Patch Investigates: Racehorse Drug Controversy

Just what horse racing doesn’t need is another polarizing controversy. But it’s got one.

There is a debate that is raging within the industry over a drug known as Lasix, which helps prevent internal bleeding. It has been around since the mid 1970s and it is legal. It is commonly administered to horses before they exercise and also on the day they are going to race.

Now there is a push to ban the administration of all race-day medications, including Lasix, which is the focal point of this debate. It has become known as “the Lasix issue.”

There are two points of views, those who favor a ban—we’ll call them anti-Lasix–and those who don’t—we’ll call them pro-Lasix.

People who are anti-Lasix believe the administration of any race-day medication hurts the integrity of horse racing and thus discourages wagering on the sport.

The Lasix proponents believe the drug is necessary and not administrating it prior to a race would be cruel to the horses. They also argue that there would be fewer thoroughbreds able to race and that would mean even fewer races days and less money for all parties.

How this issue plays out could impact horse racing and thus impact and surrounding communities because is such a vital part of this area’s economy.

Santa Anita, since opening in Arcadia in 1934, has always provided jobs, tax revenue and a boost to local restaurants, hotels and businesses. But even casual observers know .

Nearby Indian gaming establishments, Internet wagering, off-track satellite wagering and overall competition for the entertainment dollar has diminished attendance at Santa Anita.

The track drew a record crowd of 85,529 for the Santa Anita Handicap in 1985. That’s a far cry from the crowds these days. On Oct. 8, when there were two important stakes races, the attendance was 10,074. Weekday racing often draws fewer than 3,000.

Now along comes the Lasix issue. Arcadia Patch will examine it in a two-part series that involved a month-long investigation in which dozens of people on both sides were interviewed.

Locally, the vast majority of those interviewed, particularly trainers, were against the ban and thus pro-Lasix. In this first segment, we will look at the anti-Lasix side. In the second segment, we’ll examine the other side.

Why It's Needed

First of all, why do horses bleed when asked to run? Essentially, it is because their blood pressure increases and the little veins, or capillaries, on their lungs will ooze blood. There is a name for it–exercise-induced pulmonary hemorrhage, or EIPH.

Almost all racehorses bleed at least a little, and when scoped, 50 percent to 70 percent show bleeding in the lungs serious enough to require treatment. One sign of pulmonary bleeding is a bloody nose.

Using Lasix as a preventative is a common practice. Lasix is a furosemide that sometimes is referred to as Salix. But it is still best known as Lasix.

First off, the Breeders’ Cup board took action this summer by announcing a two-year plan to phase out Lasix. It will be banned in races involving 2-year-old horses this year and banned in all Breeders’ Cup races next year, when .

Next, the American Graded Stakes Committee, which decides if a stakes race is deemed a Grade I, Grade II and Grade III, joined the fray and said that in 2012 it will not assign a grade to any stakes involving 2-year-olds if race-day Lasix is permitted.

In a letter dated July 13, Frank Stronach, who owns Santa Anita, asked the California Horse Racing Board, which governs racing in the state, to start implementing a plan to eventually ban the administration of Laxis on race days.

The Jockey Club, one of horse racing’s myriad of national organizations, has made it clear where it stands.

At a roundtable conference at Saratoga Springs, N.Y., in August, Jockey Club vice chairman Stuart Janney III, who also serves as chairman of the Thoroughbred Safety Committee, said it is time to make changes.

“While we understand and respect the opinion of those who are pro-Lasix, the Jockey Club continues to believe that horses should compete only when they are free from medication and performing on natural ability alone.”

In September, a New York state senator, a Democrat named Thomas Duane, introduced a bill that would ban the use of Lasix in that state.

In a statement, Duane said, “We ban all other athletes in every other sport from taking performance-enhancing drugs both for their safety and to maintain the integrity of their sports. 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.”

That there are politicians who believe Lasix is a performance-enhancing drug is what drives the pro-Lasix people crazy. They say Lasix has nothing to do with performance, that it is a diuretic that enables horses to remain healthy and do what they do best–race against other horses. And that is the lifeblood of horse racing.

Part two of this Arcadia Patch series will expand on that side of the argument, with opinions coming from many local prominent horsemen.

(Editor's note: Patch contributor Larry Stewart covered horse racing for the Los Angeles Times toward the end of his 30-plus years at that newspaper and now free-lances for the Thoroughbred Times, a national publication.)