Lasix: The Pros And The Cons

The Lasix debate is going strong right now as the Feds in the States are looking to ban race day drugs. The prevailing viewpoint is that drugs do not belong in athletes, and that competition should pit natural talent against natural talent.

Horse racing has always had a seedy side to it. From the use of cocaine at the turn of the last Century to the designer drugs of today, the idea of improving a horse's performance artificially to cash a bet or grab purse money is simply a reality in the game. The question is how prevalent it is.

From many a horseman's perspective, if it isn't on a banned list and/or it isn't tested for, it is legal. And stretching that a bit for some operations, if you can beat a test with little risk, why not go for it?

Horseplayers seem to be in favor of not only banning race day drugs but all performance enhancers.

I'm really not sure why the Feds got involved. They had to have been nudged. Who nudged them? Certainly not an HBPA groups. And why Lasix, and not other drugs that are much more potent even if taken a few days out?

One can Google search forever and still not find definitive results when it comes to concluding whether Lasix is needed or not. In Europe and Hong Kong and other jurisdictions, race day Lasix is not allowed, and reportedly most horses do not train on Lasix. However, there isn't much discussed about what they substitute, if anything, for Lasix, and what happens to most horses who are chronic bleeders. On the other side, most Horsemen in North America state emphatically that without Lasix, the percentage of horses who can not race anymore will be dramatically high.

PROS
1. Allegedly, around 5% of race horses most likely need Lasix in order to race. Again, this is a number that is speculated on. Prior to the legalization of Lasix, the amount of horses barred from racing was next to none. However, it is not known what percentage were retired or didn't make it to the races by choice.

2. It levels the playing field. Because Lasix is known to have other enhancement qualities other than preventing EIPH (for instance, it is a bronchodilator, which means it helps all horses breathe better). So, it just isn't fair that if a horse is a known bleeder that they should be the only horses to have the extra performance enhancements that Lasix gives a horse.
Another argument is that consistent use of Lasix causes less erratic form that could arise from heavy bleeding of a horse one race to mild bleeding the next race.
As a side note, when Lasix was first introduced, and only given to real bleeders, it turned out to be quite a handicapping angle. But now that virtually every horse in North America runs on Lasix, the first or second time angle means nothing.

3. If drugs are to be allowed, this is a cheap and powerful way to go.

4. The jury is out, but Lasix could have humane factors in reducing scar tissue by bleeders.

5. The controlled use of Lasix may prevent training outfits from experimenting and using other anti-bleeding medications that may even be more harmful to a horse's system than Lasix allegedly is.

CONS
1. It is a performance enhancer. Anything that potentially makes a horse run faster while having the substance in them versus not having the substance in them, in an enhancer. The "running to its potential" line is a pretty weak argument. It doesn't just help prevent bleeding, but also helps non bleeders breathe better, amongst other things as well.

2. It mask other drugs, and clouds tests. I know it, and you know it. Stop the nonsensical denial. Simply Google "Pass a marijuana test lasix"

Lasix: Take an 80 milligram dose of prescription diuretic lasix (furosemide). Prescription diuretics are the most potent. Some over the counter diuretics will color your urine blue and should be avoided. WARNING! -Diuretics can be harmful to people with kidney problems, pregnant women, and diabetics.-

Super Trainers are one of the biggest turn offs horse racing has to offer today. Not only for Horseplayers, but for honest Horsemen and as importantly owners and potential new owners. It is hard to get new blood in the game if you are consistently running for third money. Masking other performance enhancing drugs doesn't help the game at all. Outfits that experiment with drug concoctions leads to erratic performances, and this leads to lack of confidence from Horseplayers.

3. Lasix is a potent diuretic. The side effects are many. The fact that a horse needs an electrolyte jug after competition to replace vital fluids the horse lost from racing on Lasix is cause enough to question using the drug. It might even border on cruelty.

