PDA

View Full Version : Lasix:Fact and Myth


HalvOnHorseracing
05-19-2015, 12:08 AM
I apparently wasn't pummeled enough over Kellyn Gorder. I'm back at it again with a piece on Lasix at halveyonhorseracing.com

Seabiscuit@AR
05-19-2015, 05:13 AM
You cannot compare number of starts per year for USA vs say England and take the answer at face value. English flat racing on the turf effectively closes down for a good portion of the year while they have their jumps season. American racing on dirt can still go on through the winter

Sure they have All Weather tracks in the UK during the winter but not everyone wants to race on those so it is true that many English turf horses are put away several months each year

biggestal99
05-19-2015, 06:06 AM
I like the new kentucky law, card races for raceday lasix users, card races for non raceday lasix horses.

That will level the playing field.

Allan

minethatbird08
05-19-2015, 09:04 AM
You cannot compare number of starts per year for USA vs say England and take the answer at face value. English flat racing on the turf effectively closes down for a good portion of the year while they have their jumps season. American racing on dirt can still go on through the winter

Sure they have All Weather tracks in the UK during the winter but not everyone wants to race on those so it is true that many English turf horses are put away several months each year

That is a fair point. However, Australia has year around racing correct? If so you would expect significantly more starts maybe? Just thinking out loud here.

magwell
05-19-2015, 10:14 AM
I like the new kentucky law, card races for raceday lasix users, card races for non raceday lasix horses.

That will level the playing field.

AllanYep that will help the handle on those races..........:rolleyes:......:rolleyes:

whodoyoulike
05-19-2015, 06:38 PM
I like the new kentucky law, card races for raceday lasix users, card races for non raceday lasix horses.

That will level the playing field.

Allan

What does the bold part mean?

Some_One
05-19-2015, 07:16 PM
What does the bold part mean?

They would have races where horses would not be able to run on lasix.

whodoyoulike
05-19-2015, 07:58 PM
They would have races where horses would not be able to run on lasix.

Thank you for clearing it up for me.

Some one (not you) in another thread mentioned that horses weren't allowed to go on and then off lasix at the trainers discretion. The horse would have to be examined by the track vet before being allowed to re-use lasix.

Is this a good thing for the horse's well being?

Today, I don't see very many horses racing without lasix even a lot of FTS are being treated for lasix. Years ago, I remember some jurisdictions didn't allow certain drugs for races but, I don't know of any tracks currently with these restrictions.

Ruffian1
05-20-2015, 08:05 AM
Thank you for clearing it up for me.

Some one (not you) in another thread mentioned that horses weren't allowed to go on and then off lasix at the trainers discretion. The horse would have to be examined by the track vet before being allowed to re-use lasix.

Is this a good thing for the horse's well being?

Today, I don't see very many horses racing without lasix even a lot of FTS are being treated for lasix. Years ago, I remember some jurisdictions didn't allow certain drugs for races but, I don't know of any tracks currently with these restrictions.


That was me, and unless the rules have changed recently, the horse would need to bleed again and be scoped and the bleeding documented with the state. The horse would also be considered a 2nd time bleeder and sit out the appropriate time line for that jurisdiction. The horse would have 2 strikes against them with bleeding so a third bleeding that the state vet might witness would make it 3 strikes. Not sure about today's time off on that but back in my day, it was a one year ban.
Hope that helps.

Seabiscuit@AR
05-20-2015, 08:21 AM
minethatbird08

HalvOnHorseracing says that in Australia they are training horses on lasix (which is correct). So not sure if Australia is supposed to be a lasix country or a non lasix country????

One thing I do know is that in Australia the average backup time between runs is still close to 14 days and has been that way for the last 20 years. So horses once up and running will run once every 2 weeks on average in Australia. In America that gap in days between races has blown out over the years since lasix came into use

cj
05-20-2015, 11:03 AM
I apparently wasn't pummeled enough over Kellyn Gorder. I'm back at it again with a piece on Lasix at halveyonhorseracing.com

I'll be very curious to read. I think it depends on what your sources are. I personally think the truth is undeniable, Lasix enhances performance for all. It does help horses with EIPH, but it does not eliminate it. And, most importantly, it makes it harder for most horses to recover.

I personally don't need to hear much from "experts" on either side of the debate. I have all the evidence I need in the past performances and 30 years of handicapping which spans the pre-Lasix, some-Lasix and nearly all-Lasix eras.

Robert Fischer
05-20-2015, 11:12 AM
I'll be very curious to read. I think it depends on what your sources are. I personally think the truth is undeniable, Lasix enhances performance for all. It does help horses with EIPH, but it does not eliminate it. And, most importantly, it makes it harder for most horses to recover.

I personally don't need to hear much from "experts" on either side of the debate. I have all the evidence I need in the past performances and 30 years of handicapping which spans the pre-Lasix, some-Lasix and nearly all-Lasix eras.

well said

whodoyoulike
05-20-2015, 05:46 PM
That was me, and unless the rules have changed recently, ...

Hope that helps.

Just to let you know I try to pay attention what others post. I'm an outsider (just a bettor) so I appreciate any insights which helps me understand this game a little better.

Ruffian1
05-20-2015, 06:42 PM
Just to let you know I try to pay attention what others post. I'm an outsider (just a bettor) so I appreciate any insights which helps me understand this game a little better.

Hey, anytime. I am a former trainer that maybe goes to the track and reads the form once a year on a major day.

Stillriledup
05-20-2015, 06:47 PM
Just to let you know I try to pay attention what others post. I'm an outsider (just a bettor) so I appreciate any insights which helps me understand this game a little better.

lots of great info posted here by trainers.

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=104608

chadk66
05-20-2015, 07:18 PM
I don't have time to read the article right now but I will. Here is ex-trainer opinion on lasix. First off I'm a bute/lasix only guy. Nothing else should be used. And I believe bute should be used sparingly if not only just prior to racing and maybe a day or so after. It's simply an anti-inflamatory and I can tell you my life would be hell without it. As far as lasix goes here is my belief. I had several horses that were lasix horses that weren't allowed lasix in certain states. they ran just as good with or without lasix. I do not buy lasix being a performance enhancer. It is a drug that allows a horse to run only to his god given ability. It does nothing more. Using lasix on horses that bleed is far more humane than letting them run without it considering they will bleed on occasion. this bleeding is very tough on the horses both physically and mentally. So here where it is very hypocritical to me. The anti-lasix crowd are generally peta type people. in my opinion it is more damaging to a horse that bleeds to run them without it than it is to run them with it. These horses are going to run whether lasix is allowed or not. why on earth would anybody want to put these horses through the process of bleeding when they don't have to. using lasix on race day only now days, considering these horses rarely see the races in three weeks, is really of very little detriment to them as far as recovering from a race. running horses two weeks out in the heart of the summer heat can take a toll. they tend to dehydrate and it's harder to get the fluids back in them. In the fall,winter and spring I don't there there are enough adverse effects from it from race use only to even discuss. but remember one thing, unless this horse pours blood out it's nostrils when it races, it's going to keep racing whether lasix is legal or not. makes no sense to me to put these horses through this when you don't need to.

Aside from these two medications there shouldn't be any other drugs used on race day. I'm totally opposed to banamine. I never could figure out the cavalier attitude on that medication

cj
05-20-2015, 11:38 PM
I don't have time to read the article right now but I will. Here is ex-trainer opinion on lasix. First off I'm a bute/lasix only guy. Nothing else should be used. And I believe bute should be used sparingly if not only just prior to racing and maybe a day or so after. It's simply an anti-inflamatory and I can tell you my life would be hell without it. As far as lasix goes here is my belief. I had several horses that were lasix horses that weren't allowed lasix in certain states. they ran just as good with or without lasix. I do not buy lasix being a performance enhancer. It is a drug that allows a horse to run only to his god given ability. It does nothing more. Using lasix on horses that bleed is far more humane than letting them run without it considering they will bleed on occasion. this bleeding is very tough on the horses both physically and mentally. So here where it is very hypocritical to me. The anti-lasix crowd are generally peta type people. in my opinion it is more damaging to a horse that bleeds to run them without it than it is to run them with it. These horses are going to run whether lasix is allowed or not. why on earth would anybody want to put these horses through the process of bleeding when they don't have to. using lasix on race day only now days, considering these horses rarely see the races in three weeks, is really of very little detriment to them as far as recovering from a race. running horses two weeks out in the heart of the summer heat can take a toll. they tend to dehydrate and it's harder to get the fluids back in them. In the fall,winter and spring I don't there there are enough adverse effects from it from race use only to even discuss. but remember one thing, unless this horse pours blood out it's nostrils when it races, it's going to keep racing whether lasix is legal or not. makes no sense to me to put these horses through this when you don't need to.

Aside from these two medications there shouldn't be any other drugs used on race day. I'm totally opposed to banamine. I never could figure out the cavalier attitude on that medication

Here is the history of Lasix...

People used it illegally not just to stop bleeding, but to get an edge.

Lasix was legalized to help bleeders. Horses actually had to bleed to get it.

More and more states allowed Lasix. As they did, horses that had it were winning a disproportionate share of the races. So, trainers started finding loopholes to get horses certified as bleeders. It came to a head in the BC Classic one year, all the top finishers (5 or 6?) had the L, the others didn't, no exceptions.

More and more horses were being certified as bleeders. It has finally reached the point where nearly every horse begins its career on drugs. Coincidentally, or not, horses are starting less and less.

I have heard the "allow them to run to their best" argument. I disagree. I've got databases full of data that say otherwise. Horses on Lasix have a distinct advantage over those that do not, and a large percentage of them are not bleeding.

Robert Fischer
05-21-2015, 12:37 AM
Yes, It's clear that lasix is either a PED or is believed to be a PED and is a PED for all intents and purposes.

Does it help bleeding - that much I don't know, but the consensus seems to be that it helps some of the bleeding.

It also seems to have negative effects as a diuretic.

Beyond these sparse comments, I really don't have accurate insight into lasix, and I shouldn't make definitive comments on lasix, even on a message board.

Sysonby
05-21-2015, 02:07 AM
I think there are a lot of people who have real concerns about the effect of lasix both as a performance enhancer and a drug that causes long-term problems for the horse. There are people who are concerned about the fact that horses at elite levels are running fewer races than they ever did in the past and can't help but look at the fact that the incidence of using lasix is inversely proportional to the number of starts horses make. There is medical and scientific research on the effect of lasix on the horse's system which has been discussed in another thread.

None of these people are members of PETA, which doesn't want horse racing to occur at all. All of these people want to ensure horses aren't being fed something that is not in their long-term interests at the same time as it appears to be implicated in reducing the number of races per year these athletes can run.

chadk66
05-21-2015, 09:01 AM
Here is the history of Lasix...

People used it illegally not just to stop bleeding, but to get an edge.

Lasix was legalized to help bleeders. Horses actually had to bleed to get it.

More and more states allowed Lasix. As they did, horses that had it were winning a disproportionate share of the races. So, trainers started finding loopholes to get horses certified as bleeders. It came to a head in the BC Classic one year, all the top finishers (5 or 6?) had the L, the others didn't, no exceptions.

More and more horses were being certified as bleeders. It has finally reached the point where nearly every horse begins its career on drugs. Coincidentally, or not, horses are starting less and less.

I have heard the "allow them to run to their best" argument. I disagree. I've got databases full of data that say otherwise. Horses on Lasix have a distinct advantage over those that do not, and a large percentage of them are not bleeding. you honestly can't understand why horses put on lasix were winning a disproportionate share of races? It's because they were bleeding and the lasix stopped it. It's not that hard to understand. As handicappers you guys should actually applaud the use of lasix because everybody is on the level using it. Especially those that consider or believe it's a PED. You guys complain all the time that handicappers aren't playing on a level field. Now you have one in this regard and your still not happy.

chadk66
05-21-2015, 09:06 AM
I think there are a lot of people who have real concerns about the effect of lasix both as a performance enhancer and a drug that causes long-term problems for the horse. There are people who are concerned about the fact that horses at elite levels are running fewer races than they ever did in the past and can't help but look at the fact that the incidence of using lasix is inversely proportional to the number of starts horses make. There is medical and scientific research on the effect of lasix on the horse's system which has been discussed in another thread.

