Dale Romans Breeders' Cup OFF LASIX Horses "I don't know why anybody would bet it"

[Andy Asaro]

https://www.horseracingnation.com/ne...out_debate_123

Excerpt:


A repellent to bettors

He also said getting rid of Lasix could have a detrimental effect on the gambling product.

“I don’t know how anybody bets on a stakes race where a bunch of horses have been running on Lasix, and all of the sudden you’ve got to take them off,” Romans said. “You don’t know who bleeds, who doesn’t and what their patterns are. I don't know why anybody would bet it.”

Romans also expressed his desire for more consistent rules.

“If you’re going to take it away, take it all away, and don’t even allow it on the backside,” he said. “But you can train on it all you want, and you can use it up until the time they’re going to be in a major race when they need it the most, when they’re going to run their hardest.”

[Andy Asaro]

If they were scoping and providing Gamblers with the degree of bleeding if any that takes place it's one thing. But the way they are doing it is detrimental to the Gamblers who bet on it IMO

[dilanesp]

Uncertainty is fun for gambling. More big payoffs.

Remember probably less than 4% of horseplayers, and maybe far less than that, are winning players under any useful definition. So the gambling effect of any rule should be about whether it makes the game more interesting to bet on, not whether it benefits that less than 4%.

The primary reason to prohibit Lasix is it is a performance enhancing drug which also masks other performance enhancing drugs. But if it also makes the races more difficult, that's a feature not a bug.

[Robert Fischer]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Uncertainty is fun for gambling. More big payoffs.

Remember probably less than 4% of horseplayers, and maybe far less than that, are winning players under any useful definition. So the gambling effect of any rule should be about whether it makes the game more interesting to bet on, not whether it benefits that less than 4%

That 4% doesn't wager '4%' of the pool money. They wager a significant amount.

A perception of integrity isn't to be taken lightly.

[Parkview_Pirate]

I think there's something to be said for phasing in the ban of lasix more evenly than what's being done. The owners, breeders, trainers, vets and players should have time to adjust to drug free racing - a problem which, IMHO, should have never been allowed to get to the state we've gotten to....

It's also ironic, in this day of needle happy humans, that horses are the participants not getting [required] shots....

[Tom]

That's how used play when horses shipped to NYRA and came off lasix.
We survived.


Most of us....

[classhandicapper]

I don’t bet a lot of races overall but I bet a lot of stakes. Thinking back I’d say I vaguely remember two horses I bet that may have bled. I can’t be sure of that. I also can’t be sure if I cashed any bets because another horse bled. It hasn’t changed my betting at all.

[The_Turf_Monster]

Originally Posted by Parkview_Pirate

I think there's something to be said for phasing in the ban of lasix more evenly than what's being done. The owners, breeders, trainers, vets and players should have time to adjust to drug free racing - a problem which, IMHO, should have never been allowed to get to the state we've gotten to....

It's also ironic, in this day of needle happy humans, that horses are the participants not getting [required] shots....

This is what phasing in looks like. It’s on owners and breeders to plan properly at this point and we all know how that’s going to turn out

Training operations are just upset that we are going to start seeing a more even distribution of success between trainers

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Tom

That's how used play when horses shipped to NYRA and came off lasix.
We survived.


Most of us....

This.

[LemonSoupKid]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Uncertainty is fun for gambling. More big payoffs.

Remember probably less than 4% of horseplayers, and maybe far less than that, are winning players under any useful definition. So the gambling effect of any rule should be about whether it makes the game more interesting to bet on, not whether it benefits that less than 4%.

The primary reason to prohibit Lasix is it is a performance enhancing drug which also masks other performance enhancing drugs. But if it also makes the races more difficult, that's a feature not a bug.

I have no issue with an overall ban on lasix, but I disagree with your post. Making racing even less of a skill game makes it akin to the lottery. With 20-30% takeouts these days, perhaps it has been screaming that for years anyway ...

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by LemonSoupKid

I have no issue with an overall ban on lasix, but I disagree with your post. Making racing even less of a skill game makes it akin to the lottery. With 20-30% takeouts these days, perhaps it has been screaming that for years anyway ...

Making something harder does not make something "less of a skill game". Chess is harder than Checkers, and Poker is harder than Go Fish.

But that doesn't mean Chess and Poker are not skill games.

As Tom said above, it was a handicapping skill to figure out who would and wouldn't run well when coming off of Lasix.

[ubercapper]

I watch the KHRC meetings every month. They are archived as well if anyone wants to watch, and the state vet reports are likely available as well.



Dr. Howard usually reports on the number of horses which bled the previous month. The number is insignificant, if I recall less than 5, relative to the number of starters which race in Kentucky every month without lasix (two year olds and all graded stakes entrants).

[Redboard]

Agree with Mr Roman's, sort of. It's better for bettors that all be on Lasix, so they're all on a level playing field.

If all were not on Lasix, they would all be on a level playing field too, however, ...well... let me just leave it at that.

[BarchCapper]

From NY TB Breeders site:

Mr. Buff opened 2021 with a third consecutive win in the Jazil and another stakes score in the Stymie. That Aqueduct victory would be his last as he followed with a third in the Westchester, fifths in the Commentator and Evan Shipman and a well-beaten eighth in the Empire Classic Oct. 30. Kimmel but pinned some of the dull performances on the inability to use Lasix in New York stakes races starting in 2021.

“He was always a bleeder, and benefitted from the use of Lasix,” Kimmel said. “He’s not gushing, but he’s bleeding like a two out of five and he’s so smart, and he’s such a veteran that I think he can tell he’s going to bleed if he tries any harder. In the morning, he works well. He’s right there with other horses breezing, but he’s treated with Lasix. Without it, running in the afternoon in tougher races, he’s taking care of himself. He’s been too good to us to push the envelope anymore.”

Full release:
https://www.nytbreeders.org/news/202...17-win-career/