Lasix for Thoroughbreds?

Question

Do you feel that a horse has to prove itself to be a bleeder before being put on lasix?

or

Do you feel that the trainer should be able to put a horse on lasix at their own discretion?

Answer 1

I think the horse needs to prove itself to be a bleeder.  From what Equine veterinarians have explained to me, the Lasix may increase a horse's racing ability (even if they aren't bleeders).  Therefore, even if the horse isn't a bleeder, a trainer may put them on the drug to improve performance.  I am not trying to say that all trainers would do this, but some might.  That could give horses that don't need it an unfair advantage over those who don't need it and don't use it.

Answer 2

Or, what about raising some money for research into the causes of EIPH ( which is what lasix is used to prevent and treat) and developing better treatments for it so that we wouldn't need to use lasix in the first place? Then this whole arguement would become a moot point. Lasix is allowed in some states here, and is banned in others- and the trainers who run horses in each state are responsible for knowing and following the law. As for whether or not a horse has to prove itself to be a bleeder, I think that NO drug should ever be used unless there is a clear medical reason for it. I would watch and wait, and if a particular horse turns out to have EIPH, then yes, lasix is one option I would consider. But use of the drug should not be discretionary. That's just my thinking.

Answer 3

In GB, Lasix, and all similar drugs, are banned and I think that the same policies should be applied across the world wide racing authorities.  The reason there are so many horses in the US that bleed when racing is because "bleeders" have been bred from far too much.  In Germany a stallion is not permitted to go to stud if he has raced using any form of anti-bleeding medication, and I think this is a very good rule.  Why would you want to breed from a horse with a proven problem?

Andre Fabre is one of the few European based trainers that refuses to run his horses on lasix when running in the USA, and his record in Breeders' Cup races speaks for itself - his 38 runners have earned him over $7million and he stands 5th in the all-time BC rankings.

Answer 4

What about 'do you feel that horses who need lasix should not be allowed to race and be banned from the breeding pool'?

ETA - Newmarketsalsa pretty much is spot on with my point.  Many countries don't permit the use of Lasix and their horses do just fine.  Of course if America took that stance it would be foolish to ban all the current studs who used Lasix, but to ban its continued use would not be so awful.  Far too many trainers put a horse on lasix as a preventive measure (or to mask another substance in the bloodstream) than horses actually need it.  Look at so many of the maiden 2yos that are starting this time of year.  Very often entire fields will be running on lasix without anyone having started in a race before.

Answer 5

As I have worked in the horse racing industry for 5 years I would have to say I feel the trainer should be able to put a horse on lasix at their own discretion.  Some horses seem to run better on lasix even some non bleeders.