Aunt Pearl and Kalypso bled yesterday. How many more bled? No Lasix is B.S.

[Andy Asaro]

Twitter

Twitter

Twitter

[Andy Asaro]

Twitter

[classhandicapper]

From a handicapping perspective, the bigger issue is knowing whether a horse bled in a recent race (especially the last race).

Right now, if a really good horse ran an inexplicably bad race last out, you can't be sure if he bled or had/has some other issue that's impacting his form. Bleeding might be a "one off". The horse could run great next time if he doesn't bleed or if he runs in a spot that allows Lasix. He could run poorly next time if he's just off form.

Weighing the risks and probabilities is tricky enough, but if we are going to run these major stakes without Lasix, that information has to be made available on major stakes somehow so we at least know what happened in the past.

[Parkview_Pirate]

I'm very surprised they didn't phase in the no-lasix rules for the younger horses and "grandfather in" the older ones, allowing them to use lasix for the remainder of their careers. Seems like a no-brainer approach, and that's with me supporting the no-lasix trend. But it takes time to adjust the breeding, sales, training, vetting, and so on, and I completely agree the approach taken to date is B.S.

Prior to these rule changes, you would rarely see a horse revert back to NOT running on lasix once it started, and of course it seemed like 80+ percent of horses eventually used it. How they could not phase the rule changes in more smoothly displays a lack of foresight.

[Onesome]

https://racing.hkjc.com/racing/infor...eDatabase.aspx

But something like this would cost money and only benefits the bettors and its clear that the people in charge, Equibase, Jockey Club, don't give a damn about the bettors.

As to Andy's original point, why does the rest of the world have little troubles racing lasix free?

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Onesome

https://racing.hkjc.com/racing/infor...eDatabase.aspx
As to Andy's original point, why does the rest of the world have little troubles racing lasix free?

I've never seen data on it, but I'm going to guess that turf racing causes fewer bleeding episodes because it's less stressful start to finish. Even if that's not true, if one of the good Euros had a bleeding issue they had the option of sending the horse the US to race on Lasix.

Really though, imo, it's a "will" thing vs. the economics.

To do it right is going to take time and money and in the mean time there's loads of pressure to keep Lasix because of the economics of ownership, breeding etc..

[Andy Asaro]

Originally Posted by Onesome

https://racing.hkjc.com/racing/infor...eDatabase.aspx

But something like this would cost money and only benefits the bettors and its clear that the people in charge, Equibase, Jockey Club, don't give a damn about the bettors.

As to Andy's original point, why does the rest of the world have little troubles racing lasix free?

My theory is that in the U.S. we have a lot of dirt racing and workouts on dirt. On top of that a lot of major racetracks are in big cities where there is a lot more dust flying around. Have also heard something about the hay they eat. Whatever it is IMO it is necessary for most horses here.

[Spalding No!]

The use of Lasix ostensibly to prevent EIPH is obviously a contentious issue, but those tweets in response to Aunt Pearl's owners' fairly straightforward update are quite disingenuous.

First off, Maggi Moss somehow tries to make transparency a Lasix issue. Lasix does not cure EIPH, it descreases the severity of bleeding episodes.

There's a litany of horses that bled through Lasix, but the most clear cut example would be the carefully managed Summer Squall during his 3yo campaign in 1990 in which he skipped the Belmont Stakes specifically because he could not run on Lasix. This in the face of the colt winning his 2 most important juvenile races at Saratoga in 1989. Reportedly, the horse had bled once in a workout in February down in Florida (the geography/climate of which may have been a contributing factor). So after becoming the poster boy for raceday medication the horse finds his way to the New Jersey for the Meadowlands Cup and lo and behold he runs off the board for the first time in his career. "Bled significantly" while on Lasix, costing him the 3yo Eclipse.

On the other side of the coin, the great racemare Bayakoa was a noted bleeder. And yet she was unbeaten in 2 starts at Belmont Park each time against the outstanding 3yo filly on the year (one of which obviously ended tragically).

So since Lasix does not prevent EIPH nor do "bad bleeders" suffer EIPH in every single start even without Lasix, why is "transparency" only important in an era of no Lasix on raceday?

Answer: It's not. If the powers that be want to aid bettors in all ways that they can then why haven't they been releasing post-race endoscopic exam results since EIPH became a recognized syndrome in racehorses in the early 1980s?

And as far as Maggi Moss's straw man argument about Churchill Downs and "anti-lasix folks" not giving us the info, well, they wouldn't be in control of that confidential information. You know who would be and could permit its release to the public? You guessed it...the owners of the horses. Anyone know if Maggi Moss still owns hundreds of horses?

As for Charles Simon's silly "I told you so" tweet, it's utterly laughable. Despite trying to suggest that severe EIPH episodes are happening every day at every track in every race, doesn't the fact that he prefaces every rhetorical question with "Remember when" suggest that severe EIPH episodes (i.e., external bleeding) are in fact few and far between?

If that doesn't sway you, how about the fact that he has to pad his numbers (1) by lumping in Aunt Pearl? She didn't bleed externally. All we have as evidence that she bled is the tweet from the owner. So one horse on the card definitively bled out the nose.

I don't a problem taking the owner at his or her word (although if it was a trainer I might have reason to pause), but even if Aunt Pearl bled is the reason for the bleeding a lack of Lasix?

Answer: Maybe, maybe not. Is it possible that stress played a role? Was the fact that the filly was coming off a near 6 month layoff a factor? Was the fact that her comeback race off that layoff was a significant graded stakes race as opposed to a softer prep a factor? Was the fact that she was hounded by a pace rival for the first time ever a factor? Anyone think her stress levels were up facing a large crowd for the first time after campaign as a 2yo during strict COVID-restrictions?

