New York Should Bend on Lasix Stand

After Hansel had run away with the Preakness by seven lengths, trainer Frank Brothers was ushered to the Pimlico press box for the predictable questions.

Hansel now was in contention to win the $1 million bonus that goes to the horse who performs best throughout the Triple Crown series. Would the Belmont Stakes be next for him? The answer should have been predictable, too, but Brothers hesitated.

“Well,” the trainer said, “he’s a Lasix horse. We’ll have to mull it over.”

Once again, the anti-bleeding medication would become an issue in the Triple Crown campaign. Indeed, it may be the key issue in Saturday’s Belmont, for Brothers decided, after nearly two weeks of pondering, to enter Hansel in the race, but neither he nor anybody else knows for sure whether the favorite will be able to perform well without medication.

Discussion of Lasix had been mercifully absent during the first two legs of the Triple Crown, but New York’s ban on the drug is almost guaranteed to make it an annual issue before the Belmont. And it will annually revive this question: In the interest of uniformity, should New York emulate the rest of the country and allow Lasix?

The state’s ban on Lasix, championed by the prominent owners and breeders who are trustees of the New York Racing Association, is based on the traditional view that thoroughbreds should never use any type of medication when they race. The pro-Lasix forces scoff at this notion, arguing that bleeding is such a prevalent problem that it needs to be treated, but most of the racing world agrees with the New York position. The United States is the only major racing country that permits liberal use of medication.

For many years, the battle over Lasix in this country was a vociferous one whose outcome could have gone either way. But Lasix has now been legalized in every important horse-racing state but one, accepted by track officials, trainers, vets and fans. The purists in New York have lost the battle. And no matter how principled their stand against Lasix may be, the ban is hurting New York racing and hurting the sport as a whole.

Some of the country’s top horses are forced to bypass major stakes at Belmont Park because of the New York rules. Last year’s whole Triple Crown series fell flat because Summer Squall -- a notorious bleeder -- had to skip a showdown with Unbridled in the final leg of the Triple Crown.

Yet the sport hardly benefits when bleeders like Hansel do try to run without Lasix in New York. The Triple Crown series, with its extensive network-television coverage, is thoroughbred racing’s best chance to promote itself and win new fans.

But when Lasix becomes a central issue, it creates the impression among many casual viewers that these are races for “drugged” horses. At the very least, it deflects attention from the horses themselves; Hansel has earned little recognition as the bright new star of his generation because his talents have been obscured by the medication issue.

Recent runnings of the Belmont have shown just how vital this issue is. In 1987, Alysheba attempted to win the Triple Crown by racing without Lasix and finished 14 lengths behind the rivals he had whipped in the Kentucky Derby and the Preakness. Last year Unbridled ran dismally here after excellent performances in Louisville and Baltimore, and the other Lasix horses in the Belmont field finished out of the money too. Brothers observed that horses with respiratory problems often have difficulty in hot, humid weather, which may be one reason the Belmont has foiled Lasix users more often than other New York races run in cooler periods of the year. He had good reason to hestitate about running Hansel Saturday.

For Brothers, this is a gamble worth taking, but for the sport, it is a no-win situation. If Hansel loses the Belmont Saturday, he will be viewed as a horse who needs Lasix to do his best, confirming the impression that America is producing a generation of drug-dependent horses. If Hansel should win, he could be cited as proof of the profligacy of Lasix use in this country, where more than 50 percent of all horses are certified as bleeders so they can race with Lasix -- whether they really need it or not.

These issues and controversies arise only because of the lack of uniformity of state rules on Lasix. If New York did not prohibit Lasix, and nobody had to worry about how Hansel would perform with it, nobody would have any reason to raise the subject of medication.

There will never be a neat resolution of the rights and wrongs of Lasix use, because both sides in the debate possess strong, legitimate arguments. But from the practical standpoint, there is only one way to resolve the Lasix controversy. New York should permit its use and, in so doing, sweep the whole subject under the rug, enabling fans to focus their attention on the horses in the Belmont Stakes instead of the medication they need.