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

[FenceBored]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

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]

Originally Posted by Cannon shell

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Cannon shell

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]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Dahoss9698

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.

Originally Posted by Dahoss9698

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]

Originally Posted by Kelso

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]

Originally Posted by Cannon shell

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.)

Originally Posted by Cannon shell

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]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

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]

Originally Posted by cj

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]

Originally Posted by Cannon shell

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."

Originally Posted by Cannon shell

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.

Originally Posted by Cannon shell

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?)

Originally Posted by Cannon shell

Your vindictiveness is telling..

And your callous greed is disgraceful.

[Cannon shell]

Originally Posted by Kelso

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