TDN OP-ED: Jerry Brown on missing Lasix discussion point

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Except cmorioles hasn't said that he'd rather see it not given. Not from what I've been reading anyway. He said he would just rather there be a penalty given to those that use it. The horse that just came to my mind is Smarty Jones. If memory serves me right, John Servis did exactly as cmorioles is talking about here. He felt forced to take it to make sure his horse was competing on an even playing field even though his horse wasn't a bleeder. If there was a weight penalty in place instead, perhaps Servis doesn't add the drug because the penalty would have the effect of leveling the playing field.

Exactly, and to be clear, this was Jerry Brown's idea. I just think it is a good compromise to what we have now. Anything is better than drugging every horse "just in case".

[cmorioles]

I'd love to hear how known bleeder Rich Tapestry was able to come over here and win a G1 without Lasix? How is it possible that he can run at all after all his documented episodes of EPIH? Shouldn't he be deteriorating to the point he can't run as well any longer? Or is he just a miracle horse?

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I'd love to hear how known bleeder Rich Tapestry was able to come over here and win a G1 without Lasix? How is it possible that he can run at all after all his documented episodes of EPIH? Shouldn't he be deteriorating to the point he can't run as well any longer? Or is he just a miracle horse?

You mean Rich Tapestry that's only run twice since December of last year? That Rich Tapestry?

If the argument is that Lasix makes them run less frequently, he's not helping prove that point. He had six months off before that race he just won.

[GenuineRisk]

The problem with adding a weight penalty is then trainers are going to weigh the chances of an EIPH episode with the chances of a weight break. And that puts the horse's safety and the safety of everyone else in the race at risk if, god forbid, the horse drops mid-race from an EIPH episode.

It's not an advantage if every horse may use it. It doesn't make a horse run faster than they can; it gives them a better chance to run to the best of their ability because they are less likely to be running with blood in their lungs. If minimizing the effects of a horse's natural physical shortcomings is giving an unfair advantage we should also ban any sort of corrective surgery, whether for crooked legs or flipped palates. Bone chips? They're out of racing for good.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Except cmorioles hasn't said that he'd rather see it not given. Not from what I've been reading anyway. He said he would just rather there be a penalty given to those that use it. The horse that just came to my mind is Smarty Jones. If memory serves me right, John Servis did exactly as cmorioles is talking about here. He felt forced to take it to make sure his horse was competing on an even playing field even though his horse wasn't a bleeder. If there was a weight penalty in place instead, perhaps Servis doesn't add the drug because the penalty would have the effect of leveling the playing field.

Trainers aren't veterinarians. Their job is to give the horse what they feel is the best opportunity to win a race, and they aren't necessarily going to do everything based on evidence. There have been plenty of trends that turn out to not be supported by science later, but that in the meantime people practice. Trainers used to tie copper around their horses' tails in an attempt to minimize EIPH? Wut? But they did it. Hell, millions of people use glucosamine even though there actually isn't any solid evidence that it works. Doctors will even recommend it (and they should know better).

So I get why Servis, on the eve of the biggest race in the country, thought, "well, just in case." But it doesn't mean it actually was performance-enhancing, or that Smarty would have lost the race had he not been on it.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

It's not an advantage if every horse may use it. It doesn't make a horse run faster than they can; it gives them a better chance to run to the best of their ability because they are less likely to be running with blood in their lungs. If minimizing the effects of a horse's natural physical shortcomings is giving an unfair advantage we should also ban any sort of corrective surgery, whether for crooked legs or flipped palates. Bone chips? They're out of racing for good.

Horses with Lasix run faster than horses without Lasix. Period. If you like the "drug them all" to make things even, go for it.

Since when are surgery and drugs the same thing? Terrible comparison.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Horses with Lasix run faster than horses without Lasix. Period. If you like the "drug them all" to make things even, go for it.

Since when are surgery and drugs the same thing? Terrible comparison.

