Vince P wrote:Andy, Serious question. Do you really think most trainers run all their horses on Lasix because they're all bleeders?
If so, please let me sell you some extra oil rich land I accumulated in Alaska this past year.
See article posted by myself and AndyMays above. You would be negligent not to use lasix on your horses. Apparently you think it is better for a horse to have EIPH.
Negligent is when Lester tells you to play a 12-1 shot at Woodbine because "they have more winners there" and you don't and it comes in. That's negligence.
Again Andy I'll copy what I said in previous posts,"For the record no one is saying they should eliminate Lasix entirely."
So those 50 some odd trainers/owners here in the US who decided to run their horses Lasix free are Negligent?
The European Racing commission is Negligent?
Most of the top trainers in the world racing overseas with the best horses are Negligent? Granted they can refuse to run because of the medication rules, but they're negligent for doing so?
Henry Cecil - trainer of the great Frankel is negligent because God Forbid, he ran Frankel without Lasix? After all, had you put a scope up Frankel's nose, I'm quite sure you would have found a trace of bleeding or a hint of EIPH somewhere after his races.
Strong feeling here is that Lasix is unnecessarily relied upon to "keep up with the Joneses" in the majority of cases rather than for medical purposes.
Wouldn't you agree?
Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea.
Avatar: My cuzin Isaac Murphy - a jock I'm tying to emulate in character and winning percentage - almost 47% lifetime.