25 trainers urge Lasix-ban; THA says issue debated, decided

[Aly-Sheba]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

There is no bigger falsehood than lasix adds days to how long a horse can run back. While that excuse might be given by one of those guys wanting to keep their win percentage high but unless you are talking about running your horse back in less than a week for most horses it is bunk.

I belive you, but you always hear them talk about lasix dehydrating the horse and they can't run back as soon, so horses don't run as much in a year as they used to. I'm sure the day money plays a big factor in it also.

[pointman]

I am all for rooting cheaters out of the game, but I find it really comical how some trainers are considered absolute juicers and others 100% clean when there is no definitive evidence either way.

[ateamstupid]

I love the false equivalence marathon going on here. So because Linda Rice made a smart claim that she eventually turned into a G1 horse, that's the same as Dutrow and his "paramour" ROUTINELY moving horses way up in their FIRST STARTS off the claim. It takes a serious bias or willful ignorance to explain all that away as nothing more than good horsemanship.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Aly-Sheba

I belive you, but you always hear them talk about lasix dehydrating the horse and they can't run back as soon, so horses don't run as much in a year as they used to. I'm sure the day money plays a big factor in it also.

I was told that Eoin Harty did an experiment where he weighed every horse before they ran and after they ran. He did this with horses that ran on lasix and horses that didn't run on lasix. The horses that ran on lasix lost an average of about 80 pounds in the race. It took them about 2-3 weeks to put the weight back on. The horses that ran without lasix lost less than 10 pounds and they put the weight back on in 3 days.

I don't see how anyone can say that horses that run on lasix can run back as quick as horses that don't, when it takes horses that run on lasix 2-3 weeks just to put the weight back on that they lost.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I was told that Eoin Harty did an experiment where he weighed every horse before they ran and after they ran. He did this with horses that ran on lasix and horses that didn't run on lasix. The horses that ran on lasix lost an average of about 80 pounds in the race. It took them about 2-3 weeks to put the weight back on. The horses that ran without lasix lost less than 10 pounds and they put the weight back on in 3 days.

I don't see how anyone can say that horses that run on lasix can run back as quick as horses that don't, when it takes horses that run on lasix 2-3 weeks just to put the weight back on that they lost.

He ran 2 horses at the Spa yesterday. Both had lasix. If this is the case, why is he running his horses on lasix?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by pointman

He ran 2 horses at the Spa yesterday. Both had lasix. If this is the case, why is he running his horses on lasix?

I would assume the reason he still runs on lasix is because he believes the pros outweigh the cons. Most people believe that it moves horses up. In addition, most guys aren't looking to run their horses every 2-3 weeks. If your horses only run every 4-6 weeks, the weight loss is probably not a big issue.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I would assume the reason he still runs on lasix is because he believes the pros outweigh the cons. Most people believe that it moves horses up. In addition, most guys aren't looking to run their horses every 2-3 weeks. If your horses only run every 4-6 weeks, the weight loss is probably not a big issue.

I'm sorry Rupert, he did not run any at the Spa yesterday. I confused him with Eric Guillot, I guess the confusion stems from two trainers that consistently get high priced stock and consistently underperform with them.

Having said that, he ran one at Del Mar yesterday without lasix and is running one today with lasix.

If there is so much bad about lasix, I just don't get why every trainer runs their horses on it. It is clearly beneficial to the horses.

If it takes so much weight off horses why are Europeans training on it? How could they get the weight back on by race time?

I just don't buy the anti-lasix crap. What is going to happen to bleeders that can't race, there are already too many unwanted horses as it stands.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by pointman

I'm sorry Rupert, he did not run any at the Spa yesterday. I confused him with Eric Guillot, I guess the confusion stems from two trainers that consistently get high priced stock and consistently underperform with them.

Having said that, he ran one at Del Mar yesterday without lasix and is running one today with lasix.

If there is so much bad about lasix, I just don't get why every trainer runs their horses on it. It is clearly beneficial to the horses.

If it takes so much weight off horses why are Europeans training on it? How could they get the weight back on by race time?

I just don't buy the anti-lasix crap. What is going to happen to bleeders that can't race, there are already too many unwanted horses as it stands.

I think practically all trainers believe lasix is beneficial overall. Trainers look at the benefits compared to the cost and they think they are better off running on lasix. I think on practically every measure, lasix has been shown to move up most horses. But that doesn't mean that horses need it. It just means that if you don't use it while others are using it, you are at a disadvantage.