No, a horse running on Lasix may run faster than it would not running on Lasix (because it's not breathing in its own blood) but Lasix is not going to make a slow horse run faster than a fast horse. As has been pointed out, Smarty Jones ran the first seven (six?) races of his career not on Lasix. His competition was on Lasix. So, according to your statement, they should have beaten him because "horses with Lasix run faster than horses without Lasix. Period." But he beat them because he was the fastest horse in those races. His competition might have run better than they would have not on Lasix, but they still weren't faster than he was. Because they were not as talented as he was. Lasix limits EIPH; it doesn't confer talent.

Both corrective surgery and Lasix permit horses to run to the limit of their talent. It's an apt comparison.

I like a trainer having the option to reduce the chances a horse is going to bleed in the lungs during a race.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

No, a horse running on Lasix may run faster than it would not running on Lasix (because it's not breathing in its own blood) but Lasix is not going to make a slow horse run faster than a fast horse. As has been pointed out, Smarty Jones ran the first seven (six?) races of his career not on Lasix. His competition was on Lasix. So, according to your statement, they should have beaten him because "horses with Lasix run faster than horses without Lasix. Period." But he beat them because he was the fastest horse in those races. His competition might have run better than they would have not on Lasix, but they still weren't faster than he was. Because they were not as talented as he was. Lasix limits EIPH; it doesn't confer talent.

Both corrective surgery and Lasix permit horses to run to the limit of their talent. It's an apt comparison.

I like a trainer having the option to reduce the chances a horse is going to bleed in the lungs during a race.

I disagree. Horses that don't bleed run faster with Lasix than without too. Your Smarty Jones point is off base. Maybe he was just that much more talented. He certainly ran his best ever races in the Derby and Preakness on my ratings, and I'm nearly certain he didn't bleed in any of the races. There really is no point going on with this if you don't want to believe that. Drug them all, that will help the sport's image.

And again, Jerry Brown has been doing this a lot longer than I have and he believes it too. You think he doesn't know what he is talking about?

[Arletta]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I disagree. Horses that don't bleed run faster with Lasix than without too. Your Smarty Jones point is off base. Maybe he was just that much more talented. He certainly ran his best ever races in the Derby and Preakness on my ratings, and I'm nearly certain he didn't bleed in any of the races. There really is no point going on with this if you don't want to believe that. Drug them all, that will help the sport's image.

And again, Jerry Brown has been doing this a lot longer than I have and he believes it too. You think he doesn't know what he is talking about?

Is there any proof of this? That just sounds preposterous!

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Arletta

Is there any proof of this? That just sounds preposterous!

Preposterous that a drug could make horses run faster? Come on.

Like I said, Jerry Brown thinks so, and so do I. I don't know the exact reasons, I'm not a vet. I do know I run faster when I weigh 200 then when I weigh 225. We don't get the information on which horses bled and how severe so until that happens it is impossible to prove.

[Arletta]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Preposterous that a drug could make horses run faster? Come on.

Like I said, Jerry Brown thinks so, and so do I. I don't know the exact reasons, I'm not a vet. I do know I run faster when I weigh 200 then when I weigh 225. We don't get the information on which horses bled and how severe so until that happens it is impossible to prove.

So is there any proof to what your saying about Lasix.. not any other drug.. just lasix.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Arletta

So is there any proof to what your saying about Lasix.. not any other drug.. just lasix.

There has been at least one study posted on this site that say it does, yes. I'm sure you can find it.

I already said I can't prove it because the public isn't given that information. We don't know if horses that raced without Lasix are then given it because they bled or not.

It is a very complicated thing to study and somebody would have to be well versed in measuring racehorse speed and determining if horses bled and how much. It could be done, but I don't think either pro or anti Lasix people really know how to do it to be honest.

All I can say is I trust what I believe because I put money through the windows on those opinions. It works. I wish Lasix wasn't given as commonly now as it is because there aren't many opportunities, save foreign shippers and a few trainers that don't use it early in a horse's career.