None of these people are members of PETA, which doesn't want horse racing to occur at all. All of these people want to ensure horses aren't being fed something that is not in their long-term interests at the same time as it appears to be implicated in reducing the number of races per year these athletes can run.Lasix use on race day only will not harm the horse or cause long-term problems. Nobody uses it on a daily basis. That would be stupid and cost prohibitive. And of no benefit. Horses training in the morning have absolutely no use for it. The fact horses are racing less has little to do with lasix. More to do with a general change in philosophy by owners and trainers. And because it's harder and harder to get horses in races. Most people couldn't get a horse in a race every fourteen days anymore. How many short fields are you seeing now days? Lasix certainly isn't causing that. I claimed a ten year old mare that ran on lasix her whole life. She is as sound as any horse I've seen and gets pregnant when the wind blows.

chadk66
05-21-2015, 09:08 AM
Yes, It's clear that lasix is either a PED or is believed to be a PED and is a PED for all intents and purposes.

Does it help bleeding - that much I don't know, but the consensus seems to be that it helps some of the bleeding.

It also seems to have negative effects as a diuretic.

Beyond these sparse comments, I really don't have accurate insight into lasix, and I shouldn't make definitive comments on lasix, even on a message board.Clear to who? Lasix isn't going to make any horse run faster than he/she was built to run. And yes it helps bleeding. I don't know how anybody could think it doesn't. A horse has to be an extremely bad bleeder to bleed through lasix. It happens but it's rare.

cj
05-21-2015, 09:13 AM
you honestly can't understand why horses put on lasix were winning a disproportionate share of races? It's because they were bleeding and the lasix stopped it. It's not that hard to understand. As handicappers you guys should actually applaud the use of lasix because everybody is on the level using it. Especially those that consider or believe it's a PED. You guys complain all the time that handicappers aren't playing on a level field. Now you have one in this regard and your still not happy.

I don't think you get what I mean by disproportionate. If 20% of horses were on Lasix, for example, they were winning 35% of all races. That makes no sense if it isn't helping the horses not only run to potential but faster.

How much weight does a horse lose when it uses Lasix? Pretty sure it is a substantial number. If I lose substantial weight before I run, I'll run faster, even if it is just water weight. But I'll also have a harder time recovering because I was dehydrated.

cj
05-21-2015, 09:15 AM
Lasix use on race day only will not harm the horse or cause long-term problems. Nobody uses it on a daily basis. That would be stupid and cost prohibitive. And of no benefit. Horses training in the morning have absolutely no use for it. The fact horses are racing less has little to do with lasix. More to do with a general change in philosophy by owners and trainers. And because it's harder and harder to get horses in races. Most people couldn't get a horse in a race every fourteen days anymore. How many short fields are you seeing now days? Lasix certainly isn't causing that. I claimed a ten year old mare that ran on lasix her whole life. She is as sound as any horse I've seen and gets pregnant when the wind blows.

Can't get in races? Are you following the same sport I am? Races are begging for more horses.

forced89
05-21-2015, 09:53 AM
Can't get in races? Are you following the same sport I am? Races are begging for more horses.

I find this to be true. I think reason is that Racing Secretaries at many tracks in order to fill races post anywhere from 6 to 10 Extras. This reduces opportunities to plan and point for a specific race.

HalvOnHorseracing
05-21-2015, 10:36 AM
Can't get in races? Are you following the same sport I am? Races are begging for more horses.

You have to interpret the statistics, but only Australia shows the number of starts per horse per year the same as the U.S. In other jurisdictions that ban Lasix the number of annual starts is lower. Now you can cite other reasons for that, but banning raceday Lasix doesn't necessarily translate into an increased number of starts. Lasix functions as a diuretic and it reduces pulmonary hypertension. The reduction or elimination of bleeding has an obvious performance enhancing effect, much in the same way an anti-inflammatory might. The reduction in weight associated with water loss and the improvement in time is simple physics - you drag around few pounds less and it has a small positive effect on finish time. Same thing they do with cars to increase 0-60 time and gas mileage. As I've said EVERYTHING is performance enhancing. Aspirin. Prilosec. Mucinex. The line I've tried to draw is between a PED that acts like an amphetamine or a steroid and a substance that allows the horse to hit the peak of its actual physiology. So Banamine is performance enhancing because you can run without joint discomfort associated with inflammation, but it doesn't inherently alter the horse's physiology. Another question I ask has to do with humaneness. The studies have shown definitively that 50-70% of horses are bleeders. So it seems humane to treat them. I understand that because of the weight loss component, other horses may take Lasix to gain that edge, but I've not read anything that suggests there is long term deleterious effect on a horse, and it almost certainly doesn't have a genetic impace on the breed. The fact is that you can duplicate the diuretic effect of Lasix by denying food and water 24-48 hours before a race and you can decide if that is as humane as the injection. I've also suggested that banning Lasix can take a significant percentage of horses off the track, probably affecting smaller venues most significantly and definitely adding to the woes of starters per race. In the interest of fairness I've got calls in to two BIG time trainers to get a view from the other side. I think if you are pro or anti it has to be based mostly on the humaneness argument, because if 98% of horses are on Lasix, the performance enhancing argument is moot.

cj
05-21-2015, 10:58 AM
In the interest of fairness I've got calls in to two BIG time trainers to get a view from the other side. I think if you are pro or anti it has to be based mostly on the humaneness argument, because if 98% of horses are on Lasix, the performance enhancing argument is moot.

Horses that don't bleed are still put on it to be competitive with those that do, even if they don't need it. The horsemen have no choice if they want to be on a level playing field. In what world is that considered a good thing?

The preventative argument is a bunch of BS in my opinion. If we have to drug every horse to keep it from EIPH episodes, then we probably shouldn't have horse racing. But since I watch plenty of overseas racing, I know that isn't really the case. Sure, occasionally some bleed. Maybe they shouldn't be racing. But most horses do not need lasix.

chadk66
05-21-2015, 11:04 AM
I don't think you get what I mean by disproportionate. If 20% of horses were on Lasix, for example, they were winning 35% of all races. That makes no sense if it isn't helping the horses not only run to potential but faster.

How much weight does a horse lose when it uses Lasix? Pretty sure it is a substantial number. If I lose substantial weight before I run, I'll run faster, even if it is just water weight. But I'll also have a harder time recovering because I was dehydrated.it doesn't make them run faster, that's the point. it just makes them run to their potential because they aren't bleeding. it's not hard to understand. if it was a performance enhancer every human athlete would be on it. horses don't loose substantial weight before racing from lasix. where do you come up with this stuff. A horse might piss three to four gallons from lasix. at even 8lbs that's a trivial amount. I just chuckle at some of the insanity surrounding this.

chadk66
05-21-2015, 11:05 AM
Can't get in races? Are you following the same sport I am? Races are begging for more horses.do you follow the condition books and extras at race tracks? do you realize they hang from six to ten extras a day at a lot of tracks just trying to fill a card? you guys complain about short fields all the time on here. it's because they can't fill races. I know guys that have to enter five or six times before they get a race to fill.

chadk66
05-21-2015, 11:08 AM
You have to interpret the statistics, but only Australia shows the number of starts per horse per year the same as the U.S. In other jurisdictions that ban Lasix the number of annual starts is lower. Now you can cite other reasons for that, but banning raceday Lasix doesn't necessarily translate into an increased number of starts. Lasix functions as a diuretic and it reduces pulmonary hypertension. The reduction or elimination of bleeding has an obvious performance enhancing effect, much in the same way an anti-inflammatory might. The reduction in weight associated with water loss and the improvement in time is simple physics - you drag around few pounds less and it has a small positive effect on finish time. Same thing they do with cars to increase 0-60 time and gas mileage. As I've said EVERYTHING is performance enhancing. Aspirin. Prilosec. Mucinex. The line I've tried to draw is between a PED that acts like an amphetamine or a steroid and a substance that allows the horse to hit the peak of its actual physiology. So Banamine is performance enhancing because you can run without joint discomfort associated with inflammation, but it doesn't inherently alter the horse's physiology. Another question I ask has to do with humaneness. The studies have shown definitively that 50-70% of horses are bleeders. So it seems humane to treat them. I understand that because of the weight loss component, other horses may take Lasix to gain that edge, but I've not read anything that suggests there is long term deleterious effect on a horse, and it almost certainly doesn't have a genetic impace on the breed. The fact is that you can duplicate the diuretic effect of Lasix by denying food and water 24-48 hours before a race and you can decide if that is as humane as the injection. I've also suggested that banning Lasix can take a significant percentage of horses off the track, probably affecting smaller venues most significantly and definitely adding to the woes of starters per race. In the interest of fairness I've got calls in to two BIG time trainers to get a view from the other side. I think if you are pro or anti it has to be based mostly on the humaneness argument, because if 98% of horses are on Lasix, the performance enhancing argument is moot.see we can agree on things:p . Here's the flip side of any benefit from the trivial amount of weight loss. A horse can suffer any gains from it by not having adequate fluids in the tissue. So it equals out.

chadk66
05-21-2015, 11:10 AM
Horses that don't bleed are still put on it to be competitive with those that do, even if they don't need it. The horsemen have no choice if they want to be on a level playing field. In what world is that considered a good thing?

The preventative argument is a bunch of BS in my opinion. If we have to drug every horse to keep it from EIPH episodes, then we probably shouldn't have horse racing. But since I watch plenty of overseas racing, I know that isn't really the case. Sure, occasionally some bleed. Maybe they shouldn't be racing. But most horses do not need lasix.they do it because their owners think it's an advantage. it's not. it's just "keeping up with the jones's". I don't think every horse needs or should run on lasix. the old rules where you had to be a proven bleeder was an excellent rule. but too many people pissed and moaned because they felt they were being cheated so they changed the rules. In reality it doesn't hurt the horses to run on race day lasix and it helps the handicappers to know everyone is on an even playing field.

chadk66
05-21-2015, 11:11 AM
Horses that don't bleed are still put on it to be competitive with those that do, even if they don't need it. The horsemen have no choice if they want to be on a level playing field. In what world is that considered a good thing?

The preventative argument is a bunch of BS in my opinion. If we have to drug every horse to keep it from EIPH episodes, then we probably shouldn't have horse racing. But since I watch plenty of overseas racing, I know that isn't really the case. Sure, occasionally some bleed. Maybe they shouldn't be racing. But most horses do not need lasix.I might note that I would bet many of those horses overseas that bleed and can't run on lasix end up over here. that's just a guess.

cj
05-21-2015, 11:12 AM
it doesn't make them run faster, that's the point. it just makes them run to their potential because they aren't bleeding. it's not hard to understand. if it was a performance enhancer every human athlete would be on it. horses don't loose substantial weight before racing from lasix. where do you come up with this stuff. A horse might piss three to four gallons from lasix. at even 8lbs that's a trivial amount. I just chuckle at some of the insanity surrounding this.

http://www.thoroughbreddailynews.com/restricted/pdf/oped/oped130308.pdf

From the above article:

I wanted to know how much weight horses actually
lose in a race with and without Lasix. We started
weighing all the horses the morning of their race and
morning after. The results were eye-opening. Horses
had lost as much as 100 pounds the morning after,
with the average around 35 pounds, and this was after
hydrating all night. The hotter the day, the more they
would lose.
It would sometimes take horses three to four weeks
to regain the weight. Horses running without Lasix
have negligible weight loss the following
morning--generally 5 to 10 pounds"


You may be an expert at training horses, but I'm an expert at measuring how fast they run. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this point.

cj
05-21-2015, 11:13 AM
I might note that I would bet many of those horses overseas that bleed and can't run on lasix end up over here. that's just a guess.

