Not much has been said about use of this at the Breeders Cup. A caller to At the Races radio brought it up and had stats showing that while 151 of 234 entrants ran with lasix adjunct, 16/22 winners were "LA", and 10 of those 16 winners were first time LA. Many of the bombs - from Court Vision to Stephanies Kitten, to Drosselmeyer were LA. The entire superfecta for $47k in the classic was LA. While I did not cash a ticket in this event or all day either day for that matter, to me the rub is this stuff is only allowed in Kentucky and a few other minor racing states, and how many even knew about it ahead of time? Not in California or New York so it is moot in the short term. But long term, on racings biggest stage, don't we deserve to know well ahead of time who is getting this stuff if it is not allowed everywhere? Or whether the horse has been a known bleeder even through lasix as this LA has the chance to prevent this and thus be a possible reliable predictor to significant improvement - ie Court Vision etc? Or whether the horse is first time LA? I realize on his best day a horse for instance like Court Vision was roughly as fast as everyone in the race but Goldi, but sure had not shown it much recently. Maybe a winner like Hansen improves the 3 lenghts needed to beat Union Rags just by maturity, but without seeing what some of these LA winners ran for numbers, it just does not look like good PR for the sport at best, and does not even come close to passing the smell test to the casual player that shows up that day, much less those follow this closely at worst. Racing needs every player they can drum up - if these stats are that crucial to picking winners on these days, in this particular state with its unique drug rules, then get them out into the open much more clearly so every bettor knows. bb