Quote:
Originally Posted by chadk66
But my whole question in all of this is this. If virtually every horse uses lasix now what difference does it really make? It's no longer a handicapping issue I wouldn't think. It's like Bute. It's a non factor. Now when you get into substances like Banamine and what all others that are legal now that's a different story. When I ran in KY in the 80's banamine was legal. I didn't use it. Not right for the horse and not fair to the jockey. If you need banamine to run a horse he shouldn't be running. That's just my opinion.
|
That's the bigger question isn't it?
I'm against Lasix for a number of reasons.
My personal opinion is there's something inherently wrong with the idea that 95% of all thoroughbreds need to be treated with a diuretic before they can step into a starting gate.
In my opinion, if a horse needs a diuretic in order to race: it shouldn't be racing in the first place. And we certainly shouldn't be breeding horses that need to be treated with diuretics so they can race.
Before anyone jumps down my throat for having that opinion, consider how horse racing came to be.
You had a farm. I had a farm. One of us said to the other "I think my horse is faster than yours." To which the other smiled and said "Oh yeah? Prove it. Methinks you are wrong."
There was probably a fair in the spring. People came from near and far. Among other things, horse racing was involved. And and one of us proved it. We shared food, drink, laughter, and music. Just about everybody had a great time. I'm guessing that's why we did it year after year.
But over the years those simple beginnings have somehow morphed into this
convoluted monstrosity where "proving it" has now come to mean bending the rules behind the curtain, taking an edge when no one is looking, and spending thousands a year on substances and treatments the public will never be privy to.
Chad, even though you and I might disagree on Lasix: I know from reading your many posts that the 'convoluted monstrosity' I just described is a big part of the reason you decided to retire from training.
You should know I am saddened by that. Because the continued loss of independent operators like yourself is one of the reasons the 'convoluted monstrosity' keeps growing in the first place.
One of the things the public
is privy to is that 95% of all thoroughbreds who stepped into a starting gate last year were really only able to do so because they were treated with Lasix.
As Robert posted in
post #117, you pretty much have to these days. It's what you do if you want a chance at purse money. Truth be told if you want a
real chance at purse money these days you probably have to do a
lot more than just give your horse Lasix. And no, what I'm talking about doesn't include outright cheating.
But on other hand, what I'm talking about is the furthest thing in the world from the days when you looked over the fence, smiled, and told your neighbor "I think my horse is faster than yours."
So yeah, I have a strong dislike for the
convoluted monstrosity end of things.
In my mind, Lasix is front and center when it comes to the
convoluted monstrosity. It's the first thing you see when you start peeling back layers of the onion.
According to stats on the Jockey Club website, up until about 1960 thoroughbreds in North America were averaging more than 11 starts per year.
Since 2010, thoroughbreds in North America have barely averaged 6 starts per year.
Link here:
http://www.jockeyclub.com/default.as...ion=FB&area=10
If you look at the red line on the graph at the top of the page at the above link, you can see it begins dropping precipitously between 1975 and 1980.
Anyone care to guess what changes were front and center in North American thoroughbred racing about then?
Q. Do I know for a fact that Lasix is the primary contributing factor behind the number of starts per year being cut almost in half.
A. No.
Q. Do I think Lasix is probably one of the factors that contributed to the number of starts per year being cut almost in half?
A. Yes. For me, the timing is way too coincidental.
Q. Do I think the effects of Lasix on race day, loss of water weight, being faster than they otherwise would be, etc. contributed to the number of starts per year being cut almost in half?
A. No. Not directly.
But I do think the introduction of Lasix changed the game in a fundamental way and helps feed the
convoluted monstrosity I wrote about above.
In my opinion, the introduction of Lasix enabled horses who were bleeders to compete on a more than level playing field.
Some of them won black type races and made names for themselves. Keep in mind I'm talking about races these horses realistically could not have entered in the first place were it not for Lasix.
Some of these horses made their way to the breeding shed after they were retired.
And the trait called bleeding?
Prior to the introduction of Lasix: The breeding industry had a built in safeguard to keep bleeding out of the gene pool.
I could be wrong, but I strongly suspect bleeders seldom won black type races and therefore seldom made it to the breeding shed.
In my opinion, the introduction of Lasix changed that.
This next part is my own opinion based on personal observation only. I need to make that clear before I go on.
In my opinion, after we started sending bleeders to the breeding shed one of the unintended consequences
could be that we aren't just breeding an increased propensity to bleed.
Humor me --
In my opinion, it took a few generations to manifest itself.
In my opinion, it was subtle at first.
But it's become a trend that grows incrementally worse with each passing year.
In my opinion, if you follow thoroughbred racing in a serious way, things have gotten to the point where you almost have to be living under a rock not to see it:
In my opinion, the introduction of Lasix may well have led to an era where the thoroughbred of today is made of glass compared to the thoroughbred of yesteryear.
I say that based on:
- The number of three year olds I see disappear from the Triple Crown trail never to be seen again - let alone make it to the races at the age of four.
- The fact that the average thoroughbred barely makes 6 starts per year.
In my opinion I don't think we have ever produced a more fragile thoroughbred at any time in recent history than we are producing today.
I don't think this is something that's even up for debate.
The question is why? And what changes can we make to reverse the trend?
I see the introduction of Lasix as a possible contributing factor -
because it changed the selection process for the stallions we send to the breeding shed.
You asked for my opinion.
I'm just a horseplayer. I don't have a hidden agenda. I don't work for WADA or USADA or a breeding farm located overseas where they don't allow Lasix or anything like that.
Hopefully I've been able to articulate some of my reasons for being against Lasix.
-jp
.