Only the ones with real talent, otherwise it isn't cost effective to bring them over.

magwell
05-21-2015, 11:16 AM
I might note that I would bet many of those horses overseas that bleed and can't run on lasix end up over here. that's just a guess.100 % right and if we outlawed it here the game would head a lot faster down the toilet then it's going now......;)

cj
05-21-2015, 11:45 AM
100 % right and if we outlawed it here the game would head a lot faster down the toilet then it's going now......;)

Releasing every prisoner in jail wouldn't be a great idea either, but it doesn't mean the prison system isn't a mess.

magwell
05-21-2015, 12:20 PM
Releasing every prisoner in jail wouldn't be a great idea either, but it doesn't mean the prison system isn't a mess.Wow, we agree on that one........;)

Robert Fischer
05-21-2015, 01:03 PM
Yes, It's clear that lasix is either a PED or is believed to be a PED and is a PED for all intents and purposes.

Clear to who?
Clear to trainers. Clear to anyone who observes the fact that trainers clearly prefer to use Lasix, regardless of whether or not the horse has an actual bleeding issue.

Lasix isn't going to make any horse run faster than he/she was built to run.
That may or may not be true, but the fact that trainers prefer to use lasix on nearly every horse, makes it clear that it is believed to enhance performance.



As far as addressing that point as a separate issue - I don't know. I haven't experimented on horses or read a quality satisfactory study of the kind. My best guess from the phenomenon of lasix use preference would be that all horses (non-bleeders included) run better because lasix seems to do something like reducing the fluid in the lungs and reducing the pressure. This would benefit almost every horse, because it is natural to get some fluid buildup and the resulting pressure in the lung.
If that is true, then it would be a performance enhancer.
Just as a good milkshake will reduce the lactic acid that is natural to build up, lasix will reduce the fluid that is natural to build up.

If it's not true - then it is merely
Yes, It's clear that lasix is either a PED or is believed to be a PED and is a PED for all intents and purposes.
believed to be a PED and it's only a PED for 'bleeders', and non bleeders aren't getting performance enhancing lung effects, it's just something that trainers do out of superstition towards a false belief.


I don't know for sure, and it would be wrong of me to claim to have factual certainty towards either stance, hence the relatively balanced statement that you initially replied to.

chadk66
05-21-2015, 04:32 PM
Clear to trainers. Clear to anyone who observes the fact that trainers clearly prefer to use Lasix, regardless of whether or not the horse has an actual bleeding issue.


That may or may not be true, but the fact that trainers prefer to use lasix on nearly every horse, makes it clear that it is believed to enhance performance.



As far as addressing that point as a separate issue - I don't know. I haven't experimented on horses or read a quality satisfactory study of the kind. My best guess from the phenomenon of lasix use preference would be that all horses (non-bleeders included) run better because lasix seems to do something like reducing the fluid in the lungs and reducing the pressure. This would benefit almost every horse, because it is natural to get some fluid buildup and the resulting pressure in the lung.
If that is true, then it would be a performance enhancer.
Just as a good milkshake will reduce the lactic acid that is natural to build up, lasix will reduce the fluid that is natural to build up.

If it's not true - then it is merely

believed to be a PED and it's only a PED for 'bleeders', and non bleeders aren't getting performance enhancing lung effects, it's just something that trainers do out of superstition towards a false belief.


I don't know for sure, and it would be wrong of me to claim to have factual certainty towards either stance, hence the relatively balanced statement that you initially replied to.I explained to you that trainers use it because they are allowed to. they will use anything that's legal whether or not it is beneficial to every horse. there are so many false assumptions on lasix it's ridiculous. So let me ask you straight up. From a handicapping point of view don't you feel that either all horses should use it or none?

biggestal99
05-21-2015, 05:18 PM
. But most horses do not need lasix.

Yep, all you do is follow the wesley ward example.

Runs in the us, lasix on,

Runs in europe, lasix off.

Do you see a difference when his horses go off lasix and run at Ascot.

How many bleeders does he have?

You are 100% correct, the vast majority of horses who run in the us do not need a raceday lasix shot.


Allan

HalvOnHorseracing
05-21-2015, 05:27 PM
The question I have asked is, is it inhumane to run horses on Lasix? Clearly with some percentage of horses its use is justified. We know we can expect 50-70% of the horses to bleed, although not all of them would be level 2 and above. We know that we can duplicate the water weight loss by denying food and water 24-48 hours ahead of the race. If trainers are running level 1 bleeders on Lasix to get the advantage of the water weight loss, and there is no long term physical issue associated with it, the playing field is level. We know it does function like Class 1 PEDs. Steroids artificially build muscle mass. Amphetamines increase heart lung efficiency. Those are obviously PEDs that should be highly regulated. At what point does the use of a legitimate therapeutic medication cross over into creating long term harm for a horse?

"Lasix is not natural" is not a solid foundation on which to build a case for banning it. Blood pressure medication is "not natural" yet a very large number of people are on it because it has a useful therapeutic effect without having a significant long term risk. I don't think you can argue it is a PED because you won't stroke out under stress. All I've argued is that if you want to ban Lasix you should focus on the humane argument, because the PED argument seems to be irrelevant if 98% of horses are running on it. Bleeders get to run and they don't gain an unreasonable competitive advantage.

Fager Fan
05-21-2015, 05:30 PM
I explained to you that trainers use it because they are allowed to. they will use anything that's legal whether or not it is beneficial to every horse. there are so many false assumptions on lasix it's ridiculous. So let me ask you straight up. From a handicapping point of view don't you feel that either all horses should use it or none?

But you're wrong. It is a performance enhancer due to the weight loss. Everyone understands this principal. It's why a motorcycle out-accelerates a porsche.

The top vets in the sport acknowledge that it's a performance enhancer.

HalvOnHorseracing
05-21-2015, 05:40 PM
Yep, all you do is follow the wesley ward example.

Runs in the us, lasix on,

Runs in europe, lasix off.

Do you see a difference when his horses go off lasix and run at Ascot.

How many bleeders does he have?

You are 100% correct, the vast majority of horses who run in the us do not need a raceday lasix shot.


Allan

Ken Hinchcliff's original 2005 study showed 55% of horses suffered some level of EIPH. Hinchcliffe also documented that bleeding will result in reduced performance. I'm not sure how many horses were Level 0 vs Level 4 bleeders, but it is probably the case that horses at Level 0 or 1 could perform well without Lasix. Subsequent studies have shown that the percentage suffering from EIPH may be higher, perhaps 70%. Studies have also shown that the likelihood of EIPH showing up increases with age. It is also the case that strenuous workouts spaced closely together can up the likelihood of EIPH. If the point is that the greatest percentage of horses are not Level 3 or 4 bleeders, that is correct. It is also the case that even Level 3 or 4 bleeders can be reduced to Level 2 or lower with Lasix. You can't confuse the number of serious bleeders (Level 3 or 4) which may be 5% with the number of total bleeders, 50-70%. Level 2 and above are performance retarding and Lasix will correct that condition. It's a knotty argument for lots of reasons, but the studies and statistics are in and available.

HalvOnHorseracing
05-21-2015, 05:48 PM
But you're wrong. It is a performance enhancer due to the weight loss. Everyone understands this principal. It's why a motorcycle out-accelerates a porsche.

The top vets in the sport acknowledge that it's a performance enhancer.

It enables a horse to run to his level of condition and ability. And yes, the physics argument is applicable. The same amount of thrust applied to two objects, one of which weighs less than the other will result in the lighter object overcoming inertia faster. But it will not make a horse that is a $5,000 claimer outrun stakes horses. The question is really about PED. If a drug builds muscle (steroid) or improves heart lung function (amphetamine) it is clearly performance enhancing and should be regulated very closely. But a drug that only allows you to run to the level of performance related to your physiology and overall conditioning, does that fall into the same category as testosterone? I would argue lowering pulmonary hypertension and edema so the horse can run TO its ability is a reasonable thing as long as the drug used did not lead to long term physical issues.

chadk66
05-21-2015, 05:53 PM
But you're wrong. It is a performance enhancer due to the weight loss. Everyone understands this principal. It's why a motorcycle out-accelerates a porsche.

The top vets in the sport acknowledge that it's a performance enhancer.the weight loss is such a minimal thing it's a joke. and any gain from that slight weight loss is lost by a horse not having the water it's tissues demand so it's net neutral in that respect. So what's your take on it from a handicapping perspective. All on it or none?

cj
05-21-2015, 05:55 PM
the weight loss is such a minimal thing it's a joke. and any gain from that slight weight loss is lost by a horse not having the water it's tissues demand so it's net neutral in that respect. So what's your take on it from a handicapping perspective. All on it or none?

The article I cited hardly thinks the loss is minimal.

cj
05-21-2015, 06:12 PM
It enables a horse to run to his level of condition and ability. And yes, the physics argument is applicable. The same amount of thrust applied to two objects, one of which weighs less than the other will result in the lighter object overcoming inertia faster. But it will not make a horse that is a $5,000 claimer outrun stakes horses. The question is really about PED. If a drug builds muscle (steroid) or improves heart lung function (amphetamine) it is clearly performance enhancing and should be regulated very closely. But a drug that only allows you to run to the level of performance related to your physiology and overall conditioning, does that fall into the same category as testosterone? I would argue lowering pulmonary hypertension and edema so the horse can run TO its ability is a reasonable thing as long as the drug used did not lead to long term physical issues.

Only in horse racing would people try to spin drugging nearly every horse before every race as a positive.

HalvOnHorseracing
05-21-2015, 07:46 PM
Only in horse racing would people try to spin drugging nearly every horse before every race as a positive.

That's pretty cynical, especially considering I've not argued beyond allowing horses with EIPH to be medicated. Unfortunately that's a lot of horses. I would not oppose the prophylactic use of Lasix as long as medical science agrees it does not have long term deleterious effects. And when the anti-Lasix people come up with an argument that relates to medical science, I can find myself far more willing to switch sides. My paramount concern is the horse. The WHOA approach that relies on an emotional argument works best on those already against medication. The public polled against Obamacare as a law and for all the individual provisions in Obamacare. Public opinion is being swayed by hyperbole (Do you think a horse should be shot up with drugs before every race?). The argument should ideally occur first based on the science and the studies.

cj
05-21-2015, 09:23 PM
That's pretty cynical, especially considering I've not argued beyond allowing horses with EIPH to be medicated. Unfortunately that's a lot of horses. I would not oppose the prophylactic use of Lasix as long as medical science agrees it does not have long term deleterious effects. And when the anti-Lasix people come up with an argument that relates to medical science, I can find myself far more willing to switch sides. My paramount concern is the horse. The WHOA approach that relies on an emotional argument works best on those already against medication. The public polled against Obamacare as a law and for all the individual provisions in Obamacare. Public opinion is being swayed by hyperbole (Do you think a horse should be shot up with drugs before every race?). The argument should ideally occur first based on the science and the studies.

Did you read the article I posted?

Cholly
05-21-2015, 09:54 PM
Only in horse racing would people try to spin drugging nearly every horse before every race as a positive. :ThmbUp:

HalvOnHorseracing
05-21-2015, 11:50 PM
Did you read the article I posted?

I did, and I had seen similar stuff in my research. The underlying suggestion - that the dehydration factor limits starts - is worthy of study, but as I noted in my piece, starts are down just as much in the jurisdictions that don't allow Lasix. Starts per horse per year in the U.S. are about as high anywhere in the world. I can certainly remember anecdotally - I've been going to the track longer than a lot of people - that horses were getting Lasix and Bute and racing once every two weeks and the smaller Western tracks. Some still do. If you're going to cite the statistic, you have to account for the influencing factors. Trainers not racing horses into condition like they used to, trainers needing to get their winning percentages up to attract clients, substantially higher purses that mean you don't have to win or race as often to make a good living.

