Replying to James Robison:
Horses bleed period not because they are the progeny of horses given lasix. Lasix was developed as a therapeutic drug and is widely used because it works. Trainers use Lasix because it helps horses. Those who race in North America don't buy race horses in Europe in significant numbers especially as yearlings. The occasional European horse in training is bought and comes to North America. The American thoroughbred is stronger, faster and better taken care of than any time in the history of racing and Lasix should be seen as one of the major reasons why. The proof is the world comes to us for horses. I don't see the racing jurisdictions that are growing such as Japan and Korea, important racing on dirt, going anywhere else for stock. European breeding is contracting with Germany, France and Italy almost finished. More later!

I've just seen your post. I would love to know where you're getting your facts. The world, including America, is coming to England and Ireland now for their horses. Thirty years ago, I agree, the reverse was the case, but thirty years ago horses in America ran every two to three weeks. Nowadays you would be very lucky to get a run every month; that's if they last that long! By allowing the continued use of a wide cocktail of drugs, the North American racing authorities have done untold damage to horseracing in general and the thoroughbred in particular.

The playing field could be very easily leveled by stopping all drug use. How can every other country in the world race without Lasix?

Replying to James Robison:
Horses bleed period not because they are the progeny of horses given lasix. Lasix was developed as a therapeutic drug and is widely used because it works. Trainers use Lasix because it helps horses. Those who race in North America don't buy race horses in Europe in significant numbers especially as yearlings. The occasional European horse in training is bought and comes to North America. The American thoroughbred is stronger, faster and better taken care of than any time in the history of racing and Lasix should be seen as one of the major reasons why. The proof is the world comes to us for horses. I don't see the racing jurisdictions that are growing such as Japan and Korea, important racing on dirt, going anywhere else for stock. European breeding is contracting with Germany, France and Italy almost finished. More later!

Replying to Todd Daugherty:
I grew up watching mustangs in the wild, chasing them, trying to rope them. I've seen herds of mustangs after being rounded up by helicopter and run into a pen. Never seen a mustang with blood pouring out of his nose. IT is breeding that has created the current that bleeds when simply galloping in a pasture. Not Lasix. Stop using Lasix, stop breeding inferior horses who need Lasix to race and you will stop the problem. I don't breed a stallion with a club foot to my good, solid mare. Why breed a bleeder to her?

Did you ever scope a mustang? If you think you can compare mustangs to thoroughbreds in training, you don't know anything about either. Do what you want to do just don't legislate how I go about my business.

Replying to James Robison:
Horses bleed period not because they are the progeny of horses given lasix. Lasix was developed as a therapeutic drug and is widely used because it works. Trainers use Lasix because it helps horses. Those who race in North America don't buy race horses in Europe in significant numbers especially as yearlings. The occasional European horse in training is bought and comes to North America. The American thoroughbred is stronger, faster and better taken care of than any time in the history of racing and Lasix should be seen as one of the major reasons why. The proof is the world comes to us for horses. I don't see the racing jurisdictions that are growing such as Japan and Korea, important racing on dirt, going anywhere else for stock. European breeding is contracting with Germany, France and Italy almost finished. More later!

Replying to Mark MacDonald:
So, if I understand your arguement,.. Left bank's carreer very well may have been saved because of the timely addition of lasix. It very well may have. Does this make Left Bank the equal of a horse who accomplishes the same without Lasix? When we breed our mares who required lasix in order to compete (needed or not)to a stallion who was a G1 winner with Lasix who may have ended up a 4000 claimer without it should we be surprised when we gat progeny who are bleeders and as well are totally dependant on Lasix. Perhaps by administering Lasix (and other medications) we are in fact enableing horses that are talented but physically inferior to compete with horses who do not have such deficiencies. Who is the better racehorse? One who is entirely dependant upon medications to compete, or one who attains the top level without them. I believe that the yearling marketplace is answering the question for us. The money is being sopent now at Tattersalls, not so much Keeneland.

Horses bleed period not because they are the progeny of horses given lasix.

Lasix was developed as a therapeutic drug and is widely used because it works. Trainers use Lasix because it helps horses.

Those who race in North America don't buy race horses in Europe in significant numbers especially as yearlings. The occasional European horse in training is bought and comes to North America.

The American thoroughbred is stronger, faster and better taken care of than any time in the history of racing and Lasix should be seen as one of the major reasons why. The proof is the world comes to us for horses. I don't see the racing jurisdictions that are growing such as Japan and Korea, important racing on dirt, going anywhere else for stock. European breeding is contracting with Germany, France and Italy almost finished. More later!