4. The North American breed is allegedly weaker because the best breeding candidates who have been successful on the track raced with Lasix. Would they still be running the same times without Lasix? Probably not in many cases because of the performance enhancement Lasix offers, whether the top horses were helped by bleeding less or breathing better, there is a good likelihood that a heredity weakness is being passed on today versus the pre-Lasix days. And there is the possibility that if Lasix wasn't used, we might see a whole different cast of top horses every year, probably running slightly slower final times collectively, but a much heartier group.

5. There is a correlation between horses starts per year and per life and Lasix usage over the past 15-20 years. Horse are making 2 less starts a year these days on average.
Whether it is a direct correlation, the jury is out again. It could be a combination of Lasix and training strategies, the higher use of other drugs (legal and illegal alike), and/or the the higher frequency of detailing (tapping of joints, etc.) that is being used by more elite and/or high percentage outfits (where horses have the kitchen sink put in them for every infrequent race).

6. Lasix is not used race day in jurisdictions outside Canada and the USA. They seem to get along fine without it. It wasn't used in North America prior to the 80's either, and horse racing seemed to get along fine without it.

7. The elimination of Lasix and other drugs would most likely make it cheaper to own horses (providing they don't really need Lasix to race). Horses may run relatively slower collectively by a few ticks, but that really isn't relevant at all. Cutting the costs of horse ownership would most likely lead to owners having bigger stables, and it would entice newbie owners to enter the game.


CONCLUSION

Horse racing would probably get along just fine if Lasix were banned on race day. However, Lasix seems to be the whipping boy of a more severe problem, and that is the other performance enhancing drugs and treatments (like EPO, DPO, synthetic venoms, and ITPP) that are being used by cheaters. Getting rid of race day Lasix is only a tiny step in leveling the playing field for bettors and honest horsemen.
Solving the problem requires making an exact list of treatments and allowable drugs, as well as severely fining anyone caught using drugs or treatments not on the list.


ADVERTISEMENT

Horse racing isn't about to lower takeout collectively anytime soon. At least most astute Horseplayers have some options:

HORSEPLAYERSBET.COM offers Horseplayers industry high Player Reward Bonuses. No minimums. Start getting bonuses immediately.

SPECIAL BONUS OFFER TO NEW MEMBERS AT HORSEPLAYERSBET.COM

BET $80 GET $40 DEPOSITED INTO YOUR ACCOUNT

Wager at least $80 in total, win or lose, and you will get $40 deposited into your account. You will also start receiving industry high Player Reward Bonuses daily as soon as you start wagering. To earn the $40 Bonus you must wager at least $80 in total within 7 days of making your initial deposit.

CLICK TO OPEN A FREE ACCOUNT


Why Horseplayersbet.com?:

* Industry High Player Reward Bonuses added to your account daily
* User friendly betting interface makes wagering easy
* FREE LIVE VIDEOS
* FREE RACE REPLAYS
* Wager Online or by Phone
* Great customer service
* 100% Parimutuel
* Bet cancellation capabilities
* No membership or wagering fees
* Green Dot & PINpocket fees rebated (deposits of $120 or more)
* No fees on debit/credit card deposits by phone of $100 or more
* Online credit card funding (4.5% fee rebated on deposits of $100 or more)

HORSEPLAYERSBET.COM, "WHERE HORSEPLAYERS COME FIRST." SIGN UP TODAY AND SEE WHY HORSEPLAYERSBET.COM IS ONE OF THE FASTEST GROWING US BASED ADWS

Player Reward Bonuses could be the difference to you as to whether you win in the long run playing horses, or lose. Sure, you still need skill and luck as well to succeed, at HORSEPLAYERSBET.COM at least you have a fighting chance. And one thing is for sure, your money will last longer because of the PLAYER REWARD BONUSES you receive.

Pathetically Weak Derby Field Will Probably Lead To An Exciting Race

I just finished handicapping the Kentucky Derby, and other than Uncle Mo (will he or won't he run), this field has the same proven ability of a typical Non Winners Of One Other Than at Woodbine. The field is so blah that Mine That Bird would look bettable in the 2011 Derby.