You might be able to make a helluva correlation for horses losing when I bet on them, but it doesn't mean there is perfect causality. If the argument is that Lasix limits the number of starters which in turn limits the handle in a race (I've seen that math and I'm not sold, but that's an aside) then make the connection while discounting the other potential explanations. That will sell a helluva lot better than banning Lasix would make racing "wholesome."

cj
05-22-2015, 12:00 AM
That will sell a helluva lot better than banning Lasix would make racing "wholesome."

You have never, nor will you ever, hear me make that argument.

Horses did race more often when Lasix first came into common use, but I suspect that is because trainers didn't know any better. How could they? They had no base of knowledge. But as time went on they learned that running back too quickly was a bad thing for most horses, so they ran less often.

As for other jurisdictions, I honestly don't care what they do. I just know what has happened here. Lasix surely isn't to blame for all the problems in the game. But I don't think it is helping one bit. I've been around long enough to remember the argument. Lasix is great, it will help horses race more often! That was the battle cry, the driving force behind legalization of it on race day. I'm sure you remember that. But of course, nothing could be further from the truth. Now we are told it is preventative so it can be kept legal to drug 95% of horses that enter the gate.

Reminds of the "we need slots" argument. You know the one, slots will grow purses and draw in bigger horses and better fields. The exact opposite has happened, but that is for your next topic...how great slots are for horse racing! :)

Stillriledup
05-22-2015, 12:03 AM
You have never, nor will you ever, hear me make that argument.

Horses did race more often when Lasix first came into common use, but I suspect that is because trainers didn't know any better. How could they? They had no base of knowledge. But as time went on they learned that running back too quickly was a bad thing for most horses, so they ran less often.

As for other jurisdictions, I honestly don't care what they do. I just know what has happened here. Lasix surely isn't to blame for all the problems in the game. But I don't think it is helping one bit. I've been around long enough to remember the argument. Lasix is great, it will help horses race more often! That was the battle cry, the driving force behind legalization of it on race day. I'm sure you remember that. But of course, nothing could be further from the truth. Now we are told it is preventative so it can be kept legal to drug 95% of horses that enter the gate.

Reminds of the "we need slots" argument. You know the one, slots will grow purses and draw in bigger horses and better fields. The exact opposite has happened, but that is for your next topic...how great slots are for horse racing! :)

Right, the slots gave owners more money, but the tracks didn't lower takeout, nothing was given to bettors so the bettors behaviors really didn't change much despite the billions of dollars of slots money coming into the game, right into the pockets of the Jocks, Trainers and owners.

HalvOnHorseracing
05-22-2015, 09:27 AM
You have never, nor will you ever, hear me make that argument.

Horses did race more often when Lasix first came into common use, but I suspect that is because trainers didn't know any better. How could they? They had no base of knowledge. But as time went on they learned that running back too quickly was a bad thing for most horses, so they ran less often.

As for other jurisdictions, I honestly don't care what they do. I just know what has happened here. Lasix surely isn't to blame for all the problems in the game. But I don't think it is helping one bit. I've been around long enough to remember the argument. Lasix is great, it will help horses race more often! That was the battle cry, the driving force behind legalization of it on race day. I'm sure you remember that. But of course, nothing could be further from the truth. Now we are told it is preventative so it can be kept legal to drug 95% of horses that enter the gate.

Reminds of the "we need slots" argument. You know the one, slots will grow purses and draw in bigger horses and better fields. The exact opposite has happened, but that is for your next topic...how great slots are for horse racing! :)

My wholesome statement came from one of the WHOA people. But as I mentioned, if you look at the WHOA site arguments that would sell to the open-minded non-believers is very thin.

Even if you don't care what other jurisdictions do, the same observation we make about the U.S. are true in jurisdictions where Lasix is banned. Starters are down. The U.S. has a higher level of starts per horse per year than the jurisdictions that ban Lasix. Anecdotally, wouldn't you expect to see the opposite if Lasix was the cause for lower starts? That statisitc certainly gives reason to pause.

For what it is worth, my opinion on slots is not a positive one. It's sort of like sugar - quick burst of energy followed by a crash. Inevitably if you turn your sport over to casino companies, they will find a way to get rid of the distraction of racing so they can focus on the real money maker. It was a desperate idea hatched by desperate people, thought through no further than the receipt of the first dollar.

I said in my piece that going to the European model where Lasix is available for training but not raceday might be an interesting experiment. My largest concern, and I believe it is real, is that trainers will revert to the denial of food and water, and I've not heard how you keep that from happening.

I'm hesitant to conclude Lasix is the primary contributor to shorter fields and fewer starts, especially given so many other contributing factors, and I'm not sure how you set up a study to assess causality. I'd love to see a comprehensive survey that asked trainers if they would feel great relief at not having to "keep up with the Lasix crowd."

I am generally predisposed to therapeutic treatments, always with the proviso that the long term health of the horse cannot be compromised. And in the case of Lasix I would hypothesize that horses that show Level 2 and above EIPH would more likely have to discontinue racing because they would not be able to compete, making field size even smaller and potentially killing the smaller, marginal tracks. I'd at least argue that we need to have a lot more information than WHOA is providing before we can conclude a Lasix ban will have a positive impact on racing.

Grits
05-22-2015, 11:04 AM
That's pretty cynical, especially considering I've not argued beyond allowing horses with EIPH to be medicated. Unfortunately that's a lot of horses. I would not oppose the prophylactic use of Lasix as long as medical science agrees it does not have long term deleterious effects. And when the anti-Lasix people come up with an argument that relates to medical science, I can find myself far more willing to switch sides. My paramount concern is the horse. The WHOA approach that relies on an emotional argument works best on those already against medication. The public polled against Obamacare as a law and for all the individual provisions in Obamacare.

I'm sorry but I have to call your attention to these industry supporters of WHOA, each of whom I strongly suspect would take issue with your egregious statement that their approach to race day medication including lasix is founded in EMOTION. You seem to be selling them far short...

http://www.waterhayoatsalliance.com/supporters.shtml

Collectively, these 53 trainers, owners, breeders, farm managers, bloodstock agents, jockeys, etc have far more experience in this industry than you and your research will ever be able to uncover in your coming years, even if you live to exceed the age of 102 year old trainer, John Nerud.

You've repeatedly led us back to your own website blog, I would ask you to provide myself (and others) the same courtesy for the WHOA site and its supporters. Please, if you will, click on their photographs to read each of their full statements. Every one of them including Charlotte Weber, Bill Casner, Jonathan Sheppard, Fred Seitz, Jim Squires, Gregory Ferraro-DVM, etc, etc.

As far as making me aware of "your calls into two BIG time trainers". I assure you, I could care less. Such comments are bloviating.

I rarely argue/debate at this website, instead, I read a lot. When I do speak up, I certainly don't have to be right. All I ask is consideration for what's beneficial for those doing the running--and it ain't us. ... This last sentence being fact. Not emotion.

PS: And please. Do not ever bring politics, here, into the racing discussion threads at Pace Advantage again. It isn't done. :ThmbDown:

I've said what's on my mind and I have the reputation of being direct. Hopefully, I've stated my opinion in a suitable manner. Thank you for your time and for reading.

HalvOnHorseracing
05-22-2015, 01:23 PM
I'm sorry but I have to call your attention to these industry supporters of WHOA, each of whom I strongly suspect would take issue with your egregious statement that their approach to race day medication including lasix is founded in EMOTION. You seem to be selling them far short...

http://www.waterhayoatsalliance.com/supporters.shtml

Collectively, these 53 trainers, owners, breeders, farm managers, bloodstock agents, jockeys, etc have far more experience in this industry than you and your research will ever be able to uncover in your coming years, even if you live to exceed the age of 102 year old trainer, John Nerud.

You've repeatedly led us back to your own website blog, I would ask you to provide myself (and others) the same courtesy for the WHOA site and its supporters. Please, if you will, click on their photographs to read each of their full statements. Every one of them including Charlotte Weber, Bill Casner, Jonathan Sheppard, Fred Seitz, Jim Squires, Gregory Ferraro-DVM, etc, etc.

As far as making me aware of "your calls into two BIG time trainers". I assure you, I could care less. Such comments are bloviating.

I rarely argue/debate at this website, instead, I read a lot. When I do speak up, I certainly don't have to be right. All I ask is consideration for what's beneficial for those doing the running--and it ain't us. ... This last sentence being fact. Not emotion.

PS: And please. Do not ever bring politics, here, into the racing discussion threads at Pace Advantage again. It isn't done. :ThmbDown:

I've said what's on my mind and I have the reputation of being direct. Hopefully, I've stated my opinion in a suitable manner. Thank you for your time and for reading.

I'm sure you realize there are just as many, if not more trainers who believe Lasix is a good therapeutic. Large horsemen's associations have gone on record favoring Lasix. I've read the WHOA testimonials and again, I'll ask the same thing that I've always asked. Give me the science that shows banning Lasix will be better for the horse and the sport instead of the "all these people can't be wrong" argument. I quoted their statements in my article. They weren't based on studies. My expert vs your expert isn't the way to solve the issue.

This is what John Nerud said.
"I am 102 years old and have been training horses since 1937. When they allowed Lasix they opened the door to a lot of trouble. I don't approve of its use because it gives racing a bad image. The introduction of growth hormone and steroids has set the horse industry back many years because it has weakened the breed. The Breeders' Cup is in a lot of trouble. It was originated for only one reason, to market racing. They have lost their way."

Does that sound like an appeal lacking substantiation to you? It does to me. How did it open the door to a lot of trouble? What trouble? Why does it give racing a bad image? I'd argue because the anti-Lasix people use the societal drugs=bad-in-all-cases argument as opposed to the study that shows therapeutic drugs are bad, the argumenta are apples and oranges.

I was not playing politics with the reference to Obamacare. The point, which you missed, was that how people respond to a survey depends a lot on what question they are asked. It had nothing to do with that program, which I most certainly do not want to debate here or anywhere else. If you ask people whether performance enhancing drugs give racing a bad image, they will overwhelmingly say yes. On the other hand, if you ask whether treating a horse for EIPH is a good thing, they'll also say yes. My other point is that asking people for their opinion and suggesting it is the equivalent of a science based study is silly. If Lasix is bad, show it medically or in terms of the health of horseracing in general, and I'm on board. Otherwise, you just have what the scientists call a WAG.

I reference calling trainers as an effort to be fair and inject something from the side that believes Lasix should be banned. I was hoping to show I am open to a well constructed argument from the opposite viewpoint. I actually asked some of the more passionate attackers to write a rebuttal to my article and I offered to publish it unedited on my blog. They refused and suggested I find a decent horseman to make their point. How you could have misinterpretated that as bloviating points to a desire for you to see what you want into what you read.

Had you read all my posts and my articles you'd have noted that every single time I've argued that the health of the horse is paramount. I've suggested that if Lasix has long term deleterious effects on a horse, that is reason enough to ban it. I've consistently asked the question, are the alternatives to Lasix more humane? Will the deletion of Lasix on raceday affect the health of the sport. If you read my latest blog, you'd have seen I am mostly arguing to have a factual based discussion, with statistics, studies, and sure, even trainers who have been around since 1937 and have seen it all and done it all. Just not exclusively trainers that have been around since 1937.

As I've requested before, if you'd like to debate start by representing my position as I offer it, not as you guess it is.

