Sheppard on Lasix

[pandy]

I saw great Hall of Fame trainer Jonathan Sheppard being interviewed on TVG yesterday and he was asked why he didn't have his first time starter on lasix. He said that this year he decided not to use lasix on his two and three year olds unless they showed they needed it. And he said that continual use of lasix is bad for the horses and the industry should seriously reconsider its use. He is winning at 18% on the year. This is a real trainer who does not dope his horses up. Truly one of the all time greats.

[chadk66]

I saw great Hall of Fame trainer Jonathan Sheppard being interviewed on TVG yesterday and he was asked why he didn't have his first time starter on lasix. He said that this year he decided not to use lasix on his two and three year olds unless they showed they needed it. And he said that continual use of lasix is bad for the horses and the industry should seriously reconsider its use. He is winning at 18% on the year. This is a real trainer who does not dope his horses up. Truly one of the all time greats.I 100% agree with this. why use it if they don't need it. makes no sense. contrary to alot of the myths out there, there is no performance enhancement from the stuff anyway.

[nearco]

Bit of a turn around from him then. He was one of the loudest voices back in the mid 90's that pushed the NSA (National Steeplechase Association) to allow Lasix in jump races.

[cj]

Cannon Shell is not going to like this.

[delayjf]

contrary to alot of the myths out there, there is no performance enhancement from the stuff anyway.

There have been studies that say the opposite. What do you base the above statement on?

[Tom]

Define performance enhancement.
If you mean enhancement over the horse's natural ability, then maybe.
But if you look at the performance possible without the drug, then yes, it is an enhancement.

[chadk66]

There have been studies that say the opposite. What do you base the above statement on?years of actual training. I don't care what the studies say. first hand experience trumps a non real life study.

[chadk66]

Define performance enhancement.
If you mean enhancement over the horse's natural ability, then maybe.
But if you look at the performance possible without the drug, then yes, it is an enhancement.yes, lasix will never make a horse run faster than his god given ability, only allow him to actually do that. there certainly are drugs that will make a horse run faster than his god given ability but lasix isn't one of them

[holmmd]

ck66, does (or can) lasix mask the presence of other stuff?

[Stillriledup]

I saw great Hall of Fame trainer Jonathan Sheppard being interviewed on TVG yesterday and he was asked why he didn't have his first time starter on lasix. He said that this year he decided not to use lasix on his two and three year olds unless they showed they needed it. And he said that continual use of lasix is bad for the horses and the industry should seriously reconsider its use. He is winning at 18% on the year. This is a real trainer who does not dope his horses up. Truly one of the all time greats.

But, you know, at some point, most all horses need lasix and if you are betting on one of his horses and it stops suddenly, you were essentially the "guinea pig" for his "Experiement".

No "L" horses seldom get underbet, the public doesnt seem to use this as a handicapping factor, yet, if you continue to wager on non L horses, there will be times when they "Experimented" with your money. I tread lightly if i see no L, i dont' want them experimenting with my money.

[cj]

yes, lasix will never make a horse run faster than his god given ability, only allow him to actually do that. there certainly are drugs that will make a horse run faster than his god given ability but lasix isn't one of them

My years of actual handicapping experience would tell me that trainers have no idea how to accurately measure how fast a horse is with and without lasix.

[Grits]

years of actual training. I don't care what the studies say. first hand experience trumps a non real life study.

ChadK, a question. Can you explain exactly how you're able to determine studies as "non real life?" I guess what I'm asking, though you've trained horses, how are live race horses any different from live humans who participate in "clinical trials" that advance medical technology for you and I? If U.S. trainers aren't willing to, isn't there a need to start elsewhere in order to investigate and determine what is beneficial for the horse?


The following are comments in Ray Paulick's report with Dale Roman's commentary. This study loaded horses into the gate, racing them only days out from their prior races. Some getting lasix, others getting placebo. Wouldn't this be "real life"?


http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.235.1.76



In another link you have a much larger scale study including 250K horse's starts in Japan:

http://www.toba.org/owner-education/common-injuries-and-ailments.aspx


HELPFUL TIPS: EIPH Facts vs. Fiction

Reprinted with permission from the UC Davis Center for Equine Health.

Fiction: If you can't see any blood in the nose after exercising, there was no bleeding (EIPH).

Fact: Most cases of EIPH occur internally with no external sign of bleeding. In Japan, researchers analyzed 250,000 racing starts and found that bleeding from the nose occurred in less than 0.2 percent of the racing starts. However, in studies using an endoscope, in which a tube is passed via the nose and the veterinarian looks into the airways, researchers found that 50-70 percent of all horses that race experience EIPH at some time. In studies that evaluated airway cellular debris, results suggest that perhaps 100 percent of racehorses experience EIPH.

[baconswitchfarm]

There are tons of studies showing it increases performance. In this day and age all top trainers use it always. When you jack a horses blood up over what is natural for a horse they are prone to bleed. It also raises tco2 like a milkshake which allows a horse to somewhat carry his top speed further. That is why many jurisdictions have a separate milkshake testing level for lasix horses. It is established knowledge that lasix increases the tco2 readings, which increases performance.

[Cannon shell]

Cannon Shell is not going to like this.
Why? His primary owner is the chief person behind the anti-Lasix crusade. He has the luxury of being relatively wealthy and training off of his own farm. Human nature being what it is, people are usually going to take the position that best suits them personally.


Funny the demise of the American thoroughbred in the sales ring (supposedly a major symptom of Lasix use) seems to have been overestimated.

[Cannon shell]

There are tons of studies showing it increases performance. In this day and age all top trainers use it always. When you jack a horses blood up over what is natural for a horse they are prone to bleed. It also raises tco2 like a milkshake which allows a horse to somewhat carry his top speed further. That is why many jurisdictions have a separate milkshake testing level for lasix horses. It is established knowledge that lasix increases the tco2 readings, which increases performance.
dehydration/less fluid in the system causes higher TCO2 counts. Lasix doesn't "jack a horses blood up", it just makes them pee.

[Cannon shell]

ck66, does (or can) lasix mask the presence of other stuff?
Not at the levels that are now being tested at according to Rick Sams who heads the Sports science lab/testing facility in KY

[baconswitchfarm]

dehydration/less fluid in the system causes higher TCO2 counts. Lasix doesn't "jack a horses blood up", it just makes them pee.

I was not inferring lasix effected blood counts. I was inferring with most top barns using different forms of epo on their horses it creates bleeders and lasix is needed.

[Cannon shell]

I was not inferring lasix effected blood counts. I was inferring with most top barns using different forms of epo on their horses it creates bleeders and lasix is needed.
What came first, the EPO or the Lasix? lol

[cj]

Why? His primary owner is the chief person behind the anti-Lasix crusade. He has the luxury of being relatively wealthy and training off of his own farm. Human nature being what it is, people are usually going to take the position that best suits them personally.

Of course, but that doesn't make him wrong.

[RXB]

Funny the demise of the American thoroughbred in the sales ring (supposedly a major symptom of Lasix use) seems to have been overestimated.

The annual American foal count is dropping like a stone, now about half of what it was 25 years ago while stud fees are much lower than they were six or seven years ago. Not that it's all on Lasix by any means but the demise of the American thoroughbred is well on its way.

[Cannon shell]

Of course, but that doesn't make him wrong.
It also doesn't make him right. The nebulous "harms the game" argument is hardly a given.

[Cannon shell]

The annual American foal count is dropping like a stone, now about half of what it was 25 years ago while stud fees are much lower than they were six or seven years ago. Not that it's all on Lasix by any means but the demise of the American thoroughbred is well on its way.
The foal crop dropping is not necessarily a bad thing for the "American thoroughbred" and has everything to do with the general economy. Fewer horses surely doesn't mean lesser quality, should be the opposite as horses towards the bottom of the market in credential were the 1st to go. Stud fees were ridiculously over priced because unraced bloodstock was tremendously overvalued. The sales market is booming again as virtually every sale is seeing gains and a return to previous pre recession levels. It's not only not all on Lasix but none of it has anything to do with Lasix. I'd think the recent high profile drug issues overseas would make people realize that much of what you've been fed about Lasix from its opponents is propaganda

[chadk66]

ck66, does (or can) lasix mask the presence of other stuff?they made the argument that it did years ago. whether or not that's true I don't know. But with today's testing I don't think there's any chance it does.

[chadk66]

My years of actual handicapping experience would tell me that trainers have no idea how to accurately measure how fast a horse is with and without lasix.well if you have been around a horse for several years and he starts bleeding at year three it's pretty easy to tell. Twenty years ago the rules for lasix use was much different. you couldn't just use the stuff just because. I guess in a nut shell if your with these horses day in and out you know what they're capable of and what they aren't. Hard to explain unless you've actually experienced it.

[chadk66]

But, you know, at some point, most all horses need lasix and if you are betting on one of his horses and it stops suddenly, you were essentially the "guinea pig" for his "Experiement".

No "L" horses seldom get underbet, the public doesnt seem to use this as a handicapping factor, yet, if you continue to wager on non L horses, there will be times when they "Experimented" with your money. I tread lightly if i see no L, i dont' want them experimenting with my money.Not all horses need lasix at some point in their lives. I had numerous horses that raced their whole careers without it. Where do you come up with this stuff?

[chadk66]

There are tons of studies showing it increases performance. In this day and age all top trainers use it always. When you jack a horses blood up over what is natural for a horse they are prone to bleed. It also raises tco2 like a milkshake which allows a horse to somewhat carry his top speed further. That is why many jurisdictions have a separate milkshake testing level for lasix horses. It is established knowledge that lasix increases the tco2 readings, which increases performance.can you link some of these studies, I'd love to read them.

