COMMENTARY : New York Buckles and Allows Lasix Use

When the New York State Racing and Wagering Board announced in a news release it would permit use of the drug Lasix, the decision marked a quiet ending to 20 years of strident debate within the thoroughbred industry.

The change in New York’s regulations will go into effect Sept. 1, bringing the state in line with the rest of America’s racing jurisdictions; Lasix will be allowed at all U.S. tracks. The pro-medication forces--who once faced fierce opposition from the public, the media and many industry leaders--have finally won their argument.

Whether they deserved to win on merit is another question.

Lasix--the trade name for the diuretic furosemide--was introduced to America’s racetracks, illegally, in the early 1970s. Trainers used it enthusiastically because it seemed to control a common problem: the tendency of some horses to bleed through the nostrils amid the stress of a race. Many horses improved their performances dramatically when they were given the drug. Few objective people questioned these facts. The Lasix question was principally a philosophical one.

Throughout its history, horse racing has operated on the premise that the athletes should compete without the aid of any medication; they should be powered strictly by the traditional “hay, oats and water.” Every other major racing nation continues to hold to this standard. Bleeding is a problem in England, France and Australia, but in those countries bleeders are either prescribed long periods of rest or banned from racing.

But U.S. horsemen argued vociferously that it was an economic hardship on them to prevent bleeders from earning a paycheck when a safe, effective medication could alleviate their problems.

Supported by veterinarians (who would make money by administering the treatment), their arguments swayed racing commissions from coast to coast. Only New York clung to tradition.

NYRA vice president Steve Crist had steadfastly opposed Lasix when he was a journalist, but recently he said of its legalization, “This was progress toward reality. There is a national horse shortage in this country, and it’s more important for us to put on a respectable product than cling to a philosophical position. Besides, this is no longer a debatable point in the rest of the country, and it’s important to have some uniformity.”

But now most trainers give Lasix to horses--whether they’re bleeders or not--as a matter of course throughout their careers. First-time Lasix is about as significant a handicapping factor as first-time blinkers--and about as controversial.

But once a year Lasix would become an issue, as horses who raced in the Kentucky Derby and Preakness went to the Belmont Stakes. Alysheba had Lasix as he won the first two legs of the 1987 Triple Crown but couldn’t use it in the Belmont Stakes and lost. Summer Squall, a serious bleeder, won the 1990 Preakness but had to bypass the Belmont. In both cases, many casual fans were alienated by the notion that the sport’s stars were drug-dependent. Such situations won’t arise now that all states have similar medication policies. The Lasix issue will be conveniently swept under the rug.

Yet after two decades of Lasix use in the United States, the pros and cons of the drug are as debatable as ever. The whole rationale behind so-called permissive medication was to help horses withstand the physical stress of the sport and to race more frequently. This hasn’t happened.

The average numbers of starts per horse per year has steadily declined since the 1970s. Trainers cite respiratory problems as the explanation for horses’ bad performances more than they ever did. Could it be that horses who race with Lasix and then become stallions are passing on their problems and their Lasix dependency to future equine generations?

While a strong case can still be made against Lasix, New York’s prohibition provided the clinching argument that it might as well be legalized. The NYRA tracks have a reputation as the nation’s worst hotbed of illegal drug use, and the sharpies there surely had no trouble sidestepping the Lasix ban.

Crist conceded, “We all know that there are other ways besides Lasix to treat bleeders--ways that are more expensive and more furtive.”

As long as trainers and vets are going to cheat anyway, the state might as well make Lasix legal. The conclusion makes sense, but it is hardly reassuring to know that this is how the sport resolved one of the toughest ethical questions it has ever confronted.