I'm hardly going to convince anyone that, if I am currently pro-Lasix it is because I haven't heard the equivalent argument for being anti-Lasix. But to suggest I'd fight for Lasix in light of such arguments is ludicrous. My blog is about the debate. To inform so that the argument isn't resting on, "I've done it all and seen it all and trust me I know it all." Hopefully it doesn't offend your sensibilities to paraphrase a sports movie, Jerry Maguire. "Show me the science."

lamboguy
05-22-2015, 01:43 PM
there are plenty of horses that are on lasix that have no business being on the stuff. if a horse is a non sweater i have no idea what benefit that horse could possibly have by being on it. i see plenty of horses that are like that and they look god awful after race and race terrible as well. some horses that don't have that problem get bad reactions from lasix.

i remember seeing DON'T GET MAD. that horse could not run a step with lasix, and they took him off and he ran 4th in the Kentucky Derby.

thaskalos
05-22-2015, 01:50 PM
As we try to strike some sort of balance between the health of the horse and the health of the sport, we can't help but be bothered by comments made by top trainers, who, usually upon retirement, openly confess that the legalization and widespread use of lasix has opened the door for all other drugs. We read these comments, and we are inclined to believe the persistent rumors that lasix acts as a masking agent for other drugs. At least I do...

Yes...there are plenty of rumors on the backstretch which have not, or cannot, be substantiated...but that's the rule rather than the exception, when we are dealing with "secret societies". And the backstretch is yet another secret society, IMO.

HalvOnHorseracing
05-22-2015, 02:33 PM
As we try to strike some sort of balance between the health of the horse and the health of the sport, we can't help but be bothered by comments made by top trainers, who, usually upon retirement, openly confess that the legalization and widespread use of lasix has opened the door for all other drugs. We read these comments, and we are inclined to believe the persistent rumors that lasix acts as a masking agent for other drugs. At least I do...

Yes...there are plenty of rumors on the backstretch which have not, or cannot, be substantiated...but that's the rule rather than the exception, when we are dealing with "secret societies". And the backstretch is yet another secret society, IMO.

The use of Lasix as a masking agent was at one time a very real concern. The view of Rick Sams, a well respected director of one of racing's large testing laboratories is that the rules regarding dose and raceday administration as well as the advances in testing technology have rendered the concern moot. That's not to say the ex-trainers are wrong, but what would be most helpful is if they said, THIS particular agent that is performance enhancing is masked by Lasix. Racing commissions have almost unfettered power to investigate, and in my opinion they have a proactive responsibility to deal with the rumors that fly around. Anyone who follows me knows I am far more critical of the authorities for their failures than anyone else. If they will not protect racing, and I mean by more than slugging trainers for a 29 picogram flunixin violation, of what good are they to the sport?

Grits
05-22-2015, 03:24 PM
I'm sure you realize there are just as many, if not more trainers who believe Lasix is a good therapeutic. Large horsemen's associations have gone on record favoring Lasix.

Though, I read your post in its entirety... The horseman are, in quite a large part, the individuals who got us where we are today. STRUGGLING with an image that's in the tank due to drugging horses with anything that is determined a preventative (necessary or unnecessary for some) while at the same time, not hesitating, to also expand to drugs that are known detriments to the animal. Some legal, some not. Fear, fear of personal income loss, makes individuals get on board with a lot of decisions/opinions.

I've read your posts, here, and several of your blog posts. And because of this, I can appreciate what you're doing. You're a one man S.W.A.T team. An online physician, veterinarian, scientist, chemist, statistical engineer, attorney, journalist, bettor, and fan. Maybe, most of all, a retired guy with time on his hands who is wrapped up with passion for this game and wants "to be the change". With each, or all of these hats, I wish you well in fighting the woes of our sport. And, I wish anyone who disagrees with you--Godspeed and good luck 'cause they're gonna need it.

At the same time, I have tremendous respect for the people who've come forward at WHOA to help to get us on a better path. In reality, it's what we all want.

cj
05-22-2015, 03:28 PM
The horseman are, in quite a large part, the individuals who got us where we are today. STRUGGLING with an image that's in the tank due to drugging horses with anything that is determined a preventative (necessary or unnecessary for some) while at the same time, not hesitating, to also expand to drugs that are known detriments to the animal. Some legal, some not. Fear, fear of personal income loss, makes individuals get on board with a lot of decisions/opinions.

AMEN!

biggestal99
05-22-2015, 04:49 PM
Ken Hinchcliff's original 2005 study showed 55% of horses suffered some level of EIPH. Hinchcliffe also documented that bleeding will result in reduced performance. .


What about the other 45% who dont need raceday lasix but are getting it anyway, isn't that overmedicating horses and intentionally dehydrating them for no good reason.

Allan

cj
05-22-2015, 04:52 PM
What about the other 45% who dont need raceday lasix but are getting it anyway, isn't that overmedicating horses and intentionally dehydrating them for no good reason.

Allan

You'll be told it is "preventative"...just in case.

biggestal99
05-22-2015, 04:53 PM
What about the other 45% who dont need raceday lasix but are getting it anyway, isn't that overmedicating horses and intentionally dehydrating them for no good reason.

Allan

That is why i like the two tier kentucky system, those that trainers feel they need their raceday lasix can use it and have raceday lasix racesm, those that don,t have their raceday lasix free races.

Allan

magwell
05-22-2015, 05:07 PM
You'll be told it is "preventative"...just in case.Exactly that's why we have seatbelts in cars just in case we have a wreck, we don't have to wait untill we have a wreck to be able to use them, if that doesn't make sense.......?

cj
05-22-2015, 05:14 PM
Exactly that's why we have seatbelts in cars just in case we have a wreck, we don't have to wait untill we have a wreck to be able to use them, if that doesn't make sense.......?


Seat belts are a drug last time I checked.

cj
05-22-2015, 05:17 PM
That is why i like the two tier kentucky system, those that trainers feel they need their raceday lasix can use it and have raceday lasix racesm, those that don,t have their raceday lasix free races.

Allan

Sounds great in theory, but field sizes are small enough, so I doubt this will do much.

I like the proposal of penalizing horses that need Lasix with weight. I'd use a simple formula, would require testing, but something like this:

10 / Furlongs X 5.

So if it were a five furlong race, you carry 10 pounds extra. If it is a 10 furlong race, horse carries five pounds extra. That would give incentive to trainers to not use Lasix.

Tom
05-22-2015, 09:19 PM
Ah, perfectly diabolical idea!
Balance a trainer's best friend against his mortal enemy. :lol: :lol:

HalvOnHorseracing
05-22-2015, 11:32 PM
Ah, perfectly diabolical idea!
Balance a trainer's best friend against his mortal enemy. :lol: :lol:

Well, what I think....actually, just messing with everyone. I got nothing else.

chadk66
05-23-2015, 09:05 AM
The article I cited hardly thinks the loss is minimal.I hate to break it to you but it's minimal. I had an equine scale and weighed my horses every day and post race. So I know exactly what it does to horses in the weight loss category.

chadk66
05-23-2015, 09:18 AM
The use of Lasix as a masking agent was at one time a very real concern. The view of Rick Sams, a well respected director of one of racing's large testing laboratories is that the rules regarding dose and raceday administration as well as the advances in testing technology have rendered the concern moot. That's not to say the ex-trainers are wrong, but what would be most helpful is if they said, THIS particular agent that is performance enhancing is masked by Lasix. Racing commissions have almost unfettered power to investigate, and in my opinion they have a proactive responsibility to deal with the rumors that fly around. Anyone who follows me knows I am far more critical of the authorities for their failures than anyone else. If they will not protect racing, and I mean by more than slugging trainers for a 29 picogram flunixin violation, of what good are they to the sport?your on fire today. I've agreed with basically everything your saying in regard to lasix. to expand to your post above, back in the mid to late 80's, several racing jurisdictions required lasix horses to go to a detention barn four hours before post. this was to curb the belief lasix masks other PED's that had to be administered within four hours of post time. Which is the window virtually all PED's need to work properly. Funny thing is, the horses that were required detention at one track performed just as well as when they ventured to jurisdictions where detentions wasn't required.

I have to say, in the backside of the racetrack resides the most "old wives tales" or "false myths" of any place I've ever seen. It probably harbors the most gullible people on the planet. They will believe or try anything if under the guise it'll make a horse run better. Some of the stuff I heard or saw in my years there was just mind boggling.

upthecreek
05-23-2015, 11:26 AM
https://mobile.twitter.com/raypaulick/status/602125261182734336

cj
05-23-2015, 11:58 AM
I hate to break it to you but it's minimal. I had an equine scale and weighed my horses every day and post race. So I know exactly what it does to horses in the weight loss category.

So they just made it up? Come on...

cj
05-23-2015, 11:59 AM
Well, what I think....actually, just messing with everyone. I got nothing else.

Think Tom was talking about the weight idea. What is wrong with that one?

Grits
05-23-2015, 12:03 PM
https://mobile.twitter.com/raypaulick/status/602125261182734336

Thank you for posting. This one, in particular, was a good read, too. A vet's point of view, though, his mentor, the late Doc Harthill is our most well known (and often questioned) vet in the sport, Dr.Priest has many thoughts.

http://www.paulickreport.com/horse-care-category/dr-gary-priest-joins-whoa-calls-for-change-in-veterinary-business-model/

Grits
05-23-2015, 12:56 PM
For the purpose of fairness.....

In reading, the 1,000+ members listed by state, there are few names recognized as veterinarians. Or, certainly, as trainers. Change is hard, after decades. It takes a whole lot of guts to set oneself apart from accepted practices, regardless whether they're detrimental or not. Why is it so hard to give up on one day of administering meds to horses?

http://www.waterhayoatsalliance.com/join.shtml

.... Don't mean to often post on your heels, Cj. Sorry. Your military habits, ie, "fly in, post, fly out," never die. You're quicker. I get lost reading other articles. :rolleyes:

chadk66
05-23-2015, 01:40 PM
So they just made it up? Come on...so did they post factual evidence of pre and post race weights in horses both using and not using lasix?

outofthebox
05-23-2015, 01:57 PM
I've used an equine scale here in Louisiana since 2012 and have run about 250 races. Like you i weigh my horses pre race and post. On average in the summer months which are very hot and humid, my runners usually weigh in @ 30-40 lbs after a race. On one occasion i had a filly who overheated and lost 60lbs. Usually within a week they are back to their normal weight with natural hydration. Example: Lexi's Love ran on 5-7-15 and weighed 1025 the afternoon before running. She weighed 990 the following morning after her race. I entered her 8 days later weighing in at 1020 to race 5-21-15 and after shipping 3 hours up and back to LAD she weighed 980 following the second race in two weeks. I just got done weighing her this am and she is 1000, so just 20 lbs below her average weight three days after racing and shipping. This is about average in the spring. We have to be a little more careful in July and August when it is really sweltering here. The winter racing we have no problem with keeping their weight on average. Just for kicks i weighed my horse Top Cat Boogie this am before i gave him 3cc lasix to breeze. At 6am he weighed 1010 lbs. I put him back on the scale after he was done urinating and he weighed 995. He then lost another 10lbs breezing and working up a sweat before cooling out. This is about average for my barn. Honestly i don't know where people come up with the 80-100 lbs of weight loss from Lasix . I have never seen it here in my barn.

chadk66
05-23-2015, 03:18 PM
I've used an equine scale here in Louisiana since 2012 and have run about 250 races. Like you i weigh my horses pre race and post. On average in the summer months which are very hot and humid, my runners usually weigh in @ 30-40 lbs after a race. On one occasion i had a filly who overheated and lost 60lbs. Usually within a week they are back to their normal weight with natural hydration. Example: Lexi's Love ran on 5-7-15 and weighed 1025 the afternoon before running. She weighed 990 the following morning after her race. I entered her 8 days later weighing in at 1020 to race 5-21-15 and after shipping 3 hours up and back to LAD she weighed 980 following the second race in two weeks. I just got done weighing her this am and she is 1000, so just 20 lbs below her average weight three days after racing and shipping. This is about average in the spring. We have to be a little more careful in July and August when it is really sweltering here. The winter racing we have no problem with keeping their weight on average. Just for kicks i weighed my horse Top Cat Boogie this am before i gave him 3cc lasix to breeze. At 6am he weighed 1010 lbs. I put him back on the scale after he was done urinating and he weighed 995. He then lost another 10lbs breezing and working up a sweat before cooling out. This is about average for my barn. Honestly i don't know where people come up with the 80-100 lbs of weight loss from Lasix . I have never seen it here in my barn.exactly. it's nothing but a myth. some people just refuse to deal with reality. thanks for confirming my similar findings. beautiful thing is scales don't lie. unless it's your wives.

cj
05-23-2015, 07:28 PM
so did they post factual evidence of pre and post race weights in horses both using and not using lasix?

