Lasix ‘good for the horse, not good for racing’
LOUISVILLE, Ky. – As horse racing makes its annual re-entry into the mainstream this week with the Kentucky Derby, the public will discover a sport that has managed to one-up its regular level of dysfunction in recent weeks.
At the center of it is a diuretic called furosemide — commonly known around the racetrack as Lasix — which is administered to the vast majority of Thoroughbreds in American racing to help prevent them from bleeding through their nose as a result of exercise-induced pulmonary hemorrhage (EIPH), a syndrome caused by the rupture of capillaries in their lungs due to high-stress athletic competition.
“It’s the only medication we know of that scientifically reduces or mitigates EIPH in Thoroughbred racehorses,” said Jeff Blea, a Southern California-based veterinarian and chairman of the American Association of Equine Practitioners’ racing committee. “It’s so prevalent in American racing partially because it works.”
The debate over Lasix and whether it should be viewed as a legitimate way to treat a common condition in horses or as a performance-enhancing drug has been going on since it was introduced in racing in the 1970s. At this point, since so few horses don’t run on Lasix these days, there might not be any difference.
But on April 18, after a series of devastating headlines for horse racing that stemmed from 23 horses breaking down and being euthanized in the span of three months at Santa Anita Park, a large coalition of racetracks — including all three that host Triple Crown races — announced a gradual phaseout that would make all stakes races at those tracks Lasix-free by 2021. It will be allowed at all Triple Crown races this year.
On the surface, moving American racing away from Lasix — and in line with the rest of the major racing nations of the world — is a blast of good publicity for a sport that badly needs it leading up to its marquee annual event.
But in typical racing industry fashion, it was announced hastily, without the endorsement of every major racetrack and leaving out many of the stakeholders that make up the complex web of state racing commissions, interest groups and regulatory agencies that oversee the sport. It’s unclear whether a Lasix ban would withstand lawsuits — and there almost certainly will be lawsuits — without some type of federal legislation to create a uniform standard for medication rules and testing (one such bill was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in March).
Regardless, the Lasix debate sits right at the inflection point between a sport that badly needs medication and regulatory reform and a horse industry that could suffer economically in the short-term after it’s banned.
Though Blea was adamant he saw no correlation between Lasix usage and the breakdowns at Santa Anita, pointing toward a declining mortality rate at California tracks before this winter, the proposed phaseout is an acknowledgment that over-medication has led to a general weakening of the breed over several generations and created conditions where some injured horses don’t show physical signs of pain or distress
that would set off typical alarm bells before going to the track.
On the other hand, Lasix isn’t the only culprit in that trend, and the AAEP has made several recommendations with regard to other drugs and how they’re administered to help clean up the sport. And if Lasix is banned, it’s simply a fact that a certain percentage of horses that have a tendency to bleed would either perform poorly or not be able to run at all, costing owners and trainers significant amounts of money. That inevitable narrowing of the horse population could, in turn, make field sizes smaller, which would make the sport less attractive to regular gamblers and hurt the racetracks’ bottom line.
Bret Calhoun, who trains Derby contender By My Standards, said the impact of that potential future without Lasix was felt at a horse auction he recently attended in Ocala, Florida.
“It’s dampened things a little bit,” he said. “It doesn’t seem like the California guys showed up in strength. Some owners are losing confidence.
“This has proven to be a very effective medication for horse, a safe medication. It’s the humane thing to do. I think the things that have been going on in California have put a tremendous amount of pressure on the industry as a whole to put our best face forward, but there are things we can do that are better than what’s proposed here.”
But it’s also true that the U.S. is the world’s outlier when it comes to raceday medication. Though countries have different regulations and procedures to ensure safety, the commonality is that there’s no Lasix on race day. In many cases, horses who are habitual bleeders are not allowed on the racetrack. That’s just another part of the sport.
In the U.S., though, it’s gotten to the point where most horses start their careers on Lasix whether they are documented bleeders or not. It wasn’t always that way, particularly before 1995 when the major racing circuit in New York (including Belmont Park, which hosts the third leg of the Triple Crown) operated under a Lasix ban. Back then, handicappers often looked for horses that were running on Lasix for the first time with the assumption that they had bled previously and thus would improve their performance. Now, it’s hardly a factor since Lasix usage is practically a given.
How much has that evolution hurt the sport? It’s hard to tell.
“I think as an industry, we’re looking at everything we can to try to improve what’s happening,” said Elliott Walden, the president and CEO of WinStar Farm, which raced Triple Crown winner Justify in partnership last year. “What happened at Santa Anita over the winter isn’t acceptable, and everybody’s eyes are wide open on that.
“I’m not sure what exactly will transpire with (the proposed phaseout). We’ve run horses in Dubai and (England) and felt like they ran their race in those situations, so I think the best horses will win with or without Lasix.”
But as Blea points out, this drug has been part of the genetic population for nearly 50 years, and a sudden pullback could have unintended consequences. He’d prefer a more measured response backed by research and scientific consensus, but at this point, the debate has gone on too long for there not to be action — even if it’s disjointed and chaotic, as things in horse racing tend to be.
“It’s gotten really heated,” Blea said. “At the end of the day, Lasix is good for the horse but not good for racing.”