In particular reference to Lilando who has now been banned from racing in Australia, after his second reported bleeding episode the other weekend.

Apparently the drug that supresses the bleeding in the lungs is legal in the States, which now becomes an option for the owners if they want to continue racing Lilando.

Different people have told me different things about the merits of the drug and well being of the horse.

Anyone have an opinion?

Lasix is the drug you refer to and it is generally accepted that first time Lasix users improve in performance. However what the long-term benefits of the drug are I'm not sure, other than for stopping the bleeding attacks of course.

Lasix is also believed to be a masking agent for other prohibitive drugs, which is one of the main reasons it is banned in Australia.

In humans Lasix is used for lots of things but mainly as a diuretic (i.e. it makes you wee) if someone has fluid congestion on their lungs.


I found this article on the web for what it is worth:
http://www.thinkythings.org/horseracing/lasixinfo.html

__________________
Ever get the feeling that the world is a tuxedo and you are a pair of brown shoes?

Lasix (also under the brand name SALIX) is a diuretic which can improve a bleeder's condition, but is known as a masking agent as well. Lasix was banned in New York state until the mid 1990's and was a major reason it was so hard for a 3 year old to sweep the triple crown, as the Belmont Stakes is run in NY. Pro's and con's on the drug, but it's always best to keep things simple so a total ban (i.e. Australia) is probably the best; unless the wheel's are in motion and it's too late to go back (i.e. USA).

MHO:

If the horse cant make it the distance by itself, then it shouldnt be made to go on. Its not fair to the horse, and its not fair to the other horses that are making the grade without the help of drugs. I would place an "anti bleeder drug" in the catergory of performance enhancing, because in all truth, without it, its performance would be moot due to lung bleeds. Using a drug to stop that is in effect enhancing it performance just by its continued existence.

I also would not agree to a drug being used that could mask others, whether the horse had a history of lung bleeds or not. It creates a grey area, and considering the history of horse racing, one that many have worked hard to try and fix, the industry can not afford any grey area's.

The real gray area concerning lasix is that a lot of horses here in the states start running on it first time out whether they need it or not. If the horse never bleeds, you really don't know if the horse even needed it in the first place.

Yikes. I dont think I could go along with something like that. At the very very least they would need a history of lung bleeds backed up by a vet certificate before you could let a horse on the track with that in its system. Sounds like you guys are in for a whole lot of stumbling around in the dark soon on the whole thing. Soon enough, its not backing the good horses or the good trainer, but the ones that whose trainers arent the kind of person you could trust to be 100% honest. Thats one scary can o' worms going on over there. I don't envy you.

Yep Frisco, definitely not cool. But I think the enhancing capapbilities of lasix are a little overrated (if not for a legitimate bleeder). Now, that masking thing is a whole different issue. Lots of underhanded stuff going on over here. At the big tracks, I don't think the top trainers are really willing to risk getting caught and losing their reputation, but at the small tracks, all bets are off. At least there are some measures in place to deny illegal drugs, such as the Detention Barns set up at Saratoga this summer where all horses would be contained and watched 24 hours pre-race and before administering any lasix. Kinda of a bad way to go about things but at least they are trying.