[chadk66]

dehydration/less fluid in the system causes higher TCO2 counts. Lasix doesn't "jack a horses blood up", it just makes them pee.exactly. funny how end results of some studies can be what the people doing the study wanted them to be;)

[chadk66]

The annual American foal count is dropping like a stone, now about half of what it was 25 years ago while stud fees are much lower than they were six or seven years ago. Not that it's all on Lasix by any means but the demise of the American thoroughbred is well on its way.it's economics.

[chadk66]

The foal crop dropping is not necessarily a bad thing for the "American thoroughbred" and has everything to do with the general economy. Fewer horses surely doesn't mean lesser quality, should be the opposite as horses towards the bottom of the market in credential were the 1st to go. Stud fees were ridiculously over priced because unraced bloodstock was tremendously overvalued. The sales market is booming again as virtually every sale is seeing gains and a return to previous pre recession levels. It's not only not all on Lasix but none of it has anything to do with Lasix. I'd think the recent high profile drug issues overseas would make people realize that much of what you've been fed about Lasix from its opponents is propaganda100% agree with all of the above. And as a result of the sales jump you'll see the foal count start creeping up. it's a cycle.

[Segwin]

When a horse is on Lasix who administers the drug? Is there any oversight of this or are the owners pretty much self-regulated?

[chadk66]

When a horse is on Lasix who administers the drug? Is there any oversight of this or are the owners pretty much self-regulated?varies from state to state. when I trained we had a lasix barn. you had to be there four hours before your post time. If your late your scratched and paid a nice fine. The state vet drew up the lasix and the trainers vet administered it in the company of the state vet. They could only give the state approved amount. This was in MN. In other states you administer it in the horses stall four hours out via your vet. MN doesn't use the detention barn anymore.

[classhandicapper]

If your young son/daughter was a track and field competitor, would you give lasix it to him/her regularly to help with performance even if he/she had no health issues that required its use?

If you answer yes, I'm just going to shake my head.

If you answer no, I'm going to say that the industry should be treating horses with the same degree of respect and concern for their long term health and well being as they would their own child since the horses they are responsible can't decide for themselves what's going to be put into their systems.

The economics are the economics. If it can't survive in it's present form without the use of all these drugs, then the industry has to change.

[Grits]

If your young son/daughter was a track and field competitor, would you give lasix it to him/her regularly to help with performance even if he/she had no health issues that required its use?

If you answer yes, I'm just going to shake my head.

If you answer no, I'm going to say that the industry should be treating horses with the same degree of respect and concern for their long term health and well being as they would their own child since the horses they are responsible can't decide for themselves what's going to be put into their systems.

The economics are the economics. If it can't survive in it's present form without the use of all these drugs, then the industry has to change.

Outstanding question!!!

[baconswitchfarm]

can you link some of these studies, I'd love to read them.


This is easier than a link. I went to google and put in " lasix as a performance enhancer". There are 23 million results. The whole first page is equine law journals and studies you would be interested in. I don't see any scientist even arguing it doesn't increase performance. It seems to be settled science.

[baconswitchfarm]

If your young son/daughter was a track and field competitor, would you give lasix it to him/her regularly to help with performance even if he/she had no health issues that required its use?

If you answer yes, I'm just going to shake my head.

If you answer no, I'm going to say that the industry should be treating horses with the same degree of respect and concern for their long term health and well being as they would their own child since the horses they are responsible can't decide for themselves what's going to be put into their systems.

The economics are the economics. If it can't survive in it's present form without the use of all these drugs, then the industry has to change.


You may not give your child lasix , but tons of track people and professional cyclist have been caught using lasix like diuretics to enhance performance. It is because it works.


As far as treating horses like people, that is a personal ethical issue for each trainer. In this country we don't treat animals and people with the same standards. I doubt many people would fill their daughters with bovine growth hormone so she could produce 500% more milk than naturally. It is extremely harmful long term to who it is given. The cows live a miserable life and die a bag of bones. But we like $3 a gallon milk so it is accepted. The same as lasix is accepted.

Finally these lasix thoroughbreds only race thirty times lifetime. If lasix was really detrimental there wouldn't be standardbreds with 300 and up lifetime starts racing every day. They would have been decimated by this drug and not in good enough health to continue racing.

[Cannon shell]

If your young son/daughter was a track and field competitor, would you give lasix it to him/her regularly to help with performance even if he/she had no health issues that required its use?


.
I wouldn't geld the kid if he wasn't performing up to par

[RXB]

The foal crop dropping is not necessarily a bad thing for the "American thoroughbred" and has everything to do with the general economy. Fewer horses surely doesn't mean lesser quality, should be the opposite as horses towards the bottom of the market in credential were the 1st to go. Stud fees were ridiculously over priced because unraced bloodstock was tremendously overvalued. The sales market is booming again as virtually every sale is seeing gains and a return to previous pre recession levels. It's not only not all on Lasix but none of it has anything to do with Lasix. I'd think the recent high profile drug issues overseas would make people realize that much of what you've been fed about Lasix from its opponents is propaganda

There's propaganda being fed about Lasix alright; but much of it is flowing in the opposite direction from what you claim. Someone has to be either oblivious or untruthful to propagate the idea that Lasix hasn't been used widely for reasons other than preventing bleeding.

By the way, fewer horses is a real problem unless there's a concomitant increase in the number of starts per horse. The latter is never going to happen as long as Lasix (and other drugs-- legal and otherwise) are being used widely and regularly. Running an animal into a state of dehydration is going to require additional recovery time, pure and simple. And we're talking about a breed that prefers cool climes but is often being raced in warm or even downright hot temperatures. Add a powerful diuretic into the mix and the consequences are obvious. It was right around the time that Lasix began being used widely in the mid-70's that starts per horse really started falling dramatically. I doubt that it was just a coincidence.

[Cannon shell]

There's propaganda being fed about Lasix alright; but much of it is flowing in the opposite direction from what you claim. Someone has to be either oblivious or untruthful to propagate the idea that Lasix hasn't been used widely for reasons other than preventing bleeding.

By the way, fewer horses is a real problem unless there's a concomitant increase in the number of starts per horse. The latter is never going to happen as long as Lasix (and other drugs-- legal and otherwise) are being used widely and regularly. Running an animal into a state of dehydration is going to require additional recovery time, pure and simple. And we're talking about a breed that prefers cool climes but is often being raced in warm or even downright hot temperatures. Add a powerful diuretic into the mix and the consequences are obvious. It was right around the time that Lasix began being used widely in the mid-70's that starts per horse really started falling dramatically. I doubt that it was just a coincidence.
Name 1 reason what Lasix is used for outside of bleeding?

Lasix isn't the cause of fewer starts, the trend started 25 years before Lasix was widely used and has more or less leveled off.

[RXB]

Name 1 reason what Lasix is used for outside of bleeding?

Lasix isn't the cause of fewer starts, the trend started 25 years before Lasix was widely used and has more or less leveled off.

One reason: masking agent.

In 1950, starts per year was 10.91. In 1975, it was 10.23. But by 1985 it was only 8.28-- almost a 20% drop within just 10 years. That was the decade when Lasix was introduced widely (both formally and informally) into North American racing. The decline in the following 25 years, 1985-2010, was consistent but not nearly as dramatic-- a drop of 26% over 25 years.

[Cannon shell]

One reason: masking agent.

In 1950, starts per year was 10.91. In 1975, it was 10.23. But by 1985 it was only 8.28-- almost a 20% drop within just 10 years. That was the decade when Lasix was introduced widely (both formally and informally) into North American racing. The decline in the following 25 years, 1985-2010, was consistent but not nearly as dramatic-- a drop of 26% over 25 years.
Doesn't work as a masking agent with modern testing

1960- 11.31 starts
1980- 9.21 starts

It is unreasonable to believe that Lasix caused this drop as very few horses were being treated with it prior to 1980.

It's actually pretty unreasonable to consider that Lasix had anything to do with the number of starts considering the plethora of other factors that could have an effect. In 1960 there were 37661 races run in N America. By 1980 there were 68243. By 1990 there were 79971. Just the fact that the number of starters exploded from 29k to 89k would easily explain the difference. It would hard to imagine that the overall quality of a population of 89000 starters would be the same as 29000.

[baconswitchfarm]

In reference to declining starts.Since the eighties drugs have become more prevalent and better at increasing performance. Gassing up horses dances a delicate line. You can make a horse go faster than his legs were meant too. Too many hard starts can blow the wheels off one. Not always breakdowns, but injuries that end careers prematurely are many.

[RXB]

Doesn't work as a masking agent with modern testing

1960- 11.31 starts
1980- 9.21 starts

It is unreasonable to believe that Lasix caused this drop as very few horses were being treated with it prior to 1980.

It's actually pretty unreasonable to consider that Lasix had anything to do with the number of starts considering the plethora of other factors that could have an effect. In 1960 there were 37661 races run in N America. By 1980 there were 68243. By 1990 there were 79971. Just the fact that the number of starters exploded from 29k to 89k would easily explain the difference. It would hard to imagine that the overall quality of a population of 89000 starters would be the same as 29000.

I've never claimed and never would claim that Lasix is totally responsible but the suggestion that Lasix is essentially a non-factor is very difficult to believe.