Did you read it? That is how it was reported.

HalvOnHorseracing
05-23-2015, 09:47 PM
Think Tom was talking about the weight idea. What is wrong with that one?

Nothing at all. If there is a well-designed study that settles the issue, then the issue can be settled. I would have suspected that time of year, temperature and humidity would have an impact, and a well-designed study would account for those variables. If the answer is 30-40 pounds, the problem is far different than if the answer is 100 pounds. I'd also think you'd want someone who doesn't love or hate lasix to conduct the study.

Based on how much it's rained/snowed in Colorado in the last three weeks you could extrapolate we live in a cold rainforest, which somewhat underscores the value of anecdotal evidence.

HalvOnHorseracing
05-23-2015, 10:14 PM
Based on some of the shots I am getting, it's hard to guess where an acceptable middle ground might be. One critical question for me is, if Lasix is banned, will it have an impact on average number of starters? And if the answer is yes, would it most likely be a temporary situation until trainers adjusted to training techniques that can keep EIPH horses running?

I did have some conversations with the president and CEO of one of the 100 top stables in the world, a strong proponent of drug free racing, and I hope I'll be able to share some the discussion eventually. I'm trying to get some different opinions from different folks with standing in horseracing, because I think whatever side you are on, it's important to understand why each side feels strongly.

cj
05-24-2015, 12:07 AM
Nothing at all. If there is a well-designed study that settles the issue, then the issue can be settled. I would have suspected that time of year, temperature and humidity would have an impact, and a well-designed study would account for those variables. If the answer is 30-40 pounds, the problem is far different than if the answer is 100 pounds. I'd also think you'd want someone who doesn't love or hate lasix to conduct the study.

Based on how much it's rained/snowed in Colorado in the last three weeks you could extrapolate we live in a cold rainforest, which somewhat underscores the value of anecdotal evidence.

Wrong post about weight.

HalvOnHorseracing
05-24-2015, 07:56 AM
Wrong post about weight.

Whoops. If the pro and anti forces were interested in having a real discussion then some of these creative solutions could be discussed, but it looks like both sides think they are right and that is that.

Ruffian1
05-24-2015, 09:01 AM
Whoops. If the pro and anti forces were interested in having a real discussion then some of these creative solutions could be discussed, but it looks like both sides think they are right and that is that.


So much passion on all sides, not both sides. It was like that in the late 70's and forward from there when I was heavily involved in training as well as multiple committees addressing these things. Everybody has an opinion on it, but few want to do more than bitch. They could not even agree on when and where to meet to discuss these things. I can't fathom how many hours I spent over the years trying to work on this type of stuff. Mostly to no avail, or maybe something happened for a while but that was about it.

Until both sides take a mindset of improving "the game" and leave behind their personal interests or self gain, it will be the same old thing. Good luck with that. Too many people in the game are for themselves only.
"The game" is run by and supported by, a large group of independent contractors if you will, on all four sides of the argument ( customers, management, breeders, and horsemen). Within those four sides are millions of people and most those people on those four sides, if given the choice between what might put a buck in their pocket today, or the long term betterment of " the game", will choose the buck every time. That was my experience for decades. And yes, all four sides, not just 2 or 3.

Until "The game" unites itself as one organization, with one set of rules, throughout the U.S., with all four sides having an equal voice so as to try and start to set " the game" on a positive path, which will take a long time, instead of every track owner, trainer, breeder, or customer as well as jurisdiction grabbing for themselves, this will continue. The distrust of all sides disgusted me then, and continues to now. And very little has changed for the better from where I sit.

Too many drugs, the takeout is too high, the breeders drug use and vet practices on babies before and during sales are outrageous, and the list goes on and on. But customers cannot expect free parking, admission, etc. AND low takeout. No other major sport offers that do they? Certainly not MLB, NFL or NBA. So everybody needs to figure it out but that will take a tremendous amount of work. I have met very few that were willing to give so much to help a game down the road. As I said, most choose the buck today.

chadk66
05-24-2015, 09:18 AM
Based on some of the shots I am getting, it's hard to guess where an acceptable middle ground might be. One critical question for me is, if Lasix is banned, will it have an impact on average number of starters? And if the answer is yes, would it most likely be a temporary situation until trainers adjusted to training techniques that can keep EIPH horses running?

I did have some conversations with the president and CEO of one of the 100 top stables in the world, a strong proponent of drug free racing, and I hope I'll be able to share some the discussion eventually. I'm trying to get some different opinions from different folks with standing in horseracing, because I think whatever side you are on, it's important to understand why each side feels strongly.I would love to see all horses run/be able to run, without lasix. If lasix is banned, over the long run the number of horses racing will decline severely. And 95% of trainers won't change their training techniques to try to keep horses from bleeding. In fact I don't really know if that's possible anyway. One of the first horses I trained was fully interval trained. After reading Tom Ivers book "The Fit Racehorse" I was inclined to try it. I was given a tremendous amount of ridicule. Can you imagine the BS I got from the clockers when a horses works multiple timed workouts in the morning. How do they deal with that? Do they publish all three workouts or just the first and not pay attention to the others. This also takes a tremendous amount of time. This horse was built up to gallop five to six miles a day. He could run 3/4 of a mile and not blow out a candle at the end of the race. The improvement in this horse from this training was staggering. But guess what? He still bled. I encourage you to look up his racing statistics to see the improvement in this horse. He wasn't raced as a two year old. He was royally bred. Grey Dawn II out of a Hoist the Flag mare. Beautiful horse that never had a lame day in his life. He raced his first full year for another trainer (we owned him however). It was a deplorable season for him. Then first of the year (1986) I started interval training him. The horse is Night Rover (1982). He was being destroyed for 5K at thistledown in the fall of 1985. Interval training takes a long time to see the results of. By late summer 86' he was starting to show the results. He could run 3/4 as well as a mile didn't matter.

lamboguy
05-24-2015, 12:28 PM
probably the main reason why trainer's put horses on lasix is to try to prevent a lung infection that could lay the horse up for 3 months. as far as preventing bleeding there are plenty of other things that are tons better and not as harsh on the horses system.

for whatever reason, horses that have lasix run faster than those that don't. i have no idea why. i hate the stuff but always use it now if i run a horse, its almost impossible to win without using the stuff. if it was not allowed i would have no problem not using the stuff and probably would have had a better record the past 15 years.

chadk66
05-24-2015, 12:41 PM
probably the main reason why trainer's put horses on lasix is to try to prevent a lung infection that could lay the horse up for 3 months. as far as preventing bleeding there are plenty of other things that are tons better and not as harsh on the horses system.

for whatever reason, horses that have lasix run faster than those that don't. i have no idea why. i hate the stuff but always use it now if i run a horse, its almost impossible to win without using the stuff. if it was not allowed i would have no problem not using the stuff and probably would have had a better record the past 15 years.I never had a horse run faster on lasix than prior to being put on it.

lamboguy
05-24-2015, 12:46 PM
I never had a horse run faster on lasix than prior to being put on it.
god bless you and lots of luck

cj
05-24-2015, 01:17 PM
I never had a horse run faster on lasix than prior to being put on it.

How would you know? What is your basis for measuring "fast"?

chadk66
05-24-2015, 01:22 PM
How would you know? What is your basis for measuring "fast"?probably the same way you do.

cj
05-24-2015, 01:24 PM
probably the same way you do.

Non-answer since that is highly unlikely.

chadk66
05-24-2015, 04:44 PM
Non-answer since that is highly unlikely.you have no more scientific proof it helps than I do it doesn't. your just gonna have to accept that fact.

cj
05-24-2015, 04:53 PM
you have no more scientific proof it helps than I do it doesn't. your just gonna have to accept that fact.

Another non-answer.

I can, without a doubt, prove that horses racing with Lasix are faster than horses racing without it. It isn't even a debate. What I can't do is tell you which horses NEED Lasix and which do not. Most horses start on Lasix from the first race of the career these days so there isn't much data over the last decade. But there is some, and those that add Lasix run faster with it than before, not even close. If you want to tell me all of those horses need Lasix, there isn't much else I can say. Many do not, but they get it and run faster. If there is one thing I am pretty darn good at it is rating racehorses for speed.

magwell
05-24-2015, 05:43 PM
It helps them run to the best of their ability,and helps to prevent bleeding just in case , so whats so bad about that ?

Stillriledup
05-24-2015, 05:59 PM
It helps them run to the best of their ability,and helps to prevent bleeding just in case , so whats so bad about that ?

But isn't this the same as saying steroids help baseball players play to the best of THEIR ability? What's the difference?

magwell
05-24-2015, 06:11 PM
But isn't this the same as saying steroids help baseball players play to the best of THEIR ability? What's the difference?OK how's this...... no lasix or judges at SRU ? btw we are talking about lasix

TJDave
05-24-2015, 06:19 PM
But isn't this the same as saying steroids help baseball players play to the best of THEIR ability? What's the difference?

The difference is we know which horse is, or isn't. ;)

Stillriledup
05-24-2015, 06:21 PM
OK how's this...... no lasix or judges at SRU ? btw we are talking about lasix

It doesn't matter, its a chemical or drug or whatever that improves your performance to what it otherwise might have been. Same with Steroids. Maybe not as much, but its still a drug that makes you better/faster/breathe better, etc.

And no judges at SRU, its a place where we.
Pay. Winners. :D

magwell
05-24-2015, 06:27 PM
It doesn't matter, its a chemical or drug or whatever that improves your performance to what it otherwise might have been. Same with Steroids. Maybe not as much, but its still a drug that makes you better/faster/breathe better, etc.

And no judges at SRU, its a place where we.
Pay. Winners. :DDid you miss the part about run to the best of their ability, also at SRU no video replays, results stand and only the winners get paid period........:D

chadk66
05-24-2015, 07:00 PM
Another non-answer.

I can, without a doubt, prove that horses racing with Lasix are faster than horses racing without it. It isn't even a debate. What I can't do is tell you which horses NEED Lasix and which do not. Most horses start on Lasix from the first race of the career these days so there isn't much data over the last decade. But there is some, and those that add Lasix run faster with it than before, not even close. If you want to tell me all of those horses need Lasix, there isn't much else I can say. Many do not, but they get it and run faster. If there is one thing I am pretty darn good at it is rating racehorses for speed.prove away

chadk66
05-24-2015, 07:02 PM
It doesn't matter, its a chemical or drug or whatever that improves your performance to what it otherwise might have been. Same with Steroids. Maybe not as much, but its still a drug that makes you better/faster/breathe better, etc.

And no judges at SRU, its a place where we.
Pay. Winners. :DIf you have a pro athlete that is suffering a bacterial infection giving him antibiotics is a performance enhancer then too. he certainly wouldn't play to his ability if he was fighting an infection.

chadk66
05-24-2015, 07:03 PM
Another non-answer.

I can, without a doubt, prove that horses racing with Lasix are faster than horses racing without it. It isn't even a debate. What I can't do is tell you which horses NEED Lasix and which do not. Most horses start on Lasix from the first race of the career these days so there isn't much data over the last decade. But there is some, and those that add Lasix run faster with it than before, not even close. If you want to tell me all of those horses need Lasix, there isn't much else I can say. Many do not, but they get it and run faster. If there is one thing I am pretty darn good at it is rating racehorses for speed.If you were so good at that you'd be a billionaire from just betting on horses.

