Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing
You have to interpret the statistics, but only Australia shows the number of starts per horse per year the same as the U.S. In other jurisdictions that ban Lasix the number of annual starts is lower. Now you can cite other reasons for that, but banning raceday Lasix doesn't necessarily translate into an increased number of starts. Lasix functions as a diuretic and it reduces pulmonary hypertension. The reduction or elimination of bleeding has an obvious performance enhancing effect, much in the same way an anti-inflammatory might. The reduction in weight associated with water loss and the improvement in time is simple physics - you drag around few pounds less and it has a small positive effect on finish time. Same thing they do with cars to increase 0-60 time and gas mileage. As I've said EVERYTHING is performance enhancing. Aspirin. Prilosec. Mucinex. The line I've tried to draw is between a PED that acts like an amphetamine or a steroid and a substance that allows the horse to hit the peak of its actual physiology. So Banamine is performance enhancing because you can run without joint discomfort associated with inflammation, but it doesn't inherently alter the horse's physiology. Another question I ask has to do with humaneness. The studies have shown definitively that 50-70% of horses are bleeders. So it seems humane to treat them. I understand that because of the weight loss component, other horses may take Lasix to gain that edge, but I've not read anything that suggests there is long term deleterious effect on a horse, and it almost certainly doesn't have a genetic impace on the breed. The fact is that you can duplicate the diuretic effect of Lasix by denying food and water 24-48 hours before a race and you can decide if that is as humane as the injection. I've also suggested that banning Lasix can take a significant percentage of horses off the track, probably affecting smaller venues most significantly and definitely adding to the woes of starters per race. In the interest of fairness I've got calls in to two BIG time trainers to get a view from the other side. I think if you are pro or anti it has to be based mostly on the humaneness argument, because if 98% of horses are on Lasix, the performance enhancing argument is moot.
|
see we can agree on things
. Here's the flip side of any benefit from the trivial amount of weight loss. A horse can suffer any gains from it by not having adequate fluids in the tissue. So it equals out.