The greatest dropoff in average starts, by annual magnitude, occurred by far between 1975-1985, not 1960-1980. And 1975-1985 when Lasix was really gaining a foothold.

I also doubt that increases in races were largely responsible for the decline in starts. The average starts per horse actually went up between 1950-60 even though the number of races increased by 52% in the 1950's. The number of races and starters declined noticeably in the 1990's but there was no corresponding rise in the average starts per horse. So something about the constitution and/or handling of the horses themselves has changed.

It's very, very difficult for me to believe that the most prolific dropoff in starts would occur when Lasix was first becoming widespread (initially without regulators' knowledge/consent, then via legalization starting in the mid-late 1970's), and that this dropoff would continue at a steady although lesser rate with its ongoing use through subsequent decades, and that no such trend was evident until Lasix arrived on the scene-- and that it's all just coincidental.

[Cannon shell]

In reference to declining starts.Since the eighties drugs have become more prevalent and better at increasing performance. Gassing up horses dances a delicate line. You can make a horse go faster than his legs were meant too. Too many hard starts can blow the wheels off one. Not always breakdowns, but injuries that end careers prematurely are many.
I don't believe this is entirely accurate. While I wasn't around before that I have heard some stories from pretty credible people.

[Cannon shell]

I've never claimed and never would claim that Lasix is totally responsible but the suggestion that Lasix is essentially a non-factor is very difficult to believe.

The greatest dropoff in average starts, by annual magnitude, occurred by far between 1975-1985, not 1960-1980. And 1975-1985 when Lasix was really gaining a foothold.

I also doubt that increases in races were largely responsible for the decline in starts. The average starts per horse actually went up between 1950-60 even though the number of races increased by 52% in the 1950's. The number of races and starters declined noticeably in the 1990's but there was no corresponding rise in the average starts per horse. So something about the constitution and/or handling of the horses themselves has changed.

It's very, very difficult for me to believe that the most prolific dropoff in starts would occur when Lasix was first becoming widespread (initially without regulators' knowledge/consent, then via legalization starting in the mid-late 1970's), and that this dropoff would continue at a steady although lesser rate with its ongoing use through subsequent decades, and that no such trend was evident until Lasix arrived on the scene-- and that it's all just coincidental.

I don't believe that Lasix use was widespread as you suggest at anytime during the 70's.

There was no corresponding increase because the overall quality had dropped. Once you dilute something it stays diluted. Pouring some of it out of the cup doesn't make it any less diluted.

I don't know any trainers that consider dehydration as an issue that isn't relatively easily dealt with. The assumption that Lasix use has somehow weakened the breed is preposterous despite its widespread popularity. Short term dehydration is not a genetic issue.

[RXB]

I don't believe that Lasix use was widespread as you suggest at anytime during the 70's.


Think again.

http://www.drf.com/news/lasix-timeline-drug-racing

1974: Maryland is the first state to legalize Lasix for raceday use.

1974-1976: Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Michigan, New Jersey and several other states follow Maryland’s lead.

And that's just raceday usage. It was previously being used by some barns prior to workouts as well, just as is the case now.

[RXB]

There was no corresponding increase because the overall quality had dropped. Once you dilute something it stays diluted. Pouring some of it out of the cup doesn't make it any less diluted.


Funny, though, how the rapid and steep onset of that "dilution" occurred not with the advent of signficant increases in races/starters/foals-- which had been going on for a long time prior-- but at the same time as the widespread introduction of Lasix.

[Cannon shell]

Funny, though, how the rapid and steep onset of that "dilution" occurred not with the advent of signficant increases in races/starters/foals-- which had been going on for a long time prior-- but at the same time as the widespread introduction of Lasix.

If there are 90 NFL teams you don't think the average NFL player is of lower quality than if there were 30?

[Cannon shell]

Think again.

http://www.drf.com/news/lasix-timeline-drug-racing

1974: Maryland is the first state to legalize Lasix for raceday use.

1974-1976: Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Michigan, New Jersey and several other states follow Maryland’s lead.

And that's just raceday usage. It was previously being used by some barns prior to workouts as well, just as is the case now.
I just don't think that as many people were using it as you think. It isn't like it is now where virtually everyone uses it.

[RXB]

If there are 90 NFL teams you don't think the average NFL player is of lower quality than if there were 30?

Well, there are a lot less thoroughbreds racing now than there were 20-30 years ago, and yet the average start numbers are still noticeably less than at that time.

[RXB]

I just don't think that as many people were using it as you think. It isn't like it is now where virtually everyone uses it.

Now you're just dodging. The proliferation of Lasix times almost exactly with the big dropoff in average starts, and the chances of that being purely coincidental are almost nil.

[nearco]

Of the 11 runners Sheppard had at Far Hills yesterday, 10 of them ran on Lasix, including all 5 runners he had in the $250k American Grand National, where he trained the winner, Divine Fortune.

[baconswitchfarm]

[QUOTE=Cannon shell]I don't believe this is entirely accurate. While I wasn't around before that I have heard some stories from pretty credible people.[/QUOT


I was around. While there was plenty of drugging , it was a much lower caliber drug. There were periods where different strong pain killers went through testing. But not like now. In the early eighties horses were getting pain killers , cheap priced bronchial drugs right in the trachea , and clorox bleach in the vein. All passed testing then. Now horses race on newer stronger breathing drugs, snail venom as pain killers , and darpepoetin blood builders and cancer drugs. There is no comparison .

[cj]

Of the 11 runners Sheppard had at Far Hills yesterday, 10 of them ran on Lasix, including all 5 runners he had in the $250k American Grand National, where he trained the winner, Divine Fortune.

Why give others an advantage?

[nearco]

Of the 11 runners Sheppard had at Far Hills yesterday, 10 of them ran on Lasix, including all 5 runners he had in the $250k American Grand National, where he trained the winner, Divine Fortune.
Btw, there were 35k people at Far Hills yesterday.... and there is no wagering (at least not legal wagering). They did try to get parimutuel wagering going this year, but the state of NJ wouldn't allow. Which is odd, because they've ok'ed wagering for that silly Palio race on the beach at Atlantic city.

[nearco]

Why give others an advantage?

Are you suggesting that Lasix is a performance enhancer? ;) ;)

[cj]

Are you suggesting that Lasix is a performance enhancer? ;) ;)

Of course it is, of this I have no doubt.

[Cannon shell]

Now you're just dodging. The proliferation of Lasix times almost exactly with the big dropoff in average starts, and the chances of that being purely coincidental are almost nil.
I'm not dodging at all. The 1st year I worked with horses was in Saratoga in 1980. I never saw a Lasix shot given until 1985.

The proliferation of stallions being bred to 100 mares happened at the same time. The proliferation of mares that would have stood no chance of being bred were producing foals every year.

How come we don't see the drop off in harness horses?

[Cannon shell]

[QUOTE=Cannon shell]I don't believe this is entirely accurate. While I wasn't around before that I have heard some stories from pretty credible people.[/QUOT


I was around. While there was plenty of drugging , it was a much lower caliber drug. There were periods where different strong pain killers went through testing. But not like now. In the early eighties horses were getting pain killers , cheap priced bronchial drugs right in the trachea , and clorox bleach in the vein. All passed testing then. Now horses race on newer stronger breathing drugs, snail venom as pain killers , and darpepoetin blood builders and cancer drugs. There is no comparison .
I guess I will have to take your word for it

[RXB]

I'm not dodging at all. The 1st year I worked with horses was in Saratoga in 1980. I never saw a Lasix shot given until 1985.

The proliferation of stallions being bred to 100 mares happened at the same time. The proliferation of mares that would have stood no chance of being bred were producing foals every year.

How come we don't see the drop off in harness horses?

New York didn't permit the stuff.

Re: standardbreds, you'll have to try another tack.

http://cs.bloodhorse.com/blogs/racinghub/archive/2012/10/05/drugs-conditioning-and-the-american-racehorse.aspx

Before the legal use of Lasix, American Standardbreds averaged over 100 race starts. Since the Standardbred racing industry has allowed the legal use of Lasix that number has dropped to 67 lifetime race starts.

Face it, the circumstantial evidence is rather compelling.

[Cannon shell]

New York didn't permit the stuff.

Re: standardbreds, you'll have to try another tack.

http://cs.bloodhorse.com/blogs/racinghub/archive/2012/10/05/drugs-conditioning-and-the-american-racehorse.aspx

Before the legal use of Lasix, American Standardbreds averaged over 100 race starts. Since the Standardbred racing industry has allowed the legal use of Lasix that number has dropped to 67 lifetime race starts.

Face it, the circumstantial evidence is rather compelling.
I know NY didn't permit it for raceday use but the point is that it wasn't widely used in training either.

Yet a great deal of standardbreds don't race on Lasix.

I don't know that the stat is accurate

[classhandicapper]

You may not give your child lasix , but tons of track people and professional cyclist have been caught using lasix like diuretics to enhance performance. It is because it works.




The difference being that an adult is deciding for themselves what to put into their system. Children are generally not considered mature enough to decide and animals have no choice.

If we are operating under different standards for animals (and I agree we are), then I'm suggesting we should change that because IMHO the immorality of it (let alone how how fans react) is clear enough.

If an animal is in pain, sick etc... then by all means we should be treating them with medications, but that's different than drugging them up so they can run and potentially doing harm.

[Cannon shell]

The difference being that an adult is deciding for themselves what to put into their system. Children are generally not considered mature enough to decide and animals have no choice.

If we are operating under different standards for animals (and I agree we are), then I'm suggesting we should change that because IMHO the immorality of it (let alone how how fans react) is clear enough.

