Letter to the Editor: Horse Must Come First With Any Reform Efforts

[Wandering Eyes]

Editor's note: Currently, Lasix is banned in two-year-old racing and in stakes races 48 hours before a race. The Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority (HISA) is approaching a critical vote regarding the use of race-day Lasix in the rest of racing. Per the original Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act of 2020, the drug is effectively banned under that same 48-hour rule, though most states currently operate under a three-year exemption put in place to allow time for studies to be conducted. That exemption is now coming to an end on May 22. A final decision on whether to extend that exemption, or to ban the medication entirely, will be subject to a vote of the nine-member HISA Board of Directors. In order to extend the exemption, the vote must be unanimous; otherwise, Lasix will be banned. 

The following letter to the HISA board was signed by trainers W.I. Mott, Chad Brown, Mark Casse, Jena Antonucci, and Ron Moquett; and Eric Hamelback, CEO of the National Horsemen's Benevolent & Protective Association, and provided to the TDN.

The HISA Board faces a consequential choice: pursue reform grounded in science–or pursue symbolism that may ultimately harm the very horses they seek to protect.

If a human Olympic runner bled into his lungs every time he sprinted, no one would call treatment “cheating.” They would call it medicine.

Yet calls to eliminate furosemide, commonly known as Lasix, from horse racing are often framed as a necessary stand against “doping.” It is a powerful word. It signals integrity. It reassures the public. But when rhetoric outpaces veterinary reality, well-intentioned policy can produce unintended consequences.

That disconnect is at the heart of the debate over furosemide and whether it should be eliminated from the sport entirely. Critics frame its use as a symbol of racing's excesses. Supporters see something far less sensational: a regulated veterinary tool used to manage Exercise-Induced Pulmonary Hemorrhage (EIPH), a condition that affects all equines and a significant percentage of racehorses during intense exertion.

EIPH has been studied extensively, including by researchers affiliated with the American Association of Equine Practitioners. During high-speed racing, extreme cardiovascular pressures can cause delicate pulmonary capillaries to rupture. In mild cases, bleeding may be microscopic. In more serious cases, repeated episodes can lead to scarring, chronic inflammation, diminished lung function and, in rare instances, catastrophic outcomes.

Horses are obligate nasal breathers. Unlike human athletes, they cannot open their mouths to increase airflow when exertion peaks. The physiological stress generated inside their chest at racing speed is extraordinary. This vulnerability is rooted in anatomy–not in training methods or competitive ambition.

Furosemide's primary pharmacologic action is diuresis, reducing vascular pressure and mitigating the severity of pulmonary bleeding. It does not create speed. It does not manufacture stamina. It does not alter a horse's innate ability. It addresses a medical risk associated with extreme exertion preventing pulmonary bleeding that contributes to career longevity.

The term “performance-enhancing drug” carries powerful emotional weight. But preventing internal lung bleeding is not the same as artificially enhancing speed. The science on subtle secondary performance effects remains debated. What is not debated is that furosemide reduces the severity of EIPH.

Eliminating the medication will not eliminate the condition. It will remove a regulated therapeutic tool currently administered under veterinary oversight and strict protocols.

Those of us who work in barns before sunrise understand that stewardship is not a slogan. It is daily accountability for the health and comfort of an animal that cannot advocate for itself. Preventative medicine is a cornerstone of humane care in every other athletic discipline–human or animal. As such, evidence-based policy is imperative, not symbolic prohibition for welfare of the horse.

We recognize that public trust in racing is fragile. Integrity and transparency are essential. That is why we support uniform rules, clear reporting, rigorous veterinary supervision and continued scientific research. If future evidence yields safer or more effective alternatives, horsemen will adapt–as this industry has repeatedly done in pursuit of safety and reform.

Policymaking decisions driven primarily by optics and not science risk undermining equine welfare in the name of appearances.

The question before the Authority Board is not whether the sport must evolve–it must, it is and will continue to. The question is whether eliminating a treatment that reduces lung bleeding serves the horse or simply satisfies a narrative.

Treating pulmonary hemorrhage under veterinary supervision is not doping.

It is responsible care.

And in any reform effort, the horse–not the headline–must come first.

—W.I. Mott, Chad Brown, Mark Casse, Jena Antonucci, Ron Moquett, and Eric Hamelback

The post Letter to the Editor: Horse Must Come First With Any Reform Efforts appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

View the full article