by Bob Carson

Editor’s Note: The USTA website is pleased to present freelance writer Bob Carson and his popular “Outside the Box” features. This monthly series is a menu of outlandish proposals presented with a wink — but the purpose behind them is serious. The views contained in this column are that of the author alone, and do not necessarily represent the opinions or views of the United States Trotting Association.

“We talk on principal, but act on motivation.” — Walter Savage Landor

Salix or Furosemide (known under the brand name Lasix) is effective in preventing exercise-induced pulmonary hemorrhaging, which is known more commonly as bleeding. Horses with EIPH have their pulmonary systems stressed to the point where capillaries and blood vessels burst, and they bleed through the nostrils. We know from research that racehorses with EIPH do not perform as well as horses without this condition.

Bob Carson

Pundits often open conversations by saying, “It’s complicated.”

They do this for a very good reason — issues are complicated. And harness racing is as complicated as an octopus with bunions. We always seem to have eight sides to every issue. Take the use of Lasix being injected into horses. Are you for it? Are you against it? Does it help? Does it hurt our image? Are there abuses? Is it humane? Are you ambivalent?

Opinions on the use of Lasix range from an absolute ban to complete freedom to inject any horse with whatever amount a vet recommends. Here are a few opinions.

“For some, the idea of a race day medication — even one legally administered by a qualified veterinarian under regulatory controls — is unacceptable. For others, administration of Salix is necessary to insure that we are looking out for the welfare of the horse. To say our industry in North America is divided on the issue of Salix is an understatement.” — Alex Waldrop, NTRA.

“Lasix is not used outside the United States and some parts of Canada, yet we embrace the idea of dispensing Lasix to horses so they won’t have a nosebleed or develop blood in their lungs during a race. This is unacceptable both for their safety and to maintain the integrity of their sports.” — Senator Thomas Duane, prior to proposing legislation against performance-enhancing drugs.

One trainer writes that, “If horses were not allowed to race using Salix, some horses would go slower; some horses would be forced into retirement and some horses would suffer unnecessarily. How many is debatable.”

Another trainer wrote this op-ed, “It (Lasix) doesn’t hurt the horse, it would be cruelty not to give a bleeder Lasix, and if you could talk to a horse he would ask you to give him Lasix.”

Autumn Ryan graphic

If you joined me in following the latest summit on race day medications, it’s easy to find justification for your point of view. The science can be viewed through several lenses. Here is one lens that some of you may have used.

When some horses in a race use Lasix and others do not, as is the case today, the inequality (real or perceived) is annoying. After competing unsuccessfully in several races where your horse is the only horse in a field without bleeding medication you can’t help wondering if you could do better with the “L.” And it seems fishy that almost all of your competitors are “bleeders.” When your Lasix-free horse loses a photo finish to a horse with Lasix, “What if?” flashes through your mind.

In looking for an ‘outside the box’ solution, let’s see if we can agree on one principle: In a perfect world, not a single horse would be injected with anything prior to a horse race. Trainers would not spend a dime trying to improve performance with Lasix or spend a minute waiting for the injection.

The world is beautiful, but it is not perfect. The point of the following proposal is that it is not that we reach perfection, but that we always strive for perfection. And that striving might be more palatable with incentives rather than restrictions.

If our long range goal is racing free of Lasix, or at least minimizing the number of horses that are injected, we should reward the horses that are fortunate enough to be able to compete without “L.” Here are two ways we could reward the pristine horses.

• Lasix-free horses always receive preferred posts in the draw.
• After the race, purse distribution will be re-calculated to give “non-L” earners a significant boost in purse earnings (this is child’s play in the computer age).

If you are in the vast majority of owners and trainers who have the scarlet “L” next to some in your stable, undoubtedly you will immediately ponder how this would affect you and your stock. That’s good business and human nature. There will be a smidgen of short-term pain for some participants, and the short term pain may affect you. However, the implementation of this new Lasix program could be mitigated by grandfathering in horses racing today.

And consider these concepts:

1. Horses that truly need Lasix will still be racing. This is better than not racing. In this brave new Lasix world, any horse that truly bleeds is a horse with a handicap — like a bowed tendon or split hoof. It’s not great news, but it can be managed.

2. We continually try to improve our bloodlines by encouraging families that are not prone to bleeding.

3. Trainers now can factor in competition and costs before immediately turning to Lasix. The horses in the middle, the ones that don’t really need it, but use it, suddenly have reasons not to use it.

4. It’s simple to implement.

5. Lower vet bills.

6. The public will see we are rewarding constructive actions.

7. Fewer needles on the backstretch.

8. More horses will be open to international competition and marketing.

Today, Lasix is the standard course of action. Such a large percentage of horses have the “L” next to their name that some owners feel that if a trainer does not inject their horse, they may be racing with a disadvantage. It takes a strong or stubborn trainer to stand up to these prevailing winds.

In selling our sport to new people, we lose potential new fans. How many is debatable, but what is not debatable is that we cannot afford to alienate any of them. It cannot be sugar-coated. While trying to explain the complexities of the racing program to visitors, the newbie invariably asks, “What does the letter “L” next to the name of most of the horses stand for?”

No matter how gently we reply, the potential new fan quickly realizes that almost every horse in the program had a needle stuck into their velvet coat that day. For some people, that is all they need to know to look elsewhere for their disposable income.

We get used to things on the backstretch that segments of the general public will not tolerate. The toll that these injections take on our sport is hard to calculate. It’s bad enough that outsiders imagine shenanigans going on off the premises, but to know dozens of horses are being injected the day of a race is a deal breaker for many fans and many owners.

That perfect, pristine world remains elusive. The use of race-day injections remains rampant. The benefits versus detriments of administering these medications remain controversial. As usual, we are stuck in the morass of conflicting, polarized points of view.

Perhaps rewarding the horses without the scarlet letter would be a simple first step out of the muck.