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

[cj]

Originally Posted by saratoga guy

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]

Originally Posted by cj

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]

Originally Posted by saratoga guy

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]

Originally Posted by Cannon shell

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]

Originally Posted by cj

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]

Originally Posted by 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!

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.

Originally Posted by saratoga guy

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.

Originally Posted by saratoga guy

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]

Originally Posted by saratoga guy

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]

Originally Posted by Jeff P

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]

Originally Posted by 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?"

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]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

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.