Replying to James Robison:
I didn't say your trainers weren't big names but if they don't know why they're administering Lasix I'd find someone who does. As far as what Lasix is supposed to do I don't think there's any doubt that it works to make racing easier on our horses and for this we should be thankful. I also think it has become demonized for reasons having nothing to do with an innocuous diuretic that's administered(here go to my forum entry a few months back on Super Saver as an example where I said he may have had Lasix once a month over his career and that includes training) Hardly a regimen of toxicity and Super Saver was not untypical. I think those opposed to Lasix are afraid it does level the playing field and here I mean the rich and entitled who want to use their monopoly over the best thoroughbred stock and want no upstarts leveling the field. I never once complained when I was able to help my horses withstand the rigors of training and racing and be competitive. As far as I'm concerned they appreciated my husbandry and were as happy as a horse can be who is trained to run around in circles for money. Whatever happened or didn't to Left Bank, he was able to pick up his career and go on to greatness and for this I'm thankful to have seen him run and to remember him.

So, if I understand your arguement,.. Left bank's carreer very well may have been saved because of the timely addition of lasix. It very well may have. Does this make Left Bank the equal of a horse who accomplishes the same without Lasix? When we breed our mares who required lasix in order to compete (needed or not)to a stallion who was a G1 winner with Lasix who may have ended up a 4000 claimer without it should we be surprised when we gat progeny who are bleeders and as well are totally dependant on Lasix. Perhaps by administering Lasix (and other medications) we are in fact enableing horses that are talented but physically inferior to compete with horses who do not have such deficiencies. Who is the better racehorse? One who is entirely dependant upon medications to compete, or one who attains the top level without them.

I believe that the yearling marketplace is answering the question for us. The money is being sopent now at Tattersalls, not so much Keeneland.

Replying to James Robison:
I didn't say your trainers weren't big names but if they don't know why they're administering Lasix I'd find someone who does. As far as what Lasix is supposed to do I don't think there's any doubt that it works to make racing easier on our horses and for this we should be thankful. I also think it has become demonized for reasons having nothing to do with an innocuous diuretic that's administered(here go to my forum entry a few months back on Super Saver as an example where I said he may have had Lasix once a month over his career and that includes training) Hardly a regimen of toxicity and Super Saver was not untypical. I think those opposed to Lasix are afraid it does level the playing field and here I mean the rich and entitled who want to use their monopoly over the best thoroughbred stock and want no upstarts leveling the field. I never once complained when I was able to help my horses withstand the rigors of training and racing and be competitive. As far as I'm concerned they appreciated my husbandry and were as happy as a horse can be who is trained to run around in circles for money. Whatever happened or didn't to Left Bank, he was able to pick up his career and go on to greatness and for this I'm thankful to have seen him run and to remember him.

Replying to Todd Daugherty:
For once I agree with you. LASIX is SUPPOSED to be a therapeutic intervention. It is not used that way. And as for my trainers, they have been some of the biggest names in the business.

I didn't say your trainers weren't big names but if they don't know why they're administering Lasix I'd find someone who does.

As far as what Lasix is supposed to do I don't think there's any doubt that it works to make racing easier on our horses and for this we should be thankful.

I also think it has become demonized for reasons having nothing to do with an innocuous diuretic that's administered(here go to my forum entry a few months back on Super Saver as an example where I said he may have had Lasix once a month over his career and that includes training) Hardly a regimen of toxicity and Super Saver was not untypical.

I think those opposed to Lasix are afraid it does level the playing field and here I mean the rich and entitled who want to use their monopoly over the best thoroughbred stock and want no upstarts leveling the field.

I never once complained when I was able to help my horses withstand the rigors of training and racing and be competitive. As far as I'm concerned they appreciated my husbandry and were as happy as a horse can be who is trained to run around in circles for money.

Whatever happened or didn't to Left Bank, he was able to pick up his career and go on to greatness and for this I'm thankful to have seen him run and to remember him.

Replying to James Robison:
Before I'd write off Lasix if I were you I get a better trainer. Lasix levels the playing field. It's a therapeutic intervention not a short cut to "competitiveness".

For once I agree with you. LASIX is SUPPOSED to be a therapeutic intervention. It is not used that way. And as for my trainers, they have been some of the biggest names in the business.

Replying to Todd Daugherty:
How can you possibly know that Left Bank, did not have some type of throat surgery , before, after or during that layoff? As fae as. LASIX goes, I know that every trainer I have ever had, puts my horses on it, before they ever race. They say they have to do it to be competive. As a breeder and owner, I say get rid of it, level the playing field.

If it was throat surgery why when he returned to racing was Lasix introduced?