If an animal is in pain, sick etc... then by all means we should be treating them with medications, but that's different than drugging them up so they can run and potentially doing harm.
So trying to prevent them from bleeding is not humane?

[magwell]

If the average fan would see a horse that was pulled up bleeding from both nostrils and the jock with blood all over him, they would be wanting all horses on lasix, (especially if they bet on that horse) ....but I could be wrong wouldn't be the first time....;)

[Cannon shell]

If the average fan would see a horse that was pulled up bleeding from both nostrils and the jock with blood all over him, they would be wanting all horses on lasix, (especially if they bet on that horse) ....but I could be wrong wouldn't be the first time....;)
The average fan now rarely even sees a live horse very often

[magwell]

The average fan now rarely even sees a live horse very often Your Right, .......Before it was legal we used to do a lot of things to empty them out before a race........;)

[chadk66]

If your young son/daughter was a track and field competitor, would you give lasix it to him/her regularly to help with performance even if he/she had no health issues that required its use?

If you answer yes, I'm just going to shake my head.

If you answer no, I'm going to say that the industry should be treating horses with the same degree of respect and concern for their long term health and well being as they would their own child since the horses they are responsible can't decide for themselves what's going to be put into their systems.

The economics are the economics. If it can't survive in it's present form without the use of all these drugs, then the industry has to change.not sure who this question was target to but I'll give you my two cents. there are millions of people on lasix in this country and are still alive because of it. lasix does not enhance performance so your question is a moot point. you wouldn't give your son or daughter lasix to improve their performance so you'd be pissing down your leg.

[chadk66]

There's propaganda being fed about Lasix alright; but much of it is flowing in the opposite direction from what you claim. Someone has to be either oblivious or untruthful to propagate the idea that Lasix hasn't been used widely for reasons other than preventing bleeding.

By the way, fewer horses is a real problem unless there's a concomitant increase in the number of starts per horse. The latter is never going to happen as long as Lasix (and other drugs-- legal and otherwise) are being used widely and regularly. Running an animal into a state of dehydration is going to require additional recovery time, pure and simple. And we're talking about a breed that prefers cool climes but is often being raced in warm or even downright hot temperatures. Add a powerful diuretic into the mix and the consequences are obvious. It was right around the time that Lasix began being used widely in the mid-70's that starts per horse really started falling dramatically. I doubt that it was just a coincidence.fewer races has nothing to do with lasix. I've pointed out I've had numerous horses that raced every 12-14 days that ran on lasix. The dehydration from lasix is vastly over hyped. To make a blanket statement like that is foolish considering every single horse reacts differently to any medication. Some horses suffer absolutely no dehydration issues whatsoever from it's use. Some, especially those that tend to wash out whether on lasix or not, take an extra few days to rehydrate. This is easily compensated for by the trainer. You handicappers are putting way too much thought into lasix use. It's going to drive you nuts for absolutely no gain.

[chadk66]

One reason: masking agent.

In 1950, starts per year was 10.91. In 1975, it was 10.23. But by 1985 it was only 8.28-- almost a 20% drop within just 10 years. That was the decade when Lasix was introduced widely (both formally and informally) into North American racing. The decline in the following 25 years, 1985-2010, was consistent but not nearly as dramatic-- a drop of 26% over 25 years.It's nothing more than a change in philosophy. Tiger woods is a perfect example of this. what's he golf, maybe 12 tournaments a year and killed everybody in earnings.

[chadk66]

Doesn't work as a masking agent with modern testing

1960- 11.31 starts
1980- 9.21 starts

It is unreasonable to believe that Lasix caused this drop as very few horses were being treated with it prior to 1980.

It's actually pretty unreasonable to consider that Lasix had anything to do with the number of starts considering the plethora of other factors that could have an effect. In 1960 there were 37661 races run in N America. By 1980 there were 68243. By 1990 there were 79971. Just the fact that the number of starters exploded from 29k to 89k would easily explain the difference. It would hard to imagine that the overall quality of a population of 89000 starters would be the same as 29000.and to add to it, during the 80's and 90's it was hard to get a horse into a race because there were so many entries. The whole industry has changed a ton in the last 30 years.

[chadk66]

If the average fan would see a horse that was pulled up bleeding from both nostrils and the jock with blood all over him, they would be wanting all horses on lasix, (especially if they bet on that horse) ....but I could be wrong wouldn't be the first time....;)that's a fact jack:ThmbUp:to not run a bleeder on Lasix is extremely humane. and the bottom line is this. if you outlaw lasix you will see smaller fields and tracks closing all over the place.

[RXB]

It's nothing more than a change in philosophy. Tiger woods is a perfect example of this. what's he golf, maybe 12 tournaments a year and killed everybody in earnings.

Right, and trainers/owners at Canterbury or Turf Paradise is making Tiger Woods cash and that's why they race their horses so much less often? A baseless analogy.

[Grits]

not sure who this question was target to but I'll give you my two cents. there are millions of people on lasix in this country and are still alive because of it. lasix does not enhance performance so your question is a moot point. you wouldn't give your son or daughter lasix to improve their performance so you'd be pissing down your leg.

These millions that you speak of. They are experiencing well documented, chronic, life threatening, congestive heart failure, lung disease brought about by the lack of performance of their heart muscle, or problems associated with renal failure. Not to mention its use for hypertension as well. The drug is helping to save their lives.

THIS is not the case with race horses. Every single race horse does not automatically need to be administered lasix to live.

I'm sorry, but this is a poor comparison. One is given as a result of much investigation and testing. The other is given as "oh well, their horses are on it, so you can bet mine's gonna be on it. He (might) be a bleeder."

Every horse doesn't bleed. But every horse somehow seems to wind up on it. Big difference with humans, to say the very least. So we have a great difference in your comparison. And the OPs comment, for this reason, is not moot.

[RXB]

These millions that you speak of. They are experiencing well documented, chronic, life threatening, congestive heart failure, lung disease brought about by the lack of performance of their heart muscle, or problems associated with renal failure. Not to mention its use for hypertension as well. The drug is helping to save their lives.

THIS is not the case with race horses. Every single race horse does not automatically need to be administered lasix to live.

I'm sorry, but this is a poor comparison. One is given as a result of much investigation and testing. The other is given as "oh well, their horses are on it, so you can bet mine's gonna be on it. He (might) be a bleeder."

Every horse doesn't bleed. But every horse somehow seems to wind up on it. Big difference with humans, to say the very least. So we have a great difference in your comparison. And the OPs comment, for this reason, is not moot.

Well said.

[cj]

Serious question here, are we just tossing aside Sheppard's opinion because he might have a conflict of interest? Isn't he one of the most respected guys around?

[Cannon shell]

These millions that you speak of. They are experiencing well documented, chronic, life threatening, congestive heart failure, lung disease brought about by the lack of performance of their heart muscle, or problems associated with renal failure. Not to mention its use for hypertension as well. The drug is helping to save their lives.

THIS is not the case with race horses. Every single race horse does not automatically need to be administered lasix to live.

I'm sorry, but this is a poor comparison. One is given as a result of much investigation and testing. The other is given as "oh well, their horses are on it, so you can bet mine's gonna be on it. He (might) be a bleeder."

Every horse doesn't bleed. But every horse somehow seems to wind up on it. Big difference with humans, to say the very least. So we have a great difference in your comparison. And the OPs comment, for this reason, is not moot.
So EIPH in racehorses hasn't been a well documented disease of the airway system? There hasn't been investigation and research?

Despite the denial of some Lasix works and has a valid use in PREVENTION of bleeding. It isn't given to a horse as a cure or treatment for an acute case of bleeding. If your horse bleeds after the race you don't give them Lasix after the fact. It is used as a preventative measure pure and simple, and use is documented and transparent. You say that every horse doesn't bleed but how can you tell the difference between one who will and one who won't?

Every kid with asthma doesn't have an attack everyday but they always carry an inhaler. It's just common sense.

[Cannon shell]

Serious question here, are we just tossing aside Sheppard's opinion because he might have a conflict of interest? Isn't he one of the most respected guys around?
His opinion is just his opinion. He isn't a vet nor has he done any research into the subject. While I respect his horse training ability immensely and I like him personally I disagree with his assessment as do the vast majority of other respected trainers who have had the guts to speak up on the subject.

[cj]

Every kid with asthma doesn't have an attack everyday but they always carry an inhaler. It's just common sense.

Carrying one, and using it, are two different things.

Lasix was first used to prevent bleeding in known bleeders. Now, it is used on almost all horses whether they have bled or not. How did we get to this point?

Also, Lasix is not always effective. Many horses bleed despite Lasix.

...vast majority of other respected trainers who have had the guts to speak up on the subject.

I haven't seen many speak out at all, so a vast majority would be pretty tough to believe.

[Cannon shell]

Carrying one, and using it, are two different things.

Lasix was first used to prevent bleeding in known bleeders. Now, it is used on almost all horses whether they have bled or not. How did we get to this point?

Also, Lasix is not always effective. Many horses bleed despite Lasix.



I haven't seen many speak out at all, so a vast majority would be pretty tough to believe.
Semantics as there is no perfect analogy but you get the point.

Lasix is very effective. This is hardly debatable.

Your last sentence shows me that you aren't really paying attention or just being contrary. Mott, Pletcher, Kimmel, Motion, Baffert, Violette, Romans Clement just off the top of my head have made public statements supporting usage . Those guys are big enough that they aren't afraid to speak out and people print what they say.
I suppose if you don't consider 95% to be a vast majority so be it.

