The only way to transition to a lasix-free future is to start w/ new horses entering racing. If a 2YO needs Lasix, it needs to race outside California. In that way, eventually no horses racing in California will require it. California sires will be less likely to have traits they pass to their foals of requiring lasix to race. This could eventually be a boost to the California breeding industry, which surely is at least 3rd, behing KY and FL.
Comparing the use of Lasix in a horse to that of a human without the true knowledge of either's physiology is ludicrous and explains many of the widespread misrepresented topics and issues racing is facing today. It's a slippery slope that spreads a lot of misinformation. Opinion is not fact. Without disclosure of the reliability of the source, , the prior out weighs the latter in media today.
If there's a genetic predisposition to exercise-induced pulmonary hemorrhage, then those horses should (1) not be raced (2) not be bred. Looks to me like many people commenting on this drug have never taken it themselves. It does draw water and electrolytes out of the horse (as it does with humans who have heart trouble). When you take it (and I do) you can feel weak and dizzy at times. We can't ask horses how they feel about losing 10 quarts of water before a race and not being allowed to drink. If you have to start 2-y/o horses on Lasix because you want to prevent/reduce bleeding, then you're dealing with an animal that is unsuited to fast work. Actually, it would be better for the horses if they were not raced until 3.
Lasix in a 2 year old is not needed. It would only be desired for its performance enhancing capability. I'm not convinced that 2 year olds should be racing anyway, although I know that if they weren't, it changes the whole Triple Crown scene. It is my understanding that Lasix can weaken the bones, and 2 year olds are not fully developped anyway.
These horses suffer more if they are true bleeders and do not receive medicaton. PETA would have you think its unethical to treat horses with this drug while running them. Stronach's position is to comply with that PC theory. What is it then to run a horse that has a known problem without the proper dose of Lasix, I would say THAT is unethical treament of the animal. Lasix does not cause injury, it prevents bleeding. A longer timeline to remove it is acceptable, so horses can be bred around the genetic predisposition for it to occur.
Lasix should be permitted in a reduced dosage.
I believe in Lasix but the dose should be half of the legal dose allowed in CA. Wm P. Gregory, DVM retired, Thoroughbred horse trainer, retired.
Everyone should refer and read Dr. Tobin's article on the use of Lasic
Lasix is an optional medication. If the owner and trainer want to run a horse without lasix that is their choice. Why take the choice away? Maybe the horse has shown signs of bleeding in workouts leading up to the race, even while working them with lasix? Then the horse just doesnt get to run and the owner has to eat the cost of the horse when there is a medication out there we know works? Try talking that owner into owning another horse after they spent all that money and then didnt get to see their horse run. They're not going to go back to the sales after that, only the richest owners be able to stomach the cost.
A step in the right direction
Lasix should be permitted for all horses.
No horse at 2 years old deserves to be put on Lasix. It would be like sticking a toddler on Lasix as a preventative measure-would you do that?
The introduction of lasix for two year olds is essential in preventing/reducing bleeding. It should be introduced into their system early in their development. If lasix is prohibited, the anti-racing groups will be provided yet another item to protest when bleeding becomes more apparent. Elimination of lasix by regulators, though well intended, would have an opposite effect.