trauma of which could easily have caused him to bleed out of his nostrils.

Looks like the linked video was taken just after the race so at that point it wasn't confirmed that he bled from his lungs (maybe they did subsequently and my post is moot).

Orseno in previous interviews stated the horse wasn't a bad bleeder (he won off-Lasix in a turf stakes earlier this year) and ran the horse in Europe a couple of years ago as well.

This is happening a lot. If they wanted us to know the truth they would scope them all and publish the results.

Watching the race, this makes way more sense than the horse bled from EIPH so bad it poured out of the nostrils. He lost in the last jump while running a big number. I'm not buying it was a lack of Lasix.

Let's say they invented a drug, we will call it Sixlay.

Here are the properties of Sixlay:

1. It cures all respiratory bleeding of horses.

2. It improves the performance of horses by 20 lengths at a mile.

3. It masks the presence of any other performance enhancing drug, even dangerous ones, making it impossible to detect who is cheating.

Should we allow it? Only for bleeders? For everyone?

I realize the situation with Lasix is less extreme, but that's the point of my hypothetical.

Yes, I understand that bleeding is a real thing and that Lasix treats it. But the other side should also be acknowledged- Lasix is a performance enhancer and masking agent (and the people associated with this sport who claim it is not a masking agent are being cheerleaders; in all the rest of the sports world, it is banned as one).

So yes, banning Lasix imposes a cost. So does allowing it. Which do you do?

There should be some alert on a thread when it crosses over from the usual carping to borderline insanity.....not that it just happened here :D:D:

C'mon Man.

This problem will work its way out in the breeding shed and the game will be better for it

That changes everything, in my mind. If he ran dead last I might wonder

I know he was complaining about the lasix situation not long ago & pointed to it as a reason he made his last start at Tampa where it was permitted. I was actually surprised to see Imprimis entered back in a no-lasix situation & not spotted all year where it was legal, perhaps until the BC.

How often do you think it happens in other non lasix jurisdictions?

A lot?

Allan

I know what's happening in this country, especially in Ca.