HalvOnHorseracing
05-24-2015, 09:03 PM
But isn't this the same as saying steroids help baseball players play to the best of THEIR ability? What's the difference?

The difference is that steroids add muscle mass. Ampethamines increase heart/lung function. The can help a horse function beyond their natrual ability.Lasix does not change the physiology of the horse

cj
05-24-2015, 09:11 PM
If you were so good at that you'd be a billionaire from just betting on horses.

This is why bettors think of horsemen as we currently do, as a group.

thaskalos
05-24-2015, 09:18 PM
This is why bettors think of horsemen as we currently do, as a group.
Some of these trainers who think they got such a tough job should try to make their money betting...

chadk66
05-24-2015, 10:17 PM
This is why bettors think of horsemen as we currently do, as a group.I don't think they really care to be honest.

cj
05-24-2015, 10:45 PM
I don't think they really care to be honest.

And this horse racing exists as it does today, great job.

HalvOnHorseracing
05-24-2015, 10:46 PM
Racing may be the most cynical sport of all. I tend to think it is like most things in life. 90% honest, straight shooters, 10% lowlifes.

chadk66
05-24-2015, 10:54 PM
Some of these trainers who think they got such a tough job should try to make their money betting...they're smart enough not to;)

thaskalos
05-24-2015, 11:03 PM
Racing may be the most cynical sport of all. I tend to think it is like most things in life. 90% honest, straight shooters, 10% lowlifes.
If the lowlifes in horse racing are only 10%...then I've met every single one of them.

Ruffian1
05-25-2015, 07:31 AM
This is why bettors think of horsemen as we currently do, as a group.

Bettors? Or customers?

"Horsemen" as a group, as in all ?

Like all whites, or all blacks, or all anything ?

You are smarter and better than that CJ.

I will chalk it up to a heated moment.

As a former horseman, I was, and remain anything but, a group or like all.

DeltaLover
05-25-2015, 08:49 AM
Bettors? Or customers?

"Horsemen" as a group, as in all ?

Like all whites, or all blacks, or all anything ?

You are smarter and better than that CJ.

I will chalk it up to a heated moment.

As a former horseman, I was, and remain anything but, a group or like all.

Do you imply that there are no national, racial or group stereotypes and characteristics?

If this is what you are saying, sorry but I strongly disagree..

Especially when it comes to horse racing trainers, after decades of been around them, I have a strong belief that as a group, they try to take as much advantage of the betting pools as they can, trying all kind of techniques to deceive the betting crowd to the wrong directions (of course there are exceptions but they exist only to confirm the rule)...

Grits
05-25-2015, 09:47 AM
In April, when Keeneland came up with the notion of running some lasix free races, the opinion piece appeared at Kentucky.com. (At least, this is where I read the article.)

Right away, on the heels of the piece followed another opinion in complete opposition to the planned idea of conducting such races. It was penned by the (then) president/chairman of the Horsemen's Benevolent & Protective Association.

What I found interesting in the rebuttal was the comment made regarding bettors as I don't ever recall the HBPA giving two fat ticks what was beneficial for anyone other than themselves. To be more precise, particularly bettors.

Who asked the bettor... to learn of their happiness?

As for the bettors they would be happy to tell you that to handicap horses that race with lasix, that then participate in one or two Lasix-free races and then return to races with Lasix is too difficult. They would bet less not more.

biggestal99
05-25-2015, 09:56 AM
I never had a horse run faster on lasix than prior to being put on it.

Must not have many horses. :-)

First Lasix is a powerful improver of BEYERs in Horses

Just yesterday at Belmont, there were 9 instances of FIRST LASIX

I recorded the BEYER WITHOUT LASIX and the BEYER FIRST LASIX

average BEYER WITHOUT LASIX 45
average BEYER WITH LASIC 51

I know its a small sample
but the DRF, Timeform, and Brisnet is replete with examples on a daily basis
with horses improving with the addition of raceday Lasix

Allan

biggestal99
05-25-2015, 10:07 AM
I wonder how much more money would have been bet in Juvy turf last year (nearly 5 million in handle) if Hootenanny weren't in the race.

Allan

cj
05-25-2015, 10:18 AM
Bettors? Or customers?

"Horsemen" as a group, as in all ?

Like all whites, or all blacks, or all anything ?

You are smarter and better than that CJ.

I will chalk it up to a heated moment.

As a former horseman, I was, and remain anything but, a group or like all.

I tried to avoid that by saying "as a group"...maybe that isn't the best choice of words. But we view horsemen's "groups" as anti-bettor, that is what I meant, and I stand by it.

In Chad's case, since he pulled the Mullins' routine that gamblers are idiots, he would definitely fall in that group.

Ruffian1
05-25-2015, 10:21 AM
Do you imply that there are no national, racial or group stereotypes and characteristics?

If this is what you are saying, sorry but I strongly disagree..

Especially when it comes to horse racing trainers, after decades of been around them, I have a strong belief that as a group, they try to take as much advantage of the betting pools as they can, trying all kind of techniques to deceive the betting crowd to the wrong directions (of course there are exceptions but they exist only to confirm the rule)...

Q. Do you imply that there are no national, racial or group stereotypes and characteristics?

A. I imply that stereotyping anyone is wrong. But I thought that everyone knew that.

Q. Especially when it comes to horse racing trainers, after decades of been around them, I have a strong belief that as a group, they try to take as much advantage of the betting pools as they can, trying all kind of techniques to deceive the betting crowd to the wrong directions (of course there are exceptions but they exist only to confirm the rule)

A. Well then it's a damn shame you never met me. My home was Maryland but I ran around shipped now and then.
Speaking for myself, I never considered doing what you suggest the "group" did. That is not who I was, and not who I am.

cj
05-25-2015, 10:21 AM
Must not have many horses. :-)

First Lasix is a powerful improver of BEYERs in Horses

Just yesterday at Belmont, there were 9 instances of FIRST LASIX

I recorded the BEYER WITHOUT LASIX and the BEYER FIRST LASIX

average BEYER WITHOUT LASIX 45
average BEYER WITH LASIC 51

I know its a small sample
but the DRF, Timeform, and Brisnet is replete with examples on a daily basis
with horses improving with the addition of raceday Lasix

Allan

The Lasix zealots will tell you all were bleeders (of course they aren't) and it only allows horses to run to potential.

DeltaLover
05-25-2015, 10:26 AM
Speaking for myself, I never considered doing what you suggest the "group" did. That is not who I was, and not who I am.

How about your colleagues then?

Ruffian1
05-25-2015, 10:38 AM
I tried to avoid that by saying "as a group"...maybe that isn't the best choice of words. But we view horsemen's "groups" as anti-bettor, that is what I meant, and I stand by it.

In Chad's case, since he pulled the Mullins' routine that gamblers are idiots, he would definitely fall in that group.

Well CJ, it's a shame we never met either. I spent countless hours lobbying for customer rights and satisfaction. That is because before I set foot on the backside, I WAS a customer,albeit 15-16 years old , but I was.
Trying to get the message out, I helped create a one hour "meet the trainer/jockey " that started in the early 80's and was held every Saturday morning at the track that was racing in Md. from 11AM-12PM. It was a simple question and answer with no rules. They asked it, and I answered it, or the jockey answered it. I got a lot of thank you's from customers for that when I was on the show and was acknowledged for being the co-founder of it. It lasted a few years but like most things, fizzled out unfortunately.
I talked for hours with Frank DeFrancis about fans and how to help them. Believe it or not, he loved the fans, and respected them for who they were, recognizing they drove the bus when nobody else was willing to see it that way.
When on the HBPA board, and after getting away from that crooked outfit, and forming the MTHA, I pushed hard for customer rights until I was voted out. But Teddy would have been proud.

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”


― Theodore Roosevelt (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/44567.Theodore_Roosevelt)


So being as I have spent many more hours advocating for customers than 99.5% of customers have, I would appreciate it if I was left out of the stereotyping . I hope you can understand my disdain for it.

cj
05-25-2015, 10:43 AM
Well CJ, it's a shame we never met either. I spent countless hours lobbying for customer rights and satisfaction. That is because before I set foot on the backside, I WAS a customer,albeit 15-16 years old , but I was.
Trying to get the message out, I helped create a one hour "meet the trainer/jockey " that started in the early 80's and was held every Saturday morning at the track that was racing in Md. from 11AM-12PM. It was a simple question and answer with no rules. They asked it, and I answered it, or the jockey answered it. I got a lot of thank you's from customers for that when I was on the show and was acknowledged for being the co-founder of it. It lasted a few years but like most things, fizzled out unfortunately.
I talked for hours with Frank DeFrancis about fans and how to help them. Believe it or not, he loved the fans, and respected them for who they were, recognizing they drove the bus when nobody else was willing to see it that way.
So being as I have spent many more hours advocating for customers than 99.5% of customers have, I would appreciate it if I was left out of the stereotyping . I hope you can understand my disdain for it.

I do realize there are horsemen out there that get it and I really was trying to avoid stereotyping, just didn't use the best words. But I also know when it comes to horsemen's groups, those same people get outvoted almost every single time.

Ruffian1
05-25-2015, 10:47 AM
How about your colleagues then?

You mean my former colleagues?

The vast majority were hardly anything close to that, but I know what you meant.

You would have to ask them, as I speak for myself, not others.

Ruffian1
05-25-2015, 10:50 AM
I do realize there are horsemen out there that get it and I really was trying to avoid stereotyping, just didn't use the best words. But I also know when it comes to horsemen's groups, those same people get outvoted almost every single time.

You are correct. I was outvoted often, but I stood up for customers in the face of that as a young, non conformist I suppose.

clocker7
05-25-2015, 11:00 AM
Thanks to the OP for the input.

Having solely been a part of the bettor segment for many decades, I have no problem with the use of lasix.

HalvOnHorseracing
05-25-2015, 11:11 AM
If the lowlifes in horse racing are only 10%...then I've met every single one of them.
Maybe 80-20 in horseracing

HalvOnHorseracing
05-25-2015, 11:41 AM
The Lasix zealots will tell you all were bleeders (of course they aren't) and it only allows horses to run to potential.

In order for a horse to run faster after getting a shot of Lasix four hours before a race something has to change physiologically. I'm not sure how much weight a horse can shed in four hours, but that would be one physiological change. Improvement in lung function as a result of removal of edema in the lungs is a physiological change. What other physiological change would Lasix cause that would make a horse run faster? Observation leads to hypothesis. Testing leads to theory. But jumping from observation to theory is simply bad science. Even if you are right that none of them had any small amount of EIPH, you have to explain exactly how it works beyond the horse carries less weight and has improved lung function because they are not filling up with blood. Neither side here has divine knowledge. When the study comes out that explains why a non-bleeder improves time, then the argument is informed. Some of the pro-Lasix people are assholes. I can attest from personal experience that so are some of the anti-Lasix people. But there is a big crowd in the middle happy to be convinced with something more than either emotional or anecdotal argument.

biggestal99
05-25-2015, 12:10 PM
When the study comes out that explains why a non-bleeder improves time, then the argument is informed. .

Unsure how a study of non-bleeders without LASIX can be done. Almost all horse in North America run their entire racing lives on vitamin L. Both Bleeders and non-Bleeders

we most likely can't have a fully formed opinion one way or the other.

since that is impossible one can only go by ones life experiences

In my case, my observation from 40 years of handicapping TB is that Lasix
improves performance both in bleeders and non bleeders.

you hold a different opinion. since neither can be proven by a study its a stalemate.

Threads like this one really don't inform as how much information can one provide without a proper study of LASIX and its effects on time.

you hold one opinion, I hold the opposite, really doubt we changed anyone's mind.

either you are WHOA person or you are anti-WHOA person and they will never find any common ground.

