20 of the leading tracks announce plans to phase out race-day meds

[Jeff P]

Bloodhorse.com | by Frank Angst | 04-18-2019 6:33 PM
Tracks Plan to Phase Out Lasix, Horsemen Share Concerns:
https://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-rac...share-concerns

In what would be a significant change in how 2-year-old races and stakes races are conducted in the United States, 20 of the leading tracks announced plans April 18 to phase out the use of race-day medication beginning with juvenile races next year and then adding listed and graded stakes beginning in 2021.

The proposal to end the use of furosemide (Salix, commonly called Lasix) has support from some leading industry groups but also saw opposition and concerns raised by horsemen's groups and regulators.

Lasix is administered to prevent exercise-induced pulmonary hemorrhage, but its use is out of line with other major international racing jurisdictions. On Thursday, a coalition of leading Thoroughbred racing organizations announced plans to move closer to that standard.

Coalition racetracks that signed on to the initiative include all tracks owned or operated by Churchill Downs Inc., the New York Racing Association, and The Stronach Group, as well as Del Mar, Keeneland, Lone Star Park, Remington Park, Los Alamitos Racecourse (Thoroughbred meets), Oaklawn Park, and Tampa Bay Downs. Taken together, the tracks represent 86% of graded or listed stakes races in the U.S. in 2018.

Imo, if you're going to do away with race-day meds, a phase out, as opposed to a one time outright ban, makes sense.


-jp

.

[Afleet]

I would think the lasix allowed venues will get increased field sizes which will lead to increased handle

[Afleet]

Banning 2 y/o racing would help more than banning lasix. 2 y/o's are not developed

[Suff]

In a previous wordspittin post, I raised ridiculous ideas you could come up with if it was a hail-mary to trigger a rebirth in Racing as a sport or it died.

Like if racing was either dead this year, or it lived and thrived another 100 years. no idea to much.

I suggested cloning, dna and gene splitting, artificial limbs, and other ideas.


Isn't the consensus that bleeding is a recessive gene?

Pretty sure, with all the advancements we know that its a genetic mutation.

And we can likely edit the gene out. Hail Mary, Jesus and Joseph.

[bob60566]

Originally Posted by Afleet

I would think the lasix allowed venues will get increased field sizes which will lead to increased handle

Afleet

I think you might be correct With lasix being allowed, And maybe less race day testing would make it more favorable for some trainers to head to these tracks to continue there trade. ?

[biggestal99]

Originally Posted by Afleet

I would think the lasix allowed venues will get increased field sizes which will lead to increased handle

No lasix horses get more starts.

Less recovery time.

Allan

[classhandicapper]

It's sort of a shame that people outside the industry may be associating Lasix with horses breaking down at SA, but personally I think it's a welcomed change to have our stakes races being run clean.

[jay68802]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

It's sort of a shame that people outside the industry may be associating Lasix with horses breaking down at SA, but personally I think it's a welcomed change to have our stakes races being run clean.

Agree with you, however, 85% of the races run are not covered. Another way for racing to say "Look what we did" and really not change much.

[deelo]

Surprised this thread isn't blowing up like facebook and twitter.

[deelo]

Originally Posted by Suff

In a previous wordspittin post, I raised ridiculous ideas you could come up with if it was a hail-mary to trigger a rebirth in Racing as a sport or it died.

Like if racing was either dead this year, or it lived and thrived another 100 years. no idea to much.

I suggested cloning, dna and gene splitting, artificial limbs, and other ideas.


Isn't the consensus that bleeding is a recessive gene?

Pretty sure, with all the advancements we know that its a genetic mutation.

And we can likely edit the gene out. Hail Mary, Jesus and Joseph.

The American Vet College of IM put out recommendations in 2014 i think it was that IEPH (or bleeding) is classified as a disease and that racehorses cannot just develop it due to strenuous exercise.

In my mind, this would stand to reason that a 2020 ban of 2 yr olds already born is rushed and short-sighted, especially since there's no correlation in Lasix with breakdowns.

If you really wanted to phase it out, their recommendations seem to point at starting with the breeding pool. Classify pedigree lines according to bleeding stage of offspring and begin to improve the pool.

Phase out Lasix over the course of a generation gradually. Give tracks the power to offer Lasix ON and OFF races during the transition until eventually ON races are no longer offered.

In the meantime, stop running distractions by blaming Lasix when we all know the track surface is directly related to breakdown rate.

Also, I have no training or breeding credits to my name so this is all just a casual bettor bouncing ideas around based off research so I'm okay taking criticism.

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by jay68802

Agree with you, however, 85% of the races run are not covered. Another way for racing to say "Look what we did" and really not change much.

It could turn out that way, but it's also the only way a ban could take place. You have to start with horses that never ran on it (like 2-year-olds). It really does have to be phased in.

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by Afleet

Banning 2 y/o racing would help more than banning lasix. 2 y/o's are not developed

I don't care if I ever bet on another 2-year-old race, but this is factually incorrect. Two-year-old racing is not a new development, and 100 years ago 2-year-olds ran more than now, not less. It's not the cause of any of these problems; breeding and overmedicating unsound horses is.

[bob60566]

Originally Posted by castaway01

I don't care if I ever bet on another 2-year-old race, but this is factually incorrect. Two-year-old racing is not a new development, and 100 years ago 2-year-olds ran more than now, not less. It's not the cause of any of these problems; breeding and overmedicating unsound horses is.

So correct and when will they ever learn.

[Jeff P]

Originally Posted by burnsy

I totally agree. People are in dream land or just lying to themselves to even suggest that modern breeding tactics and drugs make these horses more durable . I don’t care how old they are. Then to suggest horses run too much at age 2 ? Are you F’in kidding me???!!! They run maybe 3 times and some of these Derby horses didn’t start until they were 3. Total bs excuse. Let’s see how many defections there are in the next two weeks. Hopefully, the top 20 all make it.

The other thing I don’t think people realize is the top 20 tracks run 86% of the stakes races. In other words Lasix horses are running for 14% of the stakes races. And you can bet your bottom dollar tracks that don’t comply will come under pressure. There could even come threats of downgrade if all of this comes to pass. People seem not to realize that the numbers point to these drugs have not done a God Damn thing to help the breed. They probably have set it back. This has been a crutch and a trap from the start. Why did they crack down on human athletes? Cause it was good for them ? Or did it make people sick and is cheating. Give me a break .

Agree with you except for one thing. (You used the word probably.)

"They probably have set it back."

Definitely, absolutely.

Imo, those two words more accurately describe the ongoing damage done to the sport as opposed to probably.


-jp

.

[Afleet]

Originally Posted by bob60566

Afleet

I think you might be correct With lasix being allowed, And maybe less race day testing would make it more favorable for some trainers to head to these tracks to continue there trade. ?

I'm against the trainers that are cheating-didn't mean to come off like an apologist for cheaters