An Open Letter to the Industry

By Tony Chamblin

 A recently published statement by the National Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association took “strong exception” to remarks made by Dr. Larry Bramlage as an honored guest at the Thoroughbred Club of America’s 83rd Testimonial Dinner. 

In his acceptance speech, Dr. Bramlage, a prominent Kentucky-based veterinarian, called for banning race day administration of furosemide (Lasix or Salix). Although Bramlage stated that furosemide is “valuable to the horse when racing,” he said the drug would become a “death knell” for racing if not stopped. “It is not the drug that is bad,” he added, “It is the public argument that plays out in the press that hurts the most.” He went on to say that the public “can’t discriminate between furosemide and cocaine.” 

The HBPA response accused Bramlage and The Jockey Club, of which Bramlage is a member, of having chosen “to give up and not work to correct public misperceptions that ignore science.” 

The use of Lasix to treat North American Thoroughbreds was legalized by state and provincial racing commissions in the 1970s. It was hailed by supporters, largely trainers and veterinarians, as an effective treatment for horses that “bleed” after heavy exercise, as some do, sometimes through their nostrils but normally, internally. Through the years, the use of Lasix in North American racing has exploded: today, approximately nine in every 10 horses that go to the post have the drug (and frequently other drugs) in their systems. 

I applaud the recent advances in medication uniformity by industry groups and the push for tougher penalties for cheaters. In an era when steroids and other performance-enhancing substances have been ruled illegal in other sports, largely due to public disdain, racing’s image has not benefitted from its liberal medication policies. While I am not opposed to the use of legal therapeutic medication for horses as they train up to races, I feel strongly that no drugs should be administered to horses on the day they race. I also support stronger penalties for those who are caught violating the rules. 

Admittedly, this is a relatively recent “mea culpa” for me after 50 years of dealing with the issue. When I was the executive director of the National Horsemen’s Benevolent & Protective Association (HPBA) from 1973-1982, I supported, with some misgivings, the legalization of what was then known as “permissive,” “controlled,” or “therapeutic” medications, principally phenylbutazone (Butazolidin) and furosemide (Lasix). During that period, I helped write the 1978 Interstate Horseracing Act (IHA), which legalized off-track betting and simulcasting across state lines. This Act has resulted in billions of additional dollars for racetracks, owners, trainers and jockeys over the past 36 years. To me, the IHA has proved that federal legislation, if drafted well, can benefit the United States’ horse racing industry. 

When I served as president of the Association of Racing Commissioners International (1986-2001), regulators continually struggled with the “medication problem.” When I served as a member of the International Federation of Horseracing Authorities (consisting of over 50 countries) for 15 years, the first question asked of me was, “What is the U.S. doing to eliminate drugs in racing?” (Virtually every other country in the world disallows any foreign substance to be present in a horse while racing.) 

If an independent poll were taken of the 50,000-plus owners of Thoroughbred racehorses in North America, I firmly believe that the vast majority would support the Water Hay Oats Alliance’s goal of achieving a level and safe playing field for all participants. It is estimated that U.S. owners collectively pay about 100 million dollars annually for Lasix injections for their horses. Why? It is because they don’t want horses competing against them to have an unfair advantage, the equivalent of playing poker against a stacked deck. 

In 1998, researchers at the University of Pennsylvania’s New Bolton Center found that although furosemide does reduce pressure in the lungs, the significance is not enough to completely prevent horses from bleeding. More importantly, the drug is a diuretic, and the effect reduces a horse’s body weight, thereby enabling it to run faster (i.e., it acts as a performance-enhancer). That’s why bettors love to spot a horse on Lasix for the first time, a rare occasion nowadays. In 2013, researchers at Ohio State University analyzed the race records of 22,589 Thoroughbreds that raced on dirt surfaces in the U.S. and Canada between June 28 and July 13, 1997. The results confirmed that horses receiving furosemide raced faster and were more likely to finish in the top three positions than were untreated horses. (A subsequent statement released by the American Association of Equine Practitioners said the study was “flawed” because horses that were not administered furosemide were not examined to determine if they had bled). 

Dr. Joseph O’Dea, a past president of the AAEP, and a steward at Finger Lakes Race Track when I served as president and general manager at the upstate New York track in the early 1980s, is one of only a few equine practitioners I have come across who oppose the race day use of Lasix. Says O’Dea: “It is my perception that Lasix diminishes performance in as many horses as it enhances (performance) and in the long run reduces consistency and the percentage of winning favorites. Lasix does not level the playing field. Lasix tilts the playing field but you never know in which direction.” 
Last year I joined a group known as the Water Hay Oats Alliance. WHOA is a grassroots movement of like-minded individuals who support the passage of federal legislation to prohibit the use of race day medication in horse racing. WHOA advocates that the testing of drug samples from races be placed in the hands of the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), which conducts Olympic testing in this country and was responsible for bringing down the infamous cycling champion Lance Armstrong, among others. 

WHOA believes that the industry needs to find ways to protect the integrity of the competition and the welfare of the horse and jockey. Its supporters believe that racing physically-sound and drug-free horses on hay, oats and water is the right thing to do. WHOA believes that our current medication rules are gradually destroying public confidence in our once-great sport, as illustrated by a history of declining numbers in race tracks, foal crops, starters-per-race, on-track attendance, and on-track pari-mutuel handle. Many breeders believe that the use of drugs may also be weakening the genetic pool of our product. Many racing chemists believe that certain legal drugs have the ability to mask illegal drugs. 
As owner-breeder Bill Casner has warned: “Our industry is permeated with those who have no regard for the welfare of the horse nor understanding of the growing negative perception of horse racing. The horse becomes only a tool for fulfilling their own agendas of WIN-AT-ALL-COSTS. Until our value system changes and horses are treated like the living, breathing, majestic animals that they are, we will continue to diminish as an industry until we no longer exist.” 

WHOA believes that drugs used promiscuously by “win-at-all-costs” individuals can put life and limb of our equine and human athletes at risk. This is not ignoring science. This is recognizing reality. 

Tony Chamblin is a former executive director of the Horsemen’s Benevolent & Protective Association (HPBA) and a former president of the Association of Racing Commissioners International (RCI)