[chadk66]

These millions that you speak of. They are experiencing well documented, chronic, life threatening, congestive heart failure, lung disease brought about by the lack of performance of their heart muscle, or problems associated with renal failure. Not to mention its use for hypertension as well. The drug is helping to save their lives.

THIS is not the case with race horses. Every single race horse does not automatically need to be administered lasix to live.

I'm sorry, but this is a poor comparison. One is given as a result of much investigation and testing. The other is given as "oh well, their horses are on it, so you can bet mine's gonna be on it. He (might) be a bleeder."

Every horse doesn't bleed. But every horse somehow seems to wind up on it. Big difference with humans, to say the very least. So we have a great difference in your comparison. And the OPs comment, for this reason, is not moot.you can scour this board for days and you will never see where I've suggested every horse needs it. Quite the contrary. There is no reason to use it unless the horse is a bleeder. I've said this over and over. I do not buy into the "enhancement" theory of the drug thus there is no reason to use it other than for bleeders.

[cj]

Semantics as there is no perfect analogy but you get the point.

Lasix is very effective. This is hardly debatable.

Your last sentence shows me that you aren't really paying attention or just being contrary. Mott, Pletcher, Kimmel, Motion, Baffert, Violette, Romans Clement just off the top of my head have made public statements supporting usage . Those guys are big enough that they aren't afraid to speak out and people print what they say.
I suppose if you don't consider 95% to be a vast majority so be it.

I've paid attention, but I don't keep a tally. You act like Sheppard it the only one against. I've seen enough in my 35 years of racing to believe the facts show Lasix is a net negative. There are some pluses, and some minuses. I certainly don't think Lasix is the only factor in many of the negatives, but I do believe it is a factor.

[cj]

you can scour this board for days and you will never see where I've suggested every horse needs it. Quite the contrary. There is no reason to use it unless the horse is a bleeder. I've said this over and over. I do not buy into the "enhancement" theory of the drug thus there is no reason to use it other than for bleeders.

So why does almost every horse get it before even racing once? And why are horses that don't get it first out such terrible bets?

[thespaah]

Cannon Shell is not going to like this.
yeah..That guy is as pro laisix as it gets.
As far as he is concerned, horses should come with a lifetime supply.
Scary

[chadk66]

Carrying one, and using it, are two different things.

Lasix was first used to prevent bleeding in known bleeders. Now, it is used on almost all horses whether they have bled or not. How did we get to this point?

Also, Lasix is not always effective. Many horses bleed despite Lasix.



I haven't seen many speak out at all, so a vast majority would be pretty tough to believe.I dont know how we got to the point of using lasix in everything because I was absent from the business for quite a number of years. But I would bet a big part of it was from the betting public wanting an even playing field. And from trainers that refused to race in jurisdictions that didn't allow lasix. And now that testing is so advanced the fear of masking is non-existent so they have relaxed the rules. It's just running fewer races in a year, things evolve over time.

[Grits]

So EIPH in racehorses hasn't been a well documented disease of the airway system? There hasn't been investigation and research?

Despite the denial of some Lasix works and has a valid use in PREVENTION of bleeding. It isn't given to a horse as a cure or treatment for an acute case of bleeding. If your horse bleeds after the race you don't give them Lasix after the fact. It is used as a preventative measure pure and simple, and use is documented and transparent. You say that every horse doesn't bleed but how can you tell the difference between one who will and one who won't?

I'm sorry, but please, don't misunderstand me. Don't underestimate your readers. The gentlemen, here, along with myself and a small handful of other women, have been following this sport for a long time. Many for decades, long before lasix was ever a concern. We are fully aware of EIPH, its problems, and how lasix is used to effect, and how it is administered.

Every kid with asthma doesn't have an attack everyday but they always carry an inhaler. It's just common sense.

81 mgs of aspirin is KNOWN to help in the prevention of heart attacks. It, too, is well documented by the American Heart Association and advised by every practicing cardiologist in the country. However, this doesn't mean every adult, age 50 and beyond, takes low dose aspirin every day of their lives to prevent a heart attack that may not ever come to them.

In the practice of medicine, there is a term used by physicians, "upon presentation, the patient exhibited. "upon examination, the patient exhibited".......". Decisions are made, at that time. BLANKET decisions of protocol regarding the administration of drugs are not made in medicine. For humans, they're made individually. Problems have to present themselves before one is placed on a medication.

Horses should be treated in the same manner. Trainers are not veterinarians, but they can sure twist one's arm.

You can visit this over and over Mr.Shell, but you're going to find those who question the need for lasix in every race horse including young horses. This, and the long time question of whether it does enhance performance. I'm not convinced you'll change the minds of those who've followed the sport for years and may have their own opinions.

While on the subject of drugs, maybe you can explain to us the head shaking question of, "WELL, WHO KNEW?" Delaware trainer, Donald Roberson was ruled off for two years, recently, when compounded syringes were found in his barn. Injecting his horses with CIALIS.

[Grits]

I dont know how we got to the point of using lasix in everything because I was absent from the business for quite a number of years. But I would bet a big part of it was from the betting public wanting an even playing field. And from trainers that refused to race in jurisdictions that didn't allow lasix. And now that testing is so advanced the fear of masking is non-existent so they have relaxed the rules. It's just running fewer races in a year, things evolve over time.

Chad, I'm going to tell you like a friend. THIS IS A BAD BET!!

My money'd be sitting on the shoulders of every trainer who insisted upon it. Industry wide. Along with their owners--who wanted to level the playing field. Don't put it on the bettors. Oh, no. You'll lose your shorts on this one.

[Grits]

I forgot, gentlemen. Here's the link to our thoroughbred trainer who was going for the real stamina drug, the real hard stuff for his horses.

http://www.drf.com/news/delaware-park-trainers-syringes-had-active-ingredient-cialis

Lord, help us, what has happened to the sport.:lol:

[Cannon shell]

I've paid attention, but I don't keep a tally. You act like Sheppard it the only one against. I've seen enough in my 35 years of racing to believe the facts show Lasix is a net negative. There are some pluses, and some minuses. I certainly don't think Lasix is the only factor in many of the negatives, but I do believe it is a factor.
You can debate many things but not that the vast majority of trainers are not in agreement with Sheppards view.

[Cannon shell]

So why does almost every horse get it before even racing once? And why are horses that don't get it first out such terrible bets?
Prevention. How many times do you have to hear that?

Aren't most horses not trained by a handful of trainers terrible bets first out?

[Cannon shell]

yeah..That guy is as pro laisix as it gets.
As far as he is concerned, horses should come with a lifetime supply.
Scary
I'm more anti anti-Lasix people because most of them have no idea what they are talking about.

[cj]

Prevention. How many times do you have to hear that?

Aren't most horses not trained by a handful of trainers terrible bets first out?

Well, I'm sorry, but I just can't see drugging every horse every time out "just in case". That just isn't going to play very well in the public opinion of the sport.

Non-lasix vs lasix first time out is not even close in terms of performance, regardless of trainer. Of course these days you don't see much non-lasix, but I've been doing this long enough to remember when it was significant.

[cj]

You can debate many things but not that the vast majority of trainers are not in agreement with Sheppards view.

I'm sure they aren't, but again, that doesn't make them right. Many of the "vast majority" probably never trained without lasix. It has been around a very long time now.

[Cannon shell]

I'm sorry, but please, don't misunderstand me. Don't underestimate your readers. The gentlemen, here, along with myself and a small handful of other women, have been following this sport for a long time. Many for decades, long before lasix was ever a concern. We are fully aware of EIPH, its problems, and how lasix is used to effect, and how it is administered.



81 mgs of aspirin is KNOWN to help in the prevention of heart attacks. It, too, is well documented by the American Heart Association and advised by every practicing cardiologist in the country. However, this doesn't mean every adult, age 50 and beyond, takes low dose aspirin every day of their lives to prevent a heart attack that may not ever come to them.

In the practice of medicine, there is a term used by physicians, "upon presentation, the patient exhibited. "upon examination, the patient exhibited".......". Decisions are made, at that time. BLANKET decisions of protocol regarding the administration of drugs are not made in medicine. For humans, they're made individually. Problems have to present themselves before one is placed on a medication.

Horses should be treated in the same manner. Trainers are not veterinarians, but they can sure twist one's arm.

You can visit this over and over Mr.Shell, but you're going to find those who question the need for lasix in every race horse including young horses. This, and the long time question of whether it does enhance performance. I'm not convinced you'll change the minds of those who've followed the sport for years and may have their own opinions.

While on the subject of drugs, maybe you can explain to us the head shaking question of, "WELL, WHO KNEW?" Delaware trainer, Donald Roberson was ruled off for two years, recently, when compounded syringes were found in his barn. Injecting his horses with CIALIS.
You think trainers have to twist vets arms to use Lasix? Yeah ok.

I'm not underestimating anyone but nonsense is nonsense and far too often when reasoning is given it is dismissed simply because minds are already made up. People acting as though internal bleeding isn't an issue that should be addressed is astounding to trainers and vets.

When people like CJ who I know follow the sport on a daily basis attempt to act as though the vast majority of trainers don't support Lasix usage it just makes me shake my head. If THAT isn't a given then I'm not sure why I even bother.

