More questions for regulators considering the movement to ban anti-bleeder medication in the United States (following up on two earlier blog posts):
Why would racing want to be the only sport I know of that makes a deliberate choice to spurn advances in modern medicine?
The most definitive study on horses bleeding and the efficacy of the anti-bleeder medication commonly called Lasix (but whose trade name now is Salix and generic name is furosemide) was conducted in 2007 in South Africa, with the results published in 2009. It was a collaboration of researchers at the University of Pretoria, University of Melbourne and Colorade State University.
The study determined that up to 75 percent of thoroughbreds experience exercise-induced pulmonary hemorrhaging, which we commonly call bleeding, and that it negatively impacts the performance of horses when they do bleed. The study established the furosemide is an effective way to prevent such bleeding.
At the time, the researchers suggested that maybe the United States had it right, that other countries that do not allow race-day Lasix might want to rethink their policies.
“It is likely that racing jurisdictions will reconsider, in one way or another, their position on the use of furosemide,” they (researchers) say, according to a report on the study published in the British online site the-race-horse.com. “However, the decision to allow or disallow the use is based on the balance of a number of factors, and resolution of this complex situation will take some time.”
“… The challenge will now be for countries such as Australia, England, Hong Kong and South Africa that do not currently permit race-day use of furosemide, to balance the animal-welfare aspect of being able to prevent or reduce the condition against the imperatives for drug-free racing. Additionally, instituting race-day administration of furosemide would be a significant added expense to racing.”
The-racehorse.com report (here’s the link) called the research the “gold standard of scientific studies.”
Why is The Jockey Club, Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association, Breeders’ Cup, RCI and Frank Stronach suddenly ignoring those findings?
Why are they making the use of legitimate, therapeutic medications that are used in incredibly small amounts sound like it’s doping horses? As Daily Racing Form’s Steve Crist so elegantly pointed out, they are intertwining two very different situations. Here’s the link to one of his columns on the subject, which I consider the most thoughtful written to date.
Why doesn’t The Jockey Club, TOBA, Breeders’ Cup, RCI put the same energy and zeal into going after real cheating substances?
Why is it considered it a better thing for the integrity of racing to let a horse bleed and stop in the stretch of a race as the 4-5 favorite than to have raced on Lasix and very possibly prevented that? Is that good for the fans and bettors?
Does anyone think that’s humane? Especially given the damage a bleeding episode can do to a horse?
Does anyone think it’s humane to go back to the Stone Ages and have trainers having to “draw up” horses before a race (see 1990 Derby winner Unbridled for the Belmont, back when New York banned race-day medication)? Do we think it’s humane to pull horses’ water 24 hours out?
Does anyone really think it would stop any cheating, if there is cheating? If there’s cheating (and I’m not saying there is, but the fear or suspicion of illegal drugs is something that does discourage some horse players from betting) it’s with sophisticated undetectable drugs, and it’s being done by the people who can afford it, not the guys with the nickel claimers.
Does anyone thing getting rid of Lasix would force cheaters to stop? (Because the days that one could claim that Lasix masks illegal substances are long over. If a testing-lab chemist claims that, that racing jurisdiction needs a new chemist.)