Allan

magwell
05-25-2015, 12:37 PM
It helps them run to the best of their ability,and helps to prevent bleeding just in case , so whats so bad about that ?????? :cool:

cj
05-25-2015, 12:42 PM
Unsure how a study of non-bleeders without LASIX can be done. Almost all horse in North America run their entire racing lives on vitamin L. Both Bleeders and non-Bleeders

we most likely can't have a fully formed opinion one way or the other.

since that is impossible one can only go by ones life experiences

In my case, my observation from 40 years of handicapping TB is that Lasix
improves performance both in bleeders and non bleeders.

you hold a different opinion. since neither can be proven by a study its a stalemate.

Threads like this one really don't inform as how much information can one provide without a proper study of LASIX and its effects on time.

you hold one opinion, I hold the opposite, really doubt we changed anyone's mind.

either you are WHOA person or you are anti-WHOA person and they will never find any common ground.

Allan

The best "experiment" I can use is looking at European shippers that come to North America. Some use Lasix, some do not. The difference in results is definitive, and it clearly favors those using Lasix. I am talking about horses in big races, not those brought here specifically because they were bleeders overseas. The vast majority are proven non-bleeders. Bet those not getting Lasix at your own peril.

HalvOnHorseracing
05-25-2015, 01:11 PM
Unsure how a study of non-bleeders without LASIX can be done. Almost all horse in North America run their entire racing lives on vitamin L. Both Bleeders and non-Bleeders

we most likely can't have a fully formed opinion one way or the other.

since that is impossible one can only go by ones life experiences

In my case, my observation from 40 years of handicapping TB is that Lasix
improves performance both in bleeders and non bleeders.

you hold a different opinion. since neither can be proven by a study its a stalemate.

Threads like this one really don't inform as how much information can one provide without a proper study of LASIX and its effects on time.

you hold one opinion, I hold the opposite, really doubt we changed anyone's mind.

either you are WHOA person or you are anti-WHOA person and they will never find any common ground.

Allan

I am anti-WHOA, but not because they are anti-Lasix. Because they argue in absolutes, in anecdotes, in emotional arguments. They say that "good horsemanship" can prevent bleeding. They argue that trainers are too lazy to train their horses properly. I've got those emails. I've repeatedly said I could be convinced racing could be as successful without Lasix with some better proof than what WHOA offers. That is the difference between me and WHOA. I suspect nothing short of God's word would convince them.

As to a study, of course one could be designed to demonstrate that Lasix is performance enhancing beyond weight loss and reduction of pulmonary bleeding. Treadmill studies are done all the time to simulate racing conditions. I would think it would be possible to get detailed biofeedback of the horse running without Lasix, then scope the horse afterward to determine if bleeding occurred. If no bleeding occurred, inject the Lasix, repeat the experiment, scope the horse and if the horse is clean again compare the times and the biometrics. Did it improve lung function? Heart function? If you are over 50, you've probably already had the same test done by your cardiologist.

The fact that neither side is insisting that the question be resolved does not appear to me to be a sign that it cannot be resolved, but that the proper information and data will ultimately result in one side being wrong and one side being right and that is less tolerable than agreeing to disagree.

I want an answer. I demand an answer. And I'd be fine having to live with a definititve answer.

whodoyoulike
05-25-2015, 01:19 PM
Must not have many horses. :-)

First Lasix is a powerful improver of BEYERs in Horses

Just yesterday at Belmont, there were 9 instances of FIRST LASIX

I recorded the BEYER WITHOUT LASIX and the BEYER FIRST LASIX

average BEYER WITHOUT LASIX 45
average BEYER WITH LASIC 51

I know its a small sample
but the DRF, Timeform, and Brisnet is replete with examples on a daily basis
with horses improving with the addition of raceday Lasix

Allan

I like your thinking regarding the effects of the use of Lasix. But, how did you find out what the Beyers were for races run yesterday?

Your example would be a good use of Classhandicapper's or DeltaLover's databases which they've made references in other threads.

cj
05-25-2015, 01:20 PM
I am anti-WHOA, but not because they are anti-Lasix. Because they argue in absolutes, in anecdotes, in emotional arguments. They say that "good horsemanship" can prevent bleeding. They argue that trainers are too lazy to train their horses properly. I've got those emails. I've repeatedly said I could be convinced racing could be as successful without Lasix with some better proof than what WHOA offers. That is the difference between me and WHOA. I suspect nothing short of God's word would convince them.

As to a study, of course one could be designed to demonstrate that Lasix is performance enhancing beyond weight loss and reduction of pulmonary bleeding. Treadmill studies are done all the time to simulate racing conditions. I would think it would be possible to get detailed biofeedback of the horse running without Lasix, then scope the horse afterward to determine if bleeding occurred. If no bleeding occurred, inject the Lasix, repeat the experiment, scope the horse and if the horse is clean again compare the times and the biometrics. Did it improve lung function? Heart function? If you are over 50, you've probably already had the same test done by your cardiologist.

The fact that neither side is insisting that the question be resolved does not appear to me to be a sign that it cannot be resolved, but that the proper information and data will ultimately result in one side being wrong and one side being right and that is less tolerable than agreeing to disagree.

I want an answer. I demand an answer. And I'd be fine having to live with a definititve answer.

I don't think a treadmill comes close to mimicking racing conditions, but it could still be a legitimate experiment I'd like to see conducted by people with no interest in the outcome.

HalvOnHorseracing
05-25-2015, 01:27 PM
The best "experiment" I can use is looking at European shippers that come to North America. Some use Lasix, some do not. The difference in results is definitive, and it clearly favors those using Lasix. I am talking about horses in big races, not those brought here specifically because they were bleeders overseas. The vast majority are proven non-bleeders. Bet those not getting Lasix at your own peril.

I think laboratory testing can prove you right. I think every horseplayer should demand an answer to the question. I think with a definitive answer, the argument switches to whether horseracing is fine with one performance enhancing drug being allowed. And on that basis, the pro-Lasix people are in a very different position than they are now where they can continue to argue the health of the horse. It is irrefutable that Lasix controls bleeding and as long as the pro-Lasix people have that one fact with no counter scientific argument they can stay fast in their position. As long as the WHOA people argue it is unnatural they'll make little headway. IF they can prove it is performance enhancing they have science versus science, and that may sway some of the pro-Lasix folks who are very much anti performance enhancement. I agree, discussions where the thread goes, no I'm right, get us nowhere. I would suggest a new set of letters. PIPE. Prove it's performance enhancing.

whodoyoulike
05-25-2015, 01:27 PM
Well CJ, it's a shame we never met either. I spent countless hours lobbying for customer rights and satisfaction. That is because before I set foot on the backside, I WAS a customer,albeit 15-16 years old , but I was.
Trying to get the message out, I helped create a one hour "meet the trainer/jockey " that started in the early 80's and was held every Saturday morning at the track that was racing in Md. from 11AM-12PM. It was a simple question and answer with no rules. They asked it, and I answered it, or the jockey answered it. I got a lot of thank you's from customers for that when I was on the show and was acknowledged for being the co-founder of it. It lasted a few years but like most things, fizzled out unfortunately...



At Del Mar, Trevor Denman I believe still hosts a couple "meet the insiders" before the races each meet to large crowds. I always enjoyed them and he always provided free donuts, coffee and juice as evidenced by my waistline.

I don't understand why these info sessions would ever fizzle out.

HalvOnHorseracing
05-25-2015, 01:31 PM
I don't think a treadmill comes close to mimicking racing conditions, but it could still be a legitimate experiment I'd like to see conducted by people with no interest in the outcome.

I've had this discussion with Dr. Barker from LSU. I said the same thing - you can't mimic racing on a treadmill. He said, you can develop a conclusion that holds up under racing conditions because you can correlate resutls. A lot of the 26 allowable drug standards were developed using treadmill tests. But, you make an important point. There will always be a reason to disagree with a study result if someone is unwilling to be convinced. I also agree wholeheartedly that an independent, uninterested third party is the right choice to do a study.

whodoyoulike
05-25-2015, 01:32 PM
In order for a horse to run faster after getting a shot of Lasix four hours before a race something has to change physiologically. I'm not sure how much weight a horse can shed in four hours, but that would be one physiological change. Improvement in lung function as a result of removal of edema in the lungs is a physiological change. What other physiological change would Lasix cause that would make a horse run faster? Observation leads to hypothesis. Testing leads to theory. But jumping from observation to theory is simply bad science. Even if you are right that none of them had any small amount of EIPH, you have to explain exactly how it works beyond the horse carries less weight and has improved lung function because they are not filling up with blood. Neither side here has divine knowledge. When the study comes out that explains why a non-bleeder improves time, then the argument is informed. Some of the pro-Lasix people are assholes. I can attest from personal experience that so are some of the anti-Lasix people. But there is a big crowd in the middle happy to be convinced with something more than either emotional or anecdotal argument.

When a horse starts or bleeds profusely (or whatever) wouldn't the horse slow down or even stop running?

Btw, do you have a medical or legal background?

You seem to always make a reference to these areas of knowledge.

HalvOnHorseracing
05-25-2015, 01:36 PM
When a horse starts or bleeds profusely (or whatever) wouldn't the horse slow down or even stop running?

My point is that Lasix is obviously performance enhancing because it prevents pulmonary bleeding. The question is, is it performance enhancing for another physiological reason?

cj
05-25-2015, 01:37 PM
I like your thinking regarding the effects of the use of Lasix. But, how did you find out what the Beyers were for races run yesterday?

Your example would be a good use of Classhandicapper's or DeltaLover's databases which they've made references in other threads.

DRF and TimeformUS both have systems in place that allow customers to see the figures within a few days.

whodoyoulike
05-25-2015, 01:45 PM
DRF and TimeformUS both have systems in place that allow customers to see the figures within a few days.

Can you provide to me a little more direction on where I can find this out?

Obviously, I no longer regularly use DRF or have I used TimeformUS. Nothing personal, just set in my ways but I'm always willing to learn new things if it will improve my game.

Thanks,

cj
05-25-2015, 01:56 PM
Can you provide to me a little more direction on where I can find this out?

Obviously, I no longer regularly use DRF or have I used TimeformUS. Nothing personal, just set in my ways but I'm always willing to learn new things if it will improve my game.

Thanks,

DRF offers Simulcast Daily online, haven't used it in a long time so others could help more.

TimeformUS you just click on the top 3 in any race and it opens the Charts window. The charts display the current figure and allow scrolling through each horse's entire history, and clicking on any figure takes you to that chart.

Ruffian1
05-25-2015, 01:58 PM
At Del Mar, Trevor Denman I believe still hosts a couple "meet the insiders" before the races each meet to large crowds. I always enjoyed them and he always provided free donuts, coffee and juice as evidenced by my waistline.

I don't understand why these info sessions would ever fizzle out.

Trevor might have been in Md. when it was still around, I can't remember. Md. did the coffee, juice and donuts thing as well I am fairly sure of. It really did provide the customer with a chance to ask a good question.

I don't remember exactly why but it was not attendance. Probably 75-100 people were always there. More than that towards 12PM. I forget the reasons given but I was very disappointed.

Stillriledup
05-25-2015, 02:12 PM
At Del Mar, Trevor Denman I believe still hosts a couple "meet the insiders" before the races each meet to large crowds. I always enjoyed them and he always provided free donuts, coffee and juice as evidenced by my waistline.

I don't understand why these info sessions would ever fizzle out.

Maybe because you're not getting REAL info that's going to help you win bets. If you were eating a doughnut listening to Art Sherman talk about CC (for example) is he ever going to tell you anything that will help you get an edge? No, he's just going to talk about how well CC is training and what a character his owners are. Nothing ground breaking that would get someone to get out of bed at 7am and head over there for.

whodoyoulike
05-25-2015, 02:17 PM
DRF offers Simulcast Daily online, