[
sports.yahoo.com]
I think there is no bigger factor when handicapping this year's derby than the Lasix ban in the prep races and the derby itself.
I haven't heard too many people talk about it--certainly not the talking heads on TVG or other networks.
I don't post much anymore; actually, I'm transitioning more and more toward sports betting after 50 or so years of horses almost every day, so if I missed something relevant, please link it in the comments. Sports betting vs. horses is an interesting topic, perhaps for another day.
Maybe there is no way to say exactly how the ban is affecting the horses or the outcomes, but it def. is. I think mostly you see a lot of horses in prep races underperform and some strange results, which could continue in the derby.
If anyone has any thoughts or theories, it might be interesting to hear them.
My only take so far is I think horses who are distanced-challenged are more likely to be exposed without Lasix--the ban seems to affect horses' ability to finish races the most. I also think (obviously) fresher horses with more rest might be at an advantage--don't know for sure--but maybe the horses that came out of the preps with more rest might have an advantage--more lightly raced? Maybe the La. or Florida races might carry more weight--they almost never do in my past derby handicapping. Historically, I'm hugely biased toward So. Cal three year olds!
Are certain trainers who are perhaps more adept at using other PEDs going to have an advantage in a Lasix-free event? Will there be strict testing to discourage them from ramping up the magic potions? Or does the ban of Lasix as some say not allow these trainers to hide what else they might be using?
Or should we just forget all this background and just use the sheet numbers like always and let the chips fall where they may?