As for Kalypso, she bled after taking kickback for pretty much the first time in her career after getting run off her feet the first 1/2 furlong while facing a much stronger pace than she had been facing in the team workouts they pass off as races in the Santa Anita Oaks series this winter/spring. And I wouldn't dismiss questioning her overall condition leading up to the race since she was considered a Kentucky Oaks contender earlier in the year and in the short-term was in declining form, curiously skipping the Santa Anita Oaks which drew just a 4-horse field that was ultimately won by a filly making just her 2nd start after a maiden sprint victory.

Lasix enhances performance but I don't think even that would have been enough to turn her form around...

[The_Turf_Monster]

I don’t know why I keep seeing posts as this being a bettor issue. This will eventually lead to larger fields as horses start running every couple weeks vs every 5 or 6 weeks due to the recovery time from lasix. Form will make its way back into handicapping. I understand the frustration of owners - they want to run on certain days and want to ensure their horses run, but they bastardized breeding and my sympathy is low

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by The_Turf_Monster

I don’t know why I keep seeing posts as this being a bettor issue. This will eventually lead to larger fields as horses start running every couple weeks vs every 5 or 6 weeks due to the recovery time from lasix. Form will make its way back into handicapping. I understand the frustration of owners - they want to run on certain days and want to ensure their horses run, but they bastardized breeding and my sympathy is low

I don’t know what the incremental risk of bleeding is without Lasix, but all else being equal, it’s generally going to be about equal for each horse. There will be times you bet the best horse but it bleeds due to lack of Lasix. There will be times you would have run 2nd but the horse that would have won bled and you cash. Perhaps favorites will be a hair less likely to win overall.

The bigger issue is interpreting prior races.

For all I know Mandaloun bled a little in the Louisiana Derby, none of us knew that, and today he ran back to his best form. I found myself asking that question wondering if that explained his inexplicably bad race. I’m not sure how to solve that unless that info is made public by rule.

[cj]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I don’t know what the incremental risk of bleeding is without Lasix, but all else being equal, it’s generally going to be about equal for each horse. There will be times you bet the best horse but it bleeds due to lack of Lasix. There will be times you would have run 2nd but the horse that would have won bled and you cash. Perhaps favorites will be a hair less likely to win overall.

The bigger issue is interpreting prior races.

For all I know Mandaloun bled a little in the Louisiana Derby, none of us knew that, and today he ran back to his best form. I found myself asking that question wondering if that explained his inexplicably bad race. I’m not sure how to solve that unless that info is made public by rule.

That was the big question with him. His Risen Star was really good, his LA Derby horrible, and the connections said they couldn't find an excuse.

[Onesome]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I don’t know what the incremental risk of bleeding is without Lasix, but all else being equal, it’s generally going to be about equal for each horse. There will be times you bet the best horse but it bleeds due to lack of Lasix. There will be times you would have run 2nd but the horse that would have won bled and you cash. Perhaps favorites will be a hair less likely to win overall.

The bigger issue is interpreting prior races.

For all I know Mandaloun bled a little in the Louisiana Derby, none of us knew that, and today he ran back to his best form. I found myself asking that question wondering if that explained his inexplicably bad race. I’m not sure how to solve that unless that info is made public by rule.

Maybe it's a problem with handicapping logic. Based decisions on a sample size of 1-2? And of course how much do results matter? Isn't results just variance?

[Spalding No!]

Originally Posted by cj

That was the big question with him. His Risen Star was really good, his LA Derby horrible, and the connections said they couldn't find an excuse.

Seems like the Louisiana Derby was a death by a thousand cuts sort of scenario.

The horse stumbled slightly at the start and then inexplicably Geroux allowed himself to be herded to the far outside by the freshly blinkered Proxy when he could have settled into a drafting position. With nothing but daylight in front of him, the colt grabbed the bit and took off to engage the leaders and ended up being caught wide into the first turn. Likely used himself up in that first quarter mile.

And the Louisiana Derby pace was relatively fast compared to the Le Comte and Risen Star. On raw times there was a large shift from the :48+ halves and 1:13 6f splits to :47 flat and 1:11. Your pace figures show a similar if less dramatic shift, but bearing in mind that Mandaloun (1) flashed more early speed than normal (2) into a hotter pace than he was used to while also (3) stretching further out in distance, a moderate case can be made for his meltdown.

I interpreted it to mean that he couldn't handle a hot pace (if he was close) and also was distance-challenged.

I'll wait for your analysis of the pace, but the Derby fractions seemed relatively modest and Mandaloun was able to settle into his best style stalking lukewarm pace. Ultimately, he might also prefer to have a bit of cover drafting in behind horses.

Coincidentally, the form reversal of Mandaloun's LA-KY Derbies was almost a mirror image of Geroux's flub with Caddo River in the Rebel-Arkansas Derby double. There he inexplicably took back off the lead in the former to disastrous effect but then let the horse roll early in the latter, restoring some of the colt's tarnished reputation.

[The_Turf_Monster]

Each track had a bleeder list before lasix, that’ll come back and it will be ok

[classhandicapper]

With nothing but daylight in front of him, the colt grabbed the bit and took off to engage the leaders and ended up being caught wide into the first turn. Likely used himself up in that first quarter mile.

I agree his trip wasn't ideal.

The point I'm making though is that there will probably be "x" more running lines like this if the incidence of bleeding rises a little and it will be harder to know what you are dealing with unless it's public information.