It seems like a large percentage of people who fall into the anti-Lasix crowd also believe that trainers and vets are either buffoons, crooks, "drug pushers" or idiots. While all of those types can be found in any profession for the most part we aren't. A tremendous amount of time and energy has been dedicated to this subject long before it was popular to be against Lasix. A lot of people far smarter than me have come to the same conclusion that use of Lasix helps prevent bleeders and acts to lessen severity of incidents. The vet from Michigan State whose name eludes me has done a tremendous amount of research into EIPH and his conclusions are that Lasix works and works even better combined with nasal strips. He has no axe to grind, doesn't sell Lasix to trainers, doesn't benefit from his findings. I tend to believe him.

There are a lot of things that we know about bleeding. One is that once a horse has a bleeding incident they are far more apt to have more. We also know that post incident treatment is important as those horses are far more apt to develop infections. Knowing this it is hard for me as a trainer to not try to prevent bleeding the easiest and most cost effective way possible. What we don't know is when it will happen. You can see a horse traveling poorly before the race and know that they have soundness issues but you can't just look at one in the paddock and know that he will bleed today.

It most certainly isn't the black and white issue that so many seem to have decided it is.

[Cannon shell]

Well, I'm sorry, but I just can't see drugging every horse every time out "just in case". That just isn't going to play very well in the public opinion of the sport.

Non-lasix vs lasix first time out is not even close in terms of performance, regardless of trainer. Of course these days you don't see much non-lasix, but I've been doing this long enough to remember when it was significant.

Medicating horses isn't evil. Using "drugging" is disingenuous. If you explain the reasoning for medicating horses people get it as just about everyone is medicated in some way, shape or form now days. Only thoroughbred racehorses are supposed to be treated organically. Isn't it enough that they are vegans?

[Cannon shell]

I'm sure they aren't, but again, that doesn't make them right. Many of the "vast majority" probably never trained without lasix. It has been around a very long time now.

So now you no longer doubt that the vast majority support Lasix?

However because they aren't old their opinions are not really valid?

I suppose using the "they don't have enough experience to have an accurate opinion on the topic" theory would invalidate most of the posts in this thread right?

I give up...

[Grits]

Mr.Shell, I believe that no one here feels that trainers are buffoons, idiots, crooks, drug pushers or any other name called. I'd be hard pressed, and most likely so would others, to put my money through a window in order to put money in such an individual's pocket. I don't do favors that way.

I understand you, but I think my response to you was a valid one. My concern is the blanket use of a drug for prevention, when every animal may not be a candidate for that drug. When they present as so...then move forward with treatment. This, too, is common sense. And I believe most physicians would agree.

Racing has a great number of problems. What goes into horses is one that comes up often. There is a need for nationwide rulings, there is a need for all in the industry to agree...on anything...would be a good start.

Thank you for your reply.

[RXB]

It seems like a large percentage of people who fall into the anti-Lasix crowd also believe that trainers and vets are either buffoons, crooks, "drug pushers" or idiots.

Isn't it funny, a lot of people on the backstretch speak about as charitably toward us.

The undeniable fact is that the average starts per horse are down about 40% over the past four decades-- you know, that purely coincidental timing with the proliferation of Lasix.

Along with breeders, it is the trainers and the vets who are responsible for the ability of racehorses to withstand training and racing. If you're all so
competent and smart and dedicated and ethical, why are the animals so lightly raced now? And why isn't there any real action from the people who depend on thoroughbred racing for their livelihoods to reverse a trend (of their own making) that is ruining their industry?

[rastajenk]

Mr.Shell, I believe that no one here feels that trainers are buffoons, idiots, crooks, drug pushers or any other name called.

:D :D :D Sorry, just had to laugh at that. I don't know what percentage here blames trainers for everything, but it's certainly not "no one."

. There is a need for nationwide rulings, there is a need for all in the industry to agree...on anything...would be a good start.

When everyone agrees, there is no room for dissent. That is un-American. Let the states continue to find the right spot for themselves and the participants. That's my minority view, and I'm sticking with it.

[chadk66]

So why does almost every horse get it before even racing once? And why are horses that don't get it first out such terrible bets?because trainers don't understand it doesn't enhance performance. and it's so routine now they think they're doing their owners justice in the name of "preventive measures". It's stupid.

[chadk66]

Chad, I'm going to tell you like a friend. THIS IS A BAD BET!!

My money'd be sitting on the shoulders of every trainer who insisted upon it. Industry wide. Along with their owners--who wanted to level the playing field. Don't put it on the bettors. Oh, no. You'll lose your shorts on this one.the bettors had as big of a hand in it as the horsemen did. look at all the posts on this subject. basically saying they all should use it so the bettors don't get screwed.

[magwell]

Yes, all should run on lasix as a "preventive measure".......(I could be wrong, wouldn't be the first time) .......:)

[cj]

the bettors had as big of a hand in it as the horsemen did. look at all the posts on this subject. basically saying they all should use it so the bettors don't get screwed.

All what posts? SRU? To say bettors had a big hand in the proliferation of Lasix is beyond a Stretch Armstrong type reach. I've been around a lot of horse bettors for three decades and I never heard one clamor for Lasix use.

[cj]

Yes, all should run on lasix as a "preventive measure".......(I could be wrong, wouldn't be the first time) .......:)

A drug that is banned in human competition should be routinely given to every racehorse, just in case?

[magwell]

A drug that is banned in human competition should be routinely given to every racehorse, just in case? YES :bang:

[cj]

So now you no longer doubt that the vast majority support Lasix?

However because they aren't old their opinions are not really valid?

I suppose using the "they don't have enough experience to have an accurate opinion on the topic" theory would invalidate most of the posts in this thread right?

I give up...

Actually, I do doubt it, just didn't figure it was worth debating. I suspect there are plenty of trainers that are against it, but they don't really have the power to speak out.

When Lasix first came out, it was looked upon as a wonder drug. Trainers fought for it more and more. I'm not saying that is wrong. It is a great short term solution. But long term, not so much.

I would like to hear the causes of this:

The undeniable fact is that the average starts per horse are down about 40% over the past four decades-- you know, that purely coincidental timing with the proliferation of Lasix.

I'm not saying Lasix is the ONLY cause, but to say it isn't one of them seems absurd to me. I assume you've been around long enough to remember the arguments for Lasix when it first appeared. The biggest one was horses will be able to race more often. Every time a new state allowed it this was the argument. How has that worked out?

Here is a quote from an article I found from 1995 about New York legalizing Lasix:

It certainly will be a step forward for fans, who watched the quality of racing in New York dip the past few years and the size of its fields shrink. Those problems should be cured come September.

Here is a 1995 article from Andy Beyer on the subject:

http://articles.latimes.com/1995-05-28/sports/sp-6875_1_year-lasix

Yet after two decades of Lasix use in the United States, the pros and cons of the drug are as debatable as ever. The whole rationale behind so-called permissive medication was to help horses withstand the physical stress of the sport and to race more frequently. This hasn't happened.

And my favorite:

As long as trainers and vets are going to cheat anyway, the state might as well make Lasix legal. The conclusion makes sense, but it is hardly reassuring to know that this is how the sport resolved one of the toughest ethical questions it has ever confronted.

Seems like we are stuck in a time warp in horse racing. He could have written the same thing today.

[PICSIX]

If weights of horses were provided/required (like greyhounds) then it would be feasible for racing jurisdictions to make Lasix dosage formulated as a percentage of body weight.

[thespaah]

Name 1 reason what Lasix is used for outside of bleeding?

Lasix isn't the cause of fewer starts, the trend started 25 years before Lasix was widely used and has more or less leveled off.
You have made it abundantly clear that you are a proponent of using lasix for every start.
Mr Sheppard has a different opinion.
Given Mr Sheppard's longevity and success in the business, I defer to his opinion over yours 6 days per week and twice on Sunday.
This is no way meant to impugn your opinion at all.
This is not personal.

[thespaah]

These millions that you speak of. They are experiencing well documented, chronic, life threatening, congestive heart failure, lung disease brought about by the lack of performance of their heart muscle, or problems associated with renal failure. Not to mention its use for hypertension as well. The drug is helping to save their lives.

THIS is not the case with race horses. Every single race horse does not automatically need to be administered lasix to live.

I'm sorry, but this is a poor comparison. One is given as a result of much investigation and testing. The other is given as "oh well, their horses are on it, so you can bet mine's gonna be on it. He (might) be a bleeder."

Every horse doesn't bleed. But every horse somehow seems to wind up on it. Big difference with humans, to say the very least. So we have a great difference in your comparison. And the OPs comment, for this reason, is not moot.
Well stated.# :1:

[thespaah]

So EIPH in racehorses hasn't been a well documented disease of the airway system? There hasn't been investigation and research?

Despite the denial of some Lasix works and has a valid use in PREVENTION of bleeding. It isn't given to a horse as a cure or treatment for an acute case of bleeding. If your horse bleeds after the race you don't give them Lasix after the fact. It is used as a preventative measure pure and simple, and use is documented and transparent. You say that every horse doesn't bleed but how can you tell the difference between one who will and one who won't?

Every kid with asthma doesn't have an attack everyday but they always carry an inhaler. It's just common sense.
Here's the problem.....Lasix treats the effect. Not the cause.
Here in the US there are several renowned veterinary clinics. I cannot fathom as to why none have been commissioned to study the causes of respiratory bleeding in racehorses. And it is also difficult to understand why there has not been a solution for the cause.
As far as I am concerned treating the effect of any ailment is taking the easy way out.

[thespaah]

His opinion is just his opinion. He isn't a vet nor has he done any research into the subject. While I respect his horse training ability immensely and I like him personally I disagree with his assessment as do the vast majority of other respected trainers who have had the guts to speak up on the subject.
"He isn't a vet nor has he done any research into the subject"..
Oh? How can you be certain of that?

