Lasix - yes or no? - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

SpotPlays · 10-06-2014, 05:19 PM

Lasix is clearly a hot button issue of late. I'm very skeptical of the removal of Lasix, but Anthony Kelzenberg who plays both domestic races and races overseas, has put out a convincing article on this Lasix subject. .

DeltaLover · 10-06-2014, 05:29 PM

We have another active thread about Lasix:

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...d.php?t=117359

Robert Goren · 10-06-2014, 05:35 PM

There is no doubt that getting rid of Lasix would improve the image of the sport. As bad as the image of horse racing is right now, this should be a no-brainer.

horses4courses · 10-06-2014, 06:14 PM

If horses are found to bleed from their exertions,
they shouldn't be racing.

Eventually, a stronger, healthier, horse
will be bred and raced if most meds,
including lasix, are phased out.

forced89 · 10-06-2014, 08:19 PM

I like the rule we had back in the 70s. No Lasix unless the State Vet certified that the horse bled during a race or workout.

Appy · 10-07-2014, 11:00 PM

"If horses are found to bleed from their exertions,
they shouldn't be racing" (or breeding).

FYP.

I strongly favor what is best for the horse. What lasix favors is trainers who might have need to cover their tracks.

cj · 10-07-2014, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by forced89

I like the rule we had back in the 70s. No Lasix unless the State Vet certified that the horse bled during a race or workout.

Right, but problem was, everybody figured out Lasix enhanced performance and gave an advantage. Certification became a must to keep level playing field.

chadk66 · 10-08-2014, 07:45 PM

you guys make me laugh. I hope they do away with lasix just to prove to everyone it isn't what you all think it is.

BettinBilly · 10-08-2014, 08:03 PM

That's the point.

I'm not a Vet. i don't know all the facts about the drug. I only know what I "Think" I know, and that's just enough to be dangerous.

I'm for what is good for the horses and what is good for the sport in general.

castaway01 · 10-09-2014, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chadk66

you guys make me laugh. I hope they do away with lasix just to prove to everyone it isn't what you all think it is.

Rather than talking to us like you're a 5-year-old brat, why don't you explain to us all what Lasix is. Educate us poor, naïve horseplayers.

turninforhome10 · 10-09-2014, 11:18 AM

Just my humble opinion: We have been breeding bleeders since almost the beginning of the stud book. While some have said I am crazy for this but my research has found that the stallion Hermit (1864) to be one of the most prolific at spreading the inheritance of bleeding.
Hermit was prone to breaking blood vessels, a weakness inherited from his both his sire and dam. Newminster had several offspring afflicted with the problem, while Hermit's dam had broken a blood vessel while contesting the Yorkshire Oaks.

It seemed that Hermit would have to be withdrawn from the Derby, but Machell, keeping in mind Hermit had beaten Vauban the previous season, and that he had beaten Knight of the Garter in trials, was not ready to declare Hermit from the race. Instead, for the next two weeks, he kept Hermit stallbound with his head tied up in the air, ostensibly to lessen the blood pressure near the vessels of the colt's nose. He also worked the horse going downhill for the same purpose. For whatever reason, Hermit worked very well only a few days before the race was run, but his disasterous bleeding in the earlier gallop was already well-known among turf spectators and gamblers
http://www.tbheritage.com/Portraits/Hermit.html
So in our quest as breeders, trainers, owners and fans to see the fastest animal that can be bred we have taken for granted the physical limitations of the Thoroughbred. I remember seeing the performance curves sometime ago that followed the performance rates of the breed through the 20th century, the thing I pulled from this, is the plateau that happened around the time of Secretariat. I contend from this that we are inevitably breeding a weaker horse. That is an argument for another day. But I ask you this? Are we willing as the breeders, trainers, owners and fans willing to go back to day when horses would run 2 and 3 miles at slower speeds with the idea that since we are removing lasix, can we allow the breed itself to catch up.
I really like what the owner of the Meadowlands did regarding stallion rules for offspring running. I feel that Mr Cella, while the motive of a no lasix bonus is well intended, will only know if the experiment worked if the amount of positives does not increase due to alternative means of bleeding control.

I have been working around and gambling on the great creatures for 20+ years with a minor stint as a breeder and now more than ever may cool heads prevail and rather than polarize on the subject of drugs in the sport, we may meet halfway and do what is best for the breed that we as man created.

chadk66 · 10-09-2014, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by castaway01

Rather than talking to us like you're a 5-year-old brat, why don't you explain to us all what Lasix is. Educate us poor, naïve horseplayers.

just search my other posts regarding this issue. I posted numerous facts regarding it.

chadk66 · 10-09-2014, 01:31 PM

My personal opinion is that genetics has nothing to do with it.

turninforhome10 · 10-09-2014, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chadk66

My personal opinion is that genetics has nothing to do with it.

So where else would thin vessels walls in the lungs and pulmonary wedge pressure come from? I don't understand?

burnsy · 10-09-2014, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chadk66

My personal opinion is that genetics has nothing to do with it.

I'm not a doctor or scientist. More of a social scientist. But its hard for me to believe genetics has nothing to do with this. I mean, I have a problem and the doctor tested for it using genetic blood samples. I was warned that my children my have a predisposition through the genetic link.

This may not account for all the horses lung problems but I have to think its a huge factor. If you breed a bleeder to a bleeder, what's the chances you get a bleeder? If the sire a known bleeder? If the dam is a known bleeder? That's the research that I hope is being done. In this country I feel it probably isn't being done........like I said, I wouldn't know. But I know from studying this society, everything is a shot or pill away from being treated. The easy way out....and profits for all. That's the system. I can't say yes or no.........but I do know people are comparing Cigar to Citation. Its the closest you can come these days. Citation won 16 in a row, raced for almost 5 full seasons and won from 4 1/2 to 2 miles. Plus, others were doing the same even if they didn't win as much. This horse won like 3 races within weeks of the derby....then won the Triple Crown...with a prep between the Preakness and Belmont. People would be calling for the trainer to be banned today. The industry tries to sugar coat everything but you can't tell me something is not going on with these horses. I don't have the answers....either way. But my guess is, back then if you bled...you didn't race for long. That's the norm now, 15 race careers, if that. I doubt they even wanted to breed horses like this back then.