During the off-season the Hong Kong Jockey Club’s hardline attitude to raceday medication was put to the acid test when trainer Michael Chang Chun-wai was “discouraged” from using controversial diuretic Lasix while campaigning sprinter Rich Tapestry in the United States next month.
And when we say discouraged, we mean Big Brother told Chang he couldn’t use Lasix while abroad, even where it is legal. Case closed, game over, the end – because that’s how it works around here. Chang gladly fell into line, to his own competitive disadvantage.
The decision was a no-brainer, really. It would have seemed sanctimonious to, on one hand, stand on a soapbox proclaiming that racing’s equine competitors should be drug free, and then allow a horse trained at Sha Tin to compete overseas on Lasix – even if he “needs it”.
The fact that Rich Tapestry is a “bleeder” – endoscopic examinations have revealed four cases of “substantial blood on trachea”, including his last start in April – adds an extra wrinkle to this line-in-the-sand decision.
But most interesting was the Jockey Club’s position as a self-proclaimed standard-bearer for all things good and fair in racing being held up to scrutiny – the Rich Tapestry decision gave the club the chance to put theory into practice and words into action.
We’re big on gags but there’s not much fun that can be had at the expense of Lasix – scientific name furosemide – and the topic of Exercise Induced Pulmonary Haemorrhaging (EIPH) in racehorses. So here’s a rough guide for those who don’t read veterinary journals and industry magazines in their spare time.
Lasix is banned in every major racing jurisdiction outside of North America - its use in the US and Canada has been systemic for three decades or so. Defenders of the diuretic say its use is a simple animal rights issue – that bleeding can kill horses, it hurts them and Lasix stops EIPH.
Critics say it is used primarily as a performance-enhancing drug, dropping a horse’s body weight dramatically on raceday, and perhaps acts as a masking agent for other performance-enhancing substances with far more direct benefits. The fact the vast majority of horses in the US race on Lasix seems to back that claim, as not all of them are bleeders. In fact, the vast majority do not suffer severe bleeds.
Those lobbying against Lasix argue that many of the pro brigade are veterinarians or trainers with a vested commercial interest in keeping the drug legal.
Still, we can find some humour in the debate – at least some of the finest unintentional comedy this side of Hong Kong horse names – in this propaganda-laden promotional video. The high-level production features the Pegasus Training And Equine Rehabilitation Center’s Dr Mark Dedomenico and his splendid head of hair. It gives you some idea of what the anti-Lasix campaigners are up against.
If you can take your eyes off Dedomenico’s hair, and I know I can’t, check out the bad acting. The kids at the start deserve Emmys. Firstly, the girl: “Mommy, what’s the matter with him, why is he bleeding?” and then little Bobby de Niro chimes in with a heartfelt “Is he going to die?”
Spare a thought for mommy, who in reality probably backed the horse, did her money cold, and is trying to temper her revulsion at the sight of blood.
For a more balanced take, maybe they should have taken the children to the tie-up stalls where Lasix is administered so they could ask, “Mommy, when will that horse stop peeing? Is he going to die?” as the horse passes up to 15 litres of urine in the space of an hour, about the same amount he would normally pass in a day without Lasix.
In an era where horses travel and compete abroad more than ever, the United States has become something of an island, and the use of Lasix is one of the causes of the competitive isolation.
In 2012, the Breeders’ Cup – the meeting Rich Tapestry is being aimed towards – implemented a ban in its juvenile events. It was a case of one step forward and two steps back though when a group of powerful trainers ensured the two-day event returned to a Lasix-fuelled free-for-all last year.
Jockey Club chief executive Winfried Engelbrecht-Bresges is a staunch advocate of drug-free racing, and in his role as vice-chairman of the International Federation of Horse Racing Authorities (IFHA) holds some sway on these matters. But it was an American – former New York Racing Authority boss Bill Nader, and now executive director of racing in Hong Kong – who went on the offensive with the Rich Tapestry ruling.
Nader went as far as to suggest other jurisdictions should implore trainers not to use Lasix when travelling to the Breeders’ Cup.
“It is unfortunate that European-based horses go year after year to the United States, and especially the Breeders’ Cup, and the majority of them use Lasix on the basis they will be under a disadvantage if they don’t,” he said.
“It would certainly be better for the sport as a whole if those who don’t allow Lasix in their home countries took a position, wherever they raced, and refused to use it. Unfortunately they don’t, but in Hong Kong’s case there is no room for compromise.”
In America, or anywhere else for that matter, if a vet makes a judgment call and refuses to inject a joint for the umpteenth time, a trainer can simply head elsewhere and find a desperate vet who will. In Hong Kong, vets set the drug agenda, and it has caused its share of internal conflict in the past.
Two years ago, head vet Christopher Riggs and trainer David Hall clashed over the use of cortisone injections in fetlock joints, a topic further inflamed by David Ferraris at that year’s international meeting.
Those elsewhere cannot afford to take the moral high ground the Jockey Club can in drug debates, but the Rich Tapestry decision now gives the club officials extra credibility when it comes to IFHA debates.
Even though the Jockey Club really had no choice – those in glass houses cannot throw stones after all – the tough stance will hopefully re-open debate on Lasix and open the possibility of a level playing field in world racing.
