I get it. I really do. The people who believe Lasix is the great scourge of racing are absolute in their conviction that Lasix must be banned. The people that believe Lasix is a necessary therapeutic drug are equally convinced they are on the right side.

Objectively, the weight of medical studies seems more convincing on the pro-Lasix side, although more study needs to be done. While few horses bleed to the point of epistaxis (visible blood coming from the nostril), the majority of horses do show signs of bleeding in the tracheal region after exercise and most show improvement in the level of EIPH (exercise induced pulmonary hemorrage) when treated with Lasix. You can argue the evidence regarding what percentage of horses are in fact helped through the administration of Lasix. You can argue if Lasix has performance enhancing effects beyond reduction of EIPH. But Lasix, for the most part, works as advertised. You might not like it, but facts are facts.

Many pro-Lasix people emphasize the lack of alternative treatments. There is concern for the horse in the sense that if Lasix was banned trainers would revert to denial of food and water. I have no doubt that at some tracks, that would be exactly the case. Many anti-Lasix people suggest if trainers applied better horsemanship techniques they could overcome the limitations caused by EIPH. If they are offering an answer beyond that, other than the worst bleeders should not be racing, I’m not sure I know what it is.

I don’t believe it is arguable that the Barr-Tonko legislation is in part motivated by the idea of identifying a single, federal panel that will be sympathetic to banning raceday Lasix. Just check the list of supporters of the bill if that doesn’t sound right. For both sides, federal legislation is not simply a subject for intellectual debate. It is about the viability of racing.

I’ve previously come down on the pro-Lasix side for three reasons. One, I believe the medical evidence shows it is an effective treatment for EIPH, and currently the best medical alternative. Two, I believe that any alternative that involves denying water and food may be a worse for a horse than applying Lasix, and if you believe trainers won’t do that, or that they will turn a big corner on horsemanship, then you’ve never been to a C-level track. Three, there is a high probability the availability of horses will decrease at smaller tracks, and may ultimately render those tracks not viable. If your racing world is NYRA or Santa Anita this may not resonate, but a lot of states would lose horseracing if stock goes down in large numbers. Even if you believe we already have too many racetracks, the solution to that problem is not to try to delete them through the back door.

There are two nagging problems in my opinion. First, there doesn’t seem to be anyone looking for the middle ground. As far as I can tell the anti-Lasix people are fixed that Lasix should not be allowed on raceday. The pro-Lasix people see it as the safest, most effective medical treatment for EIPH, and thus a necessity to allow many horses to race. Perhaps both sides fear that if they gave an inch, they would lose their argument. Second, the anti-Lasix people often conflate supporting the use of Lasix with having a support for use of drugs in general. It’s an ugly tactic designed to reinforce the position of the pro-Lasix people that Lasix supporters are wrong. But what if we lowered the dose from 10 cc’s four hours before a race to 3-5 cc’s? The change can certainly be tested and studied. All or none only works when the decision makers have homgeneous beliefs.

There is certainly a substantial subset of racegoers who believe illegal drugs are rampantly used by trainers. While it makes for spirited discussion, trainers who use illegal, performance enhancing drugs are an entirely different discussion than trainers who use Lasix, and the issues have to be dealt with separately. Lasix is not the “marijuana,” the gateway drug to Class 1 and 2 PEDs, and I for one am tired of the anti-Lasix people clouding a necessary discussion by lumping anyone who supports use of Lasix with someone who would use PEDs to gain an illegal advantage. Good people with good data and good intentions should be able to find good solutions without reducing the arguments to exaggeration and misrepresentation. And maybe without involving the Congress.

I think the category of horsemen and horseplayers who are fine with the use of raceday Lasix but have zero tolerance for illegal PEDs is substantial. I count myself in that group. A trainer like Roy Sedlacek who admitted using a supplement in the hope of gaining a performance edge should be dealt a harsh punishment. As you can read for yourself in my blog, I gave him no support for his actions.

I’ve grown weary of trying to convince those who despise Lasix and see drug conspiracies behind every winner that you can only have a serious discussion by finding the areas of agreement and building from there. You have to believe both sides are willing to work toward the best outcomes for racing overall. But if you see the other side as deluded and wrong-headed, you won’t have a productive discussion. You won’t solve any problem by telling people who have a legitimate, intellectually honest position that they are simply wrong. If you sincerely want to solve this problem, step one is to understand the position of the other side and treat it respectfully. If you can’t do that, at least get out of the way of those who will.

Meanwhile get this right. Illegal, performance enhancing drugs have no place in racing. And you can tell everyone that is my unequivocal opinion.