Should non-Lasix races be written for California?

Poll choices
32 Comments

  • Steve McHenry - 4 months ago

    I’ve seen first hand horses that are bleeders and the benefits of Lasix. If it’s not broke why fix it?

  • Keith Wagner - 4 months ago

    I need more info

  • Jim Wark - 4 months ago

    If you want Lasix free races I am all for it. But reward the honest to goodness healthy horses with much higher purse structures. Maybe 35% would be a good enough test market to see if it filled races.
    Purity of the horse should always be a premium value. So if a MSW race open was say 60K, now write it for 80K.
    Horses without medication certified 20% purse premium added. Make it pay to work on and with healthy horses.

  • Michael Pirrung - 4 months ago

    The newest member of the CHRB is Dr. Greg Ferraro, who has published on the topic. He is against Lasix use, believes that it is not only unnecessary for some racing, it is weakening the genetics of racehorses and putting more of the bleeding trait into new foals. Of course, there needs to be a transition period, there will always be some jurisdictions that allow Lasix. If you have a horse who bleeds, you'll just need to race there, or sell to someone who does.

  • Paul fernandez - 4 months ago

    Trainers as well as owners have mastered other drugs that are covered up by the use of lasix And are not detectable .

  • Suzanne Hurst - 4 months ago

    Almost every horse that races in the USA receives Lasix. They CANNOT ALL be bleeders!

  • Stephen Aron - 4 months ago

    Or, as trainer Leonard Powell has suggested, write the use of Lasix into the condition of races, so that horses running without it get a 3-5 pound weight allowance (to make up for the performance boost that Lasix provides). That would incentivize trainers not to use Lasix except for bleeders who really need it. An added bonus of discouraging over-use of Lasix is that horses bounce back faster when not treated with it -- so over time, field sizes would increase.

  • Mary Schulenberg - 4 months ago

    some horses need it and others don't , people are letting these stupid organazations like Peta run their life's,
    they are nothing but a radical group of idiots.
    Take care of your horse if your horse needs it give it to them don't let them suffer and talk to your vet.

  • james meyers - 4 months ago

    kill racing with out it.

  • Jim Weimer - 4 months ago

    Do Not cave in to political correctness. Do what's right for the horse. If the horse is a true bleeder then they need the medication.

  • Shelia Jamison - 4 months ago

    If Lasix free races will fill then by all means write them. Otherwise go back to allowing Lasix only for documented bleeders over two. Since horses only race once or twice, at most, a month these days a few weeks off from racing to heal from an episode shouldn't be a deal breaker before a horse can race on Lasix. Lasix isn't always a performance enhancer, I've seen it completely wipe a horse out before making it to the paddock, much less the race.

  • John Ellison - 4 months ago

    My last filly to race made 22 starts at 3,4, and 5 and never ran on basic. I have her first foal, a two year old filly, and she is preparing for her first start in September, and will not run on basic.

  • Carlotta Cooper - 4 months ago

    Yes, I think people should have the *option* to run their horses without lasix and compete in non-lasix races. However, I think the current atmosphere is one of hysteria. Some horses need lasix. Rushing to ban it will result in horses that have nowhere to go, nowhere to race, and no future. There are not enough retirement options for those horses and you'll be sending them to slaughter. There have been bleeders in Thoroughbreds since the beginning. I have always thought if people are really serious about eliminating a need for lasix then it needs to start in the breeding shed. Stop breeding horses that are known bleeders.

  • Keith Johnson - 4 months ago

    When you run horses on a hard surface due to sealing the racetrack frequently because of record breaking rain fall, it does seem like a stretch to blame Lasix use for horses breaking down

  • Ross Lerner - 4 months ago

    Altering the Lasix rules is a knee jerk reaction to make the public think important safety changes are being made. Reducing Lasix does not improve racing safety and only increases the chances of damaging the horse. Let the trainers decide which of their horses require lasix and how much. That's their job.

  • Fred Riecke - 4 months ago

    I’m concerned that this would cut down field size which is already low. Trainers have already moved horses out of California that need Lasix above what is accepted

  • Johnnie Hill - 4 months ago

    Let the vets do their job.... They know a hell of a lot more than some confused lady try to make a name for herself

  • CHRISTINA GINDT - 4 months ago

    Why not have a level playing field on non Lasix runners... it would be an option; however the logistics for that race to fill and what conditions it would be written for, unless there could be an NL entry option so the racing secretary could determine if a full NL race may be carded.....

  • tom hyland - 4 months ago

    I have no problem with Lasix, but why not schedule a few non-Lasix races and continue this for some time, to see the results.

  • Michael Pineda - 4 months ago

    Lasix prevents bleeding and does not enhance a horses performance and doesn't hide any other aches and pains so why ban it. It makes no sense

  • Julie T Byers - 4 months ago

    No more waiting-as I've said-Lasix is bad for people and for horses.

  • AJ Andrzejewski - 4 months ago

    Ban lasix for 2 year olds and limit the dosage on race day for older horses
    Has anyone thought about limiting how many races a 2 year old should run? I believe running young horses too often is worse than lasix.

  • Mark Gates - 4 months ago

    If Europeans can do it we should too.

  • forrest kennedy - 4 months ago

    Ladin must be made available to horses on their racing days.. The bettors TJ now all to well what can happen to any athlete during a race but bleeding should not be one of them.

  • Matthew Dohman - 4 months ago

    They should just ban everything and silence the critics, the horses that bleed a lot will just not be race horses anymore.

  • William P - 4 months ago

    I remember when Lasix wasn’t used and the horses seemed fine to me.

  • Jeff Prupis - 4 months ago

    Modern science at it’s best. Best invention since the wheel. We found something that actually helps horses have a better life please don’t take that away from them.

  • G Ubardelli - 4 months ago

    I agree with Monica Admire. Either ban lasix altogether, or let horses use it, no matter their age. If they don't use it overseas, I don't see why we can't do the same here.

  • Hal Dolan - 4 months ago

    If Run Happy can do it...surely some other race horses can also run without the "L"

  • Souheil Bisharat - 4 months ago

    We need lasix in California, horses bleed do to high temperature as I understood.

  • Monica Admire - 4 months ago

    A line needs to be drawn on the lasix issue - it either is or is not a banned substance. This would just blur the line. Also, tt's already hard enough to fill races in CA, adding "non-lasix" races will just dilute the already marginal field sizes.

  • Edward McMillon - 4 months ago

    I think racing should pause on any action until clearer heads prevail

Leave a Comment

0/4000 chars


Submit Comment