[pandy]

Let's not forget that lasix is only allowed in North America and they do just fine without it in the rest of the world.

[thespaah]

I'm more anti anti-Lasix people because most of them have no idea what they are talking about.
I think you have your opinions about Lasix and its accepted uses.
Until someone can produce a study that concludes the physiology of Thoroughred race horses has changed to the point where each animal is naturally subject to respiratory bleeding as a result of vigorous exercise, I reject the idea that all horses must race treated with Lasix.

[chadk66]

A drug that is banned in human competition should be routinely given to every racehorse, just in case?are there any documented cases of humans bleeding from racing?

[chadk66]

If weights of horses were provided/required (like greyhounds) then it would be feasible for racing jurisdictions to make Lasix dosage formulated as a percentage of body weight.that wouldn't be a bad idea. but then you would have to have a detention barn and upon entering it you walk across a scale. it is doable though.

[chadk66]

Here's the problem.....Lasix treats the effect. Not the cause.
Here in the US there are several renowned veterinary clinics. I cannot fathom as to why none have been commissioned to study the causes of respiratory bleeding in racehorses. And it is also difficult to understand why there has not been a solution for the cause.
As far as I am concerned treating the effect of any ailment is taking the easy way out.there were several studies done in the 80's on the causes of bleeding.

[thespaah]

Let's not forget that lasix is only allowed in North America and they do just fine without it in the rest of the world.
Excellent point!

[thespaah]

there were several studies done in the 80's on the causes of bleeding.
Can you offer one of the conclusions of a study?

[chadk66]

Can you offer one of the conclusions of a study?now your getting back into the deepest coffers of my memory. Off the top of my head I don't recall the exact findings but I do remember they weren't earth shattering. Pretty straight forward stuff. If I remember correctly part of it was the fact that they have tiny capillaries that aren't fully developed deep within their lungs and they rupture. Also, mucous and dirt and debri was a contributing factor if I recall. I'll do some digging and see if I can find info on it but most of the stuff from that era isn't on the net. But I do agree they should be studying it more. And perhaps they are. The scientific community has alot more in their arsenal now than they did in the 80's. I can't imagine they aren't working on it. Could be that they are and they aren't finding anything different than they did in the past so were not hearing about it.

[Cannon shell]

Mr.Shell, I believe that no one here feels that trainers are buffoons, idiots, crooks, drug pushers or any other name called. I'd be hard pressed, and most likely so would others, to put my money through a window in order to put money in such an individual's pocket. I don't do favors that way.

I understand you, but I think my response to you was a valid one. My concern is the blanket use of a drug for prevention, when every animal may not be a candidate for that drug. When they present as so...then move forward with treatment. This, too, is common sense. And I believe most physicians would agree.

Racing has a great number of problems. What goes into horses is one that comes up often. There is a need for nationwide rulings, there is a need for all in the industry to agree...on anything...would be a good start.

Thank you for your reply.
The problem with the theory that you espoused is that who makes the determination of "when they present"? Who determines what the line is? A drop? A trace? In the end everyone winds up on it anyway which is why we are where we are.

The irony of your last statement was that the industry did agree on the Lasix subject for quite some time until a few bluebloods decided that supertrainers were winning too many races. You may not believe it but that is why this topic most recently became controversial once again after 25 years.

[Cannon shell]

Isn't it funny, a lot of people on the backstretch speak about as charitably toward us.

The undeniable fact is that the average starts per horse are down about 40% over the past four decades-- you know, that purely coincidental timing with the proliferation of Lasix.

Along with breeders, it is the trainers and the vets who are responsible for the ability of racehorses to withstand training and racing. If you're all so
competent and smart and dedicated and ethical, why are the animals so lightly raced now? And why isn't there any real action from the people who depend on thoroughbred racing for their livelihoods to reverse a trend (of their own making) that is ruining their industry?
I hate to rain on your parade but almost no one on the backside talks bad about people who bet on the races. Half the people back there probably bet a far greater amount on horse races proportionate to what they make than most non racing bettors.

What is this ability to withstand racing and training? How exactly does one quantify that? The idea that individuals can reverse a nationwide trend is puzzling? I can only train what horses reside in my stalls. How can breed horses that might happen to race more than average? Breed to plodders and get sound horses that don't may starts because they are too slow to compete? As I've said before most trainers are barely keeping their head above water and are doing the best that they can with what they have. The idea that I or any other individual has some sort of ability to address a 50 year trend is laughable.

[Cannon shell]

All what posts? SRU? To say bettors had a big hand in the proliferation of Lasix is beyond a Stretch Armstrong type reach. I've been around a lot of horse bettors for three decades and I never heard one clamor for Lasix use.
I've been around a lot of bettors for that long and can't ever remember one complain about it

[Cannon shell]

Actually, I do doubt it, just didn't figure it was worth debating. I suspect there are plenty of trainers that are against it, but they don't really have the power to speak out.

When Lasix first came out, it was looked upon as a wonder drug. Trainers fought for it more and more. I'm not saying that is wrong. It is a great short term solution. But long term, not so much.

I would like to hear the causes of this:



I'm not saying Lasix is the ONLY cause, but to say it isn't one of them seems absurd to me. I assume you've been around long enough to remember the arguments for Lasix when it first appeared. The biggest one was horses will be able to race more often. Every time a new state allowed it this was the argument. How has that worked out?

Here is a quote from an article I found from 1995 about New York legalizing Lasix:



Here is a 1995 article from Andy Beyer on the subject:

http://articles.latimes.com/1995-05-28/sports/sp-6875_1_year-lasix



And my favorite:



Seems like we are stuck in a time warp in horse racing. He could have written the same thing today.

If you doubt that the vast majority of trainers are pro Lasix use then you are simply out of touch. I don't know more than a handful of trainers that have waffled on Lasix and two of them specifically are just trying to use their non Lasix stance to curry favor with the anti-lasix owners. A couple of the guys who aren't using Lasix on 2 yo's have admitted privately that they feel its a mistake but have to remain politically correct.

Lasix is a non perfect answer to a difficult problem. If someone comes up with a better solution I would like to hear it. The idea that eliminating Lasix use will make horses run more often is absurd.

[Cannon shell]

You have made it abundantly clear that you are a proponent of using lasix for every start.
Mr Sheppard has a different opinion.
Given Mr Sheppard's longevity and success in the business, I defer to his opinion over yours 6 days per week and twice on Sunday.
This is no way meant to impugn your opinion at all.
This is not personal.
I had a filly that I raced without Lasix a few years back as a 2 year old. The weather was really hot and she was light already and she was running short on the grass. She made 2 starts before breaking her maiden w/o Lasix. We ran in an allowance race after that because there are very few spots for 2 yo winners in late summer and she bled terribly. We wound up giving her a long time off and tried her on Lasix when she came back the following winter but she never ran well again after that. Bleeding severely basically ruined her. For all we know she may have bled through Lasix that day had she been on it but the likelihood is that the bleeding would have been less severe and she wouldn't have done as much damage. Sure it's conjecture but put yourself in my position and ask yourself if you wouldn't second guess yourself?

JS is a great trainer and his accomplishments surely dwarf mine however he has the luxury that virtually all other trainers in this country don't have with a private training farm, extremely well heeled owners and the ability to be as patient as he wants with his horses. His view comes from a far different place than 99% of other US trainers.

[Cannon shell]

Here's the problem.....Lasix treats the effect. Not the cause.
Here in the US there are several renowned veterinary clinics. I cannot fathom as to why none have been commissioned to study the causes of respiratory bleeding in racehorses. And it is also difficult to understand why there has not been a solution for the cause.
As far as I am concerned treating the effect of any ailment is taking the easy way out.
You don't think this has been studied? There is a research professor at Michigan State I think named Robinson who has dedicated his entire career to EIPH.

There are many causes of EIPH and that is one of the difficulties in dealing with it. It isn't like most of the other ailments that you can see coming or monitor. A horse with imperfect conformation for example is going to have soundess issues depending on the imperfections. You can monitor the area's that are most likely to give them trouble. Back at the knee horses for example almost always develop bone chips or spurs. If you feel heat or there is filling you can xray and see what the joint looks like and deal with the problem accordingly. Sometimes its chips that need to be removed surgically, sometimes its spurs that can be dealt with via injections of lubricants, sometimes there are "hot spots" on the bone where fractures are likely to form and the horse needs time off. With EIPH you don't know when its coming or how bad it will be. I guarantee that a few horses getting ready for next weeks BC are going to wind up bleeding despite having the best trainers and best vets in the world monitoring their health and well being.

[Cannon shell]

"He isn't a vet nor has he done any research into the subject"..
Oh? How can you be certain of that?
Because I know him.

[Cannon shell]

Let's not forget that lasix is only allowed in North America and they do just fine without it in the rest of the world.
Lasix is allowed in S America

[Cannon shell]

I think you have your opinions about Lasix and its accepted uses.
Until someone can produce a study that concludes the physiology of Thoroughred race horses has changed to the point where each animal is naturally subject to respiratory bleeding as a result of vigorous exercise, I reject the idea that all horses must race treated with Lasix.
Lasix started (as been pointed out so many times in this thread) 40 years ago. Think 40 years ago they just decided out of the blue to use it?