In terms of training on it, they usually get a much smaller dose than they get in a race. The reason some trainers will use it for workouts is because they would rather be safe than sorry. Lets say that you are going to work your horse tomorrow and he is scheduled to run in 8 days. Many trainers will give the horse lasix for the work because if they don't give it to him and he happens to bleed, then they are going to miss the race. If the horse bleeds you are going to have to put him on antibiotics and back off a little bit and it's going to set you back a week or two. Many trainers don't want to take that chance.

[dalakhani]

Dutrows biggest crime was pissing the wrong people off and being a loudmouth. Can anyone seriously doubt his acumen as a horseman though? He could win with any type of horse from a cheap claimer to g1 stake. You talk to anyone that actually owned horses that he trained and they love him. Even his cheaper horses shined like new pennies.

I agree with Freddy. Dutrows 10 years is ridiculous.

[Danzig]

dutrow got a ten year ban as a warning to other trainers. that's how the powers that be do things, they use someone as an example, in hopes it scares the others into doing the right thing-or less of the wrong thing.

[Cannon Shell]

I am banned from practicing law?

****

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Aly-Sheba

I belive you, but you always hear them talk about lasix dehydrating the horse and they can't run back as soon, so horses don't run as much in a year as they used to. I'm sure the day money plays a big factor in it also.

Win % and the fact that there rarely are races back quickly for most classes of horses.

Harness horses run 3-4 times a month on lasix, with no hydration issues. Different breeds but in terms of hydration and mineral loss, physiologically the same.

Sure sometimes in the summer when it is consistently hot you might need a little more time. If you have a nervous horse that is prone to wash out even training, you might need a little more time. But those arent the norm.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pointman

I am all for rooting cheaters out of the game, but I find it really comical how some trainers are considered absolute juicers and others 100% clean when there is no definitive evidence either way.

I am often puzzled by who is considered a "good guy" and who is considered a "bad guy".

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Danzig

dutrow got a ten year ban as a warning to other trainers. that's how the powers that be do things, they use someone as an example, in hopes it scares the others into doing the right thing-or less of the wrong thing.

I don't believe that he was given a 10 year ban as a warning regardless of how they framed it. I believe they supported this extreme ban because they wanted to justify their own existence and remain in their jobs by answering the number 1 criticism of regulators, that they were too easy on repeat offenders.

Dutrow gave them plenty of ammunition to use against him.
Rick is a likable guy. People think that the "juice" trainers are all sinister douchbags when a lot of the supposed good guys are just that. However that confuses personality with wrongdoing.

What escapes most people is that many of the juice guy owners seem to do just fine when they move onto making the next juice guy. Now they have even smartened up and are changing the stable names every time the heat comes.

[asudevil]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I don't believe that he was given a 10 year ban as a warning regardless of how they framed it. I believe they supported this extreme ban because they wanted to justify their own existence and remain in their jobs by answering the number 1 criticism of regulators, that they were too easy on repeat offenders.

Dutrow gave them plenty of ammunition to use against him.
Rick is a likable guy. People think that the "juice" trainers are all sinister douchbags when a lot of the supposed good guys are just that. However that confuses personality with wrongdoing.

What escapes most people is that many of the juice guy owners seem to do just fine when they move onto making the next juice guy. Now they have even smartened up and are changing the stable names every time the heat comes.

Who are some of the "nice juice" guys?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by asudevil

Who are some of the "nice juice" guys?

Mike Lerman

[Kasept]

Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Associations: Lasix Issue Already Debated and Settled
by Press Release | 08.06.2014 | 2:01pm

We have been asked to comment on the Press Release issued on behalf of the group of trainers who propose the elimination of “race day medications” on January 1, 2016, but who support the adoption of the new uniform medication system of 26 controlled therapeutic medications being enacted throughout the racing industry.

It is quite obvious that the proposal and its timing are part of a thinly disguised and carefully orchestrated effort that is now playing out and will continue to do so over the next week by the opponents of the permitted use of lasix (furosemide). The industry can expect to be lectured once again by the opponents of lasix, who apparently will pursue federal intervention in our sport if we do not acquiesce to their view. It is designed to revive a divisive issue that the industry has already debated at great length and settled. It will polarize the industry, cripple the implementation of the uniform medication and drug testing program and put the industry at war with itself once again.

