Lasix is a potent diuretic that when administered before a race results in a horse losing on average between 25-30 pounds of weight by race time. A lighter horse can run faster and longer.
In addition, Lasix also masks the use of other performance-enhancing drugs by making it more difficult to catch cheaters through urine and blood testing, which begs the question: Why would almost 100% of horses run on Lasix when only around 5% bleed?
STR: This is a couple of statements from a article on the Paulick Report. If you have any comments on these sentiments would appreciate it. And in your experience would you agree that only about 5% of horses bleed? Thx in advance.
Great question Easy and what a hotbed topic that is loaded with opinion on both sides of the debate.
Before I get started , it seems to me that one of the really disturbing things I see in today's world is when parties disagree they are more often than not extremists on both sides. It seems like darn near every statement is to an extreme with as many misleading phrases or half truths as can possibly be thrown in to a discussion as possible.
That said, a lighter horse can NOT necessarily run longer and faster as evidenced by results everyday. So the wording of the statement is terrible. I get what they are TRYING to say . If what they wrote was correct who needs a form? Just bet on the small skinny horse each race right? Lol.
We know that doesn't work.
There was a time in the late 80's and 90's when lasix WAS helping to mask other newer drugs that people were using illegally. Either they were not allowed and going undetected or they were being given after the window of time ( 24 hours for bute and 48 hours for others) before a race when only Lasix is allowed to be administered. Either one was a rule violation.
Testing finally caught up by about 90-95 % of those drugs in the mid to late 90's when a lot more money was committed to testing and new equipment was purchased. Of course, new drugs continued to emerge. But by then , much more money was being put into testing so it helped to offset the new stuff.
One thing that never gets discussed is the testing lab itself. First off, you have to test for a drug for it to show up in almost all cases. Typical testing was for bute, lasix, and if I am not mistaken, about 15+/= other drugs. Some of these were random choices and some were for illegal drugs that had been detected before. Cost only allowed for so much in the way of testing. Most of these tests were for commonly used drugs that every trainer needed to use for sickness, acute lameness from stepping on a pin or something like that ( not getting a limper over to the paddock), etc. Basically drugs that were carried by all vets but only given in emergencies. And there was testing for the obvious against all laws drugs that were forbidden.
For the most part it is my opinion that most positives but certainly not all were simply mistakes and very few were a deliberate attempt to cheat. However some absolutely were for cheating purposes only.
But all that changed in the late 80's when instead of getting a positive and hoping that owners did not leave you, which was what had possibly happened in the past, hell , owners starting seeing multiple positives and wanting to GIVE those trainers their horses. It was incredible. It seemed like very few owners had respect for the game anymore, it was all about winning and if it took cheating, what the hell. Go for it !
I have to tell you Easy, it rocked my world. It really did. I had so much respect for the game and here I am listening to some dumbass say " if you ain't cheatin , you ain't tryin". I wanted to punch that jerk right in his mouth but I had already done that before for something else and taken to the Stewards and had I done it a 2nd time I would have been it deep crap. Not sure if I ever told that story in here. It's actually pretty funny. And I was a lot younger back then. That ship sailed long time ago.
Let me know if I haven't and if you care, it might be worth a read.
Anyway, let's get to the last part of this question. And let me remind everyone that reads this that I am no advocate for horse racing, trainers, lasix or any of that. I am an advocate of the truth and to better understand a game I loved and played as hard as I could within the rules. Period. And I do my very best to try and relay that to all that read this. Please keep that in mind.
Q. 100% run on Lasix, and 5% actually bleed?
A. False. Totally false. If you scoped every horse that ran on lasix today after the race, my guess is that roughly 1/2 would show some signs of bleeding. It can be clearly seen in their lungs with a flexible scope that while feeling uncomfortable or weird for the horse, it does not hurt to do. What is seen is tiny or larger specs of blood on the walls of the lungs or in the nostril area. Many of that roughly 1/2 will only show a minimum amount or a trace as it is referred to of bleeding, but it IS there.
Then we have to ask ourselves how many more would have bled to some degree without lasix? My guess, about 30% more. That makes it about 70-80% IMO.
So the question begs WHY are so many bleeding?
Sad but simple. The breeding industry, both sire and dam, is now diluted with bleeders. And it was not like that in the 60's or much of the 70's before lasix. I clearly remember nice mares that ran but were never bred to for racing purposes because they bled bad enough for it to show without a scope. As for the future sires, the rumor mill would call out who sired bleeders and/or winded horses ( they can't breathe much past 6 furlongs and sometimes less). Lack of oxygen will trigger bleeding about 90% of the time IMO. Most would get only a few mares if any back in that time period.
For a conclusion to this really important topic, let me opine for a minute.
Fans want a clean game. A game that does not run on lasix. I get that. And it is fine with me. BUT... it will take just as long to undo lasix as it has taken lasix to dilute the breeding shed. If it is force fed too quickly, IMO it will result in some ugly results. It IMO should start with G1 and G2 races with no lasix. Rules will need to be altered so horses can go on and off lasix without penalty of time( currently 3rd change is a year I think). Amount of lasix given will need to be in print for customers and all to see. Full transparency can be the only way away from lasix.
After a year or two, include G3 races, then after more time which will be more obvious by then, all Stakes races.
Leave the claimers for last or there will be no horses to fill cards. Leave maidens alone for as many years as it takes to get non lasix using sires and dams back into the breeding shed exclusively or at least in the large majority. That will take 15-20 years at least. Probably twice that, but it has taken 40 years to get where we are WITH lasix.
Now I am sure that I have left plenty out but let's face it, anything involving this can be solved if you try hard enough. Someone can pick this apart if they choose but that is the direction I would recommend going in if I was in the game.
And yes, they can speed up the process by decades if they simply ban lasix but allow a bunch of other drugs to help prevent bleeding. But if the point is to actually clean up the game, doing this would only give off the perception that the game is cleaning up wouldn't it?
Sadly, my idea would cost many millions of dollars to many owners and syndicates but would truly fix the problem. IMO it would be what is best for the PUBLIC as well as the GAME in the long term.
But at what cost? With all the monetary damage it would undoubtedly cause my guess is that racing will take the latter version of outlawing lasix. That being banning lasix but allowing a bunch of bleeding medications that the public will not see or understand.
Either way somebody losses.
It is a really tough problem to try and deal with.
Hope that helps.
SBR Top-Rated Sportsbooks
Originally Posted by JBEX
Reply With Quote