[RXB]

What is this ability to withstand racing and training? How exactly does one quantify that? The idea that individuals can reverse a nationwide trend is puzzling? I can only train what horses reside in my stalls. How can breed horses that might happen to race more than average? Breed to plodders and get sound horses that don't may starts because they are too slow to compete? As I've said before most trainers are barely keeping their head above water and are doing the best that they can with what they have. The idea that I or any other individual has some sort of ability to address a 50 year trend is laughable.

How do you quantify the ability to withstand racing and training? Well, a 40% drop in starts over four decades is a quantification, and a rather telling one at that. Doesn't seem too hard to understand. And all of it after the proliferation of Lasix. It would have to be a coincidence of near-outlier proportion in order for Lasix not to be a causal factor in that decline.

Breeders and trainers are the ones responsible for the ability and fitness of the animals. You can try to dodge around that fact any way you please but you're not fooling anyone. And the whole point is that those of you in the industry can't just keep doing what you've been doing. IT'S NOT WORKING. Isn't that obvious? You aren't producing horses that are fit enough to race often enough to make horse ownership reasonably attractive, thus owners are bailing left, right and centre. Plus, the short fields are turning off bettors. If it wasn't for the subsidies from other gaming, racing would be going down the tubes even faster.

[Cannon shell]

How do you quantify the ability to withstand racing and training? Well, a 40% drop in starts over four decades is a quantification, and a rather telling one at that. Doesn't seem too hard to understand. And all of it after the proliferation of Lasix. It would have to be a coincidence of near-outlier proportion in order for Lasix not to be a causal factor in that decline.

Breeders and trainers are the ones responsible for the ability and fitness of the animals. You can try to dodge around that fact any way you please but you're not fooling anyone. And the whole point is that those of you in the industry can't just keep doing what you've been doing. IT'S NOT WORKING. Isn't that obvious? You aren't producing horses that are fit enough to race often enough to make horse ownership reasonably attractive, thus owners are bailing left, right and centre. Plus, the short fields are turning off bettors. If it wasn't for the subsidies from other gaming, racing would be going down the tubes even faster.
Yeah and when you show a direct cause and effect to Lasix and fewer starts I'll be able to give you a better answer. Baseball starting pitchers also have seen fewer and shorter starts during this same time period. Perhaps Lasix is causing this as well?

Despite your assertions there is no realistic way to think that simply eliminating Lasix is going to lead to a increase in number of starts. Why would this be? Are horses suddenly going to be stronger or more correct because they don't get 6 or 7 Lasix shots a year?

Racing more unsuccessfully wont increase ownership. The idea that Lasix is holding back or injuring modern horses is a false notion. We were all told that the elimination of rampant steroid use was going to change things. It didn't and actually you'd have to be a fool to believe that some of the latest genius trainers cropping up aren't using synthetic, presently untestable steroids that are giving them a leg up over those who follow the rules.

Again try telling that owner that just spent a significant amount of money that hey your horse bleeds but a bunch of bluebloods and guys on the internet need you to not use Lasix because we think we might try to reverse a 40 year trend.

[RXB]

Yeah and when you show a direct cause and effect to Lasix and fewer starts I'll be able to give you a better answer. Baseball starting pitchers also have seen fewer and shorter starts during this same time period. Perhaps Lasix is causing this as well?


Sorry, I didn't realize that baseball players were being shot up with Lasix by horse trainers. Thanks for clueing me in on that point.

[Cannon shell]

Sorry, I didn't realize that baseball players were being shot up with Lasix by horse trainers. Thanks for clueing me in on that point.
Just a coincidence.

[RXB]

Just a coincidence.

Brilliant stuff. You should be running the HBPA.

[chadk66]

I had a filly that I raced without Lasix a few years back as a 2 year old. The weather was really hot and she was light already and she was running short on the grass. She made 2 starts before breaking her maiden w/o Lasix. We ran in an allowance race after that because there are very few spots for 2 yo winners in late summer and she bled terribly. We wound up giving her a long time off and tried her on Lasix when she came back the following winter but she never ran well again after that. Bleeding severely basically ruined her. For all we know she may have bled through Lasix that day had she been on it but the likelihood is that the bleeding would have been less severe and she wouldn't have done as much damage. Sure it's conjecture but put yourself in my position and ask yourself if you wouldn't second guess yourself?

JS is a great trainer and his accomplishments surely dwarf mine however he has the luxury that virtually all other trainers in this country don't have with a private training farm, extremely well heeled owners and the ability to be as patient as he wants with his horses. His view comes from a far different place than 99% of other US trainers.you mean to tell me that when you ran her on lasix it didn't enhance her performance?;)

[chadk66]

Yeah and when you show a direct cause and effect to Lasix and fewer starts I'll be able to give you a better answer. Baseball starting pitchers also have seen fewer and shorter starts during this same time period. Perhaps Lasix is causing this as well?

Despite your assertions there is no realistic way to think that simply eliminating Lasix is going to lead to a increase in number of starts. Why would this be? Are horses suddenly going to be stronger or more correct because they don't get 6 or 7 Lasix shots a year?

Racing more unsuccessfully wont increase ownership. The idea that Lasix is holding back or injuring modern horses is a false notion. We were all told that the elimination of rampant steroid use was going to change things. It didn't and actually you'd have to be a fool to believe that some of the latest genius trainers cropping up aren't using synthetic, presently untestable steroids that are giving them a leg up over those who follow the rules.

Again try telling that owner that just spent a significant amount of money that hey your horse bleeds but a bunch of bluebloods and guys on the internet need you to not use Lasix because we think we might try to reverse a 40 year trend.I tried to explain to him what the elimination of lasix would do to the industry. I don't think he understood that.

[Cannon shell]

Brilliant stuff. You should be running the HBPA.
Well ok then...

[Cannon shell]

I tried to explain to him what the elimination of lasix would do to the industry. I don't think he understood that.

It isn't a black and white issue. I have been working with horses for 30 years and I don't see a physiological reason why running w/o Lasix is going to make horses more likely to run more often. Particularly with the way the modern condition book has evolved with cheap claimers being campaigned like allowance horses and with trainers win % meaning so much more than it used to.

[Cannon shell]

you mean to tell me that when you ran her on lasix it didn't enhance her performance?;)
She just never was worth a damn again. Sent her in for testing, etc. Nothing. Just wouldn't try.

[thespaah]

You don't think this has been studied? There is a research professor at Michigan State I think named Robinson who has dedicated his entire career to EIPH.

There are many causes of EIPH and that is one of the difficulties in dealing with it. It isn't like most of the other ailments that you can see coming or monitor. A horse with imperfect conformation for example is going to have soundess issues depending on the imperfections. You can monitor the area's that are most likely to give them trouble. Back at the knee horses for example almost always develop bone chips or spurs. If you feel heat or there is filling you can xray and see what the joint looks like and deal with the problem accordingly. Sometimes its chips that need to be removed surgically, sometimes its spurs that can be dealt with via injections of lubricants, sometimes there are "hot spots" on the bone where fractures are likely to form and the horse needs time off. With EIPH you don't know when its coming or how bad it will be. I guarantee that a few horses getting ready for next weeks BC are going to wind up bleeding despite having the best trainers and best vets in the world monitoring their health and well being.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1909208
here is a study synopsis which describes the condition by which EIPH is triggered. Simply put, it is 'reduced platelet function"...
Blood platelets are the key contributor to 'clotting' where blood escapes from the circulatory system where by a cut or laceration to the skin or capillary failure.
So, why not do this. Examine each horse at the same time they are examined for other maladies such as Acquired Equine Encephalitis, for the EIPH indicator.
If the animal has this condition, only then and only those should be registered as EIPH bleeders and only those can be given Furosemide as a preventative.
If furosemide is not a performance enhancer then horsemen should have no objection to this proposal.
Horses that do not indicate the low platelet activity would not be eligible for lasix.
Now, the elephant in the room here is why horses outside of North America race sans lasix with no reported ill effects.
What if platelet deficiency is hereditary? And THIS is why bleeding is that much more prevalent in North American horses.
Perhaps breeders should be made aware that breeding two known EIPH positive horses would pass along the EIPH trait?...
Lots to consider...

[Cannon shell]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1909208
here is a study synopsis which describes the condition by which EIPH is triggered. Simply put, it is 'reduced platelet function"...
Blood platelets are the key contributor to 'clotting' where blood escapes from the circulatory system where by a cut or laceration to the skin or capillary failure.
So, why not do this. Examine each horse at the same time they are examined for other maladies such as Acquired Equine Encephalitis, for the EIPH indicator.
If the animal has this condition, only then and only those should be registered as EIPH bleeders and only those can be given Furosemide as a preventative.
If furosemide is not a performance enhancer then horsemen should have no objection to this proposal.
Horses that do not indicate the low platelet activity would not be eligible for lasix.
Now, the elephant in the room here is why horses outside of North America race sans lasix with no reported ill effects.
What if platelet deficiency is hereditary? And THIS is why bleeding is that much more prevalent in North American horses.
Perhaps breeders should be made aware that breeding two known EIPH positive horses would pass along the EIPH trait?...
Lots to consider...

Horses platelet levels are not static and are effected by environmental factors. It isn't that simple.

There are plenty of ill effects. Not sure who they would be reported to?

[thespaah]

Horses platelet levels are not static and are effected by environmental factors. It isn't that simple.

There are plenty of ill effects. Not sure who they would be reported to?
The issue is not the level of platelets, which I assume you mean 'count'..
From what I gather from the synopsis I posted, it is the function or in the case of EIPH lack of function.

[nearco]

Lasix is allowed in S America

Argentina only.