It appears, based on their Press Release and comments attributed to them in various media reports, that some of the trainers who were signatories are either uninformed or have been misled regarding the industry’s current uniform medication and drug testing program. First, there are not “multiple permitted race day medications”—the only medication permitted on race day is lasix. Second, those who suggest there has been an absence of a reasonable conversation on the subject are mistaken. Nothing could be further from the truth. We remind everyone that the industry engaged in an extensive and terribly divisive debate about lasix and race day medication several years ago under similar circumstances that culminated in an International Summit on Race Day Medication at Belmont Park in June 2011. Organized by the Jockey Club, NTRA and AAEP because the industry was consumed by the polarizing debate, the Summit brought together international scientists and experts, representatives of every industry organization and racetrack covering every constituency, individual breeders, and owners and trainers to facilitate an understanding of this complex issue, allow for discussion and debate and to hopefully bring an end to the polarizing debate.

We participated, as did other individuals and organizations representing every segment of the industry and every point of view on the issue. It was clear that there was neither support for the elimination of lasix nor a phased-in prohibition. To the contrary, there was broad-based consensus that the best approach was the to continue and further enhance the strict industry regulatory controls regarding the use and administration of lasix currently in place throughout the entire industry in North America. These protocols were deemed to be in the best interests of the health and safety of the horse, provided a level playing field for all participants, was voluntary, and was totally transparent and in the best interests of the betting public. Finally, while the signatories purport to give their support for the adoption of the new uniform system consisting of 26 controlled therapeutic medications, perhaps they are unaware that lasix is one of the 26 medications.

Our associations collectively, under the auspices of the THA umbrella, have consistently led the reforms in medication and drug testing that have been implemented in the past two decades. We have been and will always be committed to the welfare of the horse, the integrity of our sport, and providing a level playing field for all participants and our bettors. We collectively represent thousands of honest, hard working and dedicated horsemen (including the 25 trainers and their owners who are promoting the ban), backstretch workers and those in the many support businesses whose livelihoods depend on a strong industry at every level, not just the elite. We are their voice.

While we respect that there are, have been and will always be differing opinions on the use of medication in racing, in particular lasix, our memberships overwhelmingly support the current system, see nothing that has changed in the past 3 years to alter their view and have been quite vocal about it to us the past several days. We want them, and you, to know that we will continue to strongly and vigorously advocate on their behalf to oppose any change in current policy and practice, absent scientific evidence to the contrary or breakthroughs that allow for the horse to otherwise be protected.

Alan Foreman, Chairman, THA
Rick Violette, Pres., THA; NY THA
Richard Meyer, MD THA
John Forbes, NJ THA
Michael Gorham, DEL THA
Sal Debunda, PA THA
Michael Campbell, IL THA

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I don't believe that he was given a 10 year ban as a warning regardless of how they framed it. I believe they supported this extreme ban because they wanted to justify their own existence and remain in their jobs by answering the number 1 criticism of regulators, that they were too easy on repeat offenders.

Dutrow gave them plenty of ammunition to use against him.
Rick is a likable guy. People think that the "juice" trainers are all sinister douchbags when a lot of the supposed good guys are just that. However that confuses personality with wrongdoing.

What escapes most people is that many of the juice guy owners seem to do just fine when they move onto making the next juice guy. Now they have even smartened up and are changing the stable names every time the heat comes.

You have a lot of highly skilled trainer at every track. As in any other walk of life success does not make you a good or a bad person, it just makes you successful at your trade, nothing more nothing less.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by pointman

I am all for rooting cheaters out of the game, but I find it really comical how some trainers are considered absolute juicers and others 100% clean when there is no definitive evidence either way.

it's true that those who haven't ever been caught may not have been caught 'yet'.
but when you've got trainers who have rap sheets a mile long...well, i think it's pretty clear that they're cheaters.
take patrick biancone-a year out of the game. did that harm the game? the owners who had to hire other trainers? i doubt it.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

I love the false equivalence marathon going on here. So because Linda Rice made a smart claim that she eventually turned into a G1 horse, that's the same as Dutrow and his "paramour" ROUTINELY moving horses way up in their FIRST STARTS off the claim. It takes a serious bias or willful ignorance to explain all that away as nothing more than good horsemanship.