Uncle Mo towers over the field based on peak speed figures. His last race though makes him questionable, as his final speed number ranks right in with the rest of the herd.

I've altered the way I handicap big races, so my second choice (who might wind up being my first choice if Mo is scratched) would have been a horse I eliminated last year. Master Of Hounds pulled off a decent speed figure (compared to the rest of the Derby field) in his last race at Dubai (according to TrackMaster ratings). The thing is that he is racing on a 40 day layoff. He has never tried a dirt track, and at the time of this writing has no published workouts since November (is he even eligible to run?).

Taking away all the negatives, there is some good theory behind playing Master Of Hounds. American based horses ran horrible at Dubai. Maybe they couldn't handle racing without the meds that are allowed on this side of the ocean. With the proposed ban on race day meds possibly looming, I find a sense of inner satisfaction (it has something to do with provocation and chaos) to see this European invader come to America and use Lasix for the first time.

The horse is definitely bred for the distance, and has a good post and good jockey.

The other horses I will likely throw in are Nehro and Santiva. But handicapping this Derby is like throwing mud against the wall. Even with Mo in the race, I'm expecting to see gigantic exotic payoffs.


Handle Falls Another 7.5% In April

There were 7.5% less race days as well. Less isn't better. Purses were up slightly. Why? Mostly because of artificial increases in California as well as the addition of slot money to purses at Gulfstream. A few tracks did buck the trend with handle increases: Keeneland, Gulfstream Park, Tampa Bay Downs to name a few.

The bottom will come out of the purse increase in California soon though. There is no way they can maintain a purse hike with consistent 20% declines in handle since they imposed that foolish takeout hike at the beginning of the year, which was met by an unprecedented Horseplayer's Boycott. Even though, little has been mentioned lately about the Boycott, handle is still getting slaughtered which leads me to believe that the natural forces of the takeout increase (players not having as much money to churn, and getting turned off quicker) coupled with higher signal fees (which turns off anyone who gets rebates) has taken its toll. The longer California doesn't rescind the takeout hike, the harder it will be to win back the players who have gone elsewhere.


Trainers Are Biting Their Fingers Off Over The Proposed New Bill To Ban Race Day Medication and Performance Enhancing Drugs

Here is a copy of the bill. It is very strict and provides very little wiggle room for anyone who is looking to do anything but feed oats and hay and water.

I'm curious if this is adopted in the US, if Canada will follow suit. I would have to say that Woodbine would comply, even if they don't have to. Would the ORC automatically make the US rules Canadian rules? It is an interesting hypothetical. Canada could become a haven for real bleeders and outfits that don't want to play by the new proposed rules.


FORT ERIE KICKS OF THE 2011 SEASON ON SATURDAY

Norm Borg interviews new announcer Mike Dimoff as well as Elissa Blowe. Listen here.

Great to see they acquired the services of Jennifer Morrison to make the morning line. I doubt we will see Nick Gonzalez trained horses at 12-1 or higher anymore in the program.

Fort Erie is trying (in every way but the right way), however with a track takeouts of 26.3 on exactors and doubles still, I don't see them doing anything but swim against the tide this year.

Fort Erie will still do well with US Horseplayers who receive rebates, and may pick up some of the ex California crowd, but other than that I think they are destined for around a 5-10% decrease in handle this year. Something they can ill afford.

Horse racing is about gambling, not about music or cheap hot dogs.

Sending their patrons home broke quickly (that is what high takeouts do) doesn't bring them back very quick, nor does it the plant seeds of future Horseplayers.

Many tracks have added new low takeout gimmicks. Fort Erie needs to do at least that. But still, 26.3% on doubles and exactors????? What are they thinking? The betting public is way more in tune with track takeouts than ever before.

I wish them all the luck in the world. But I'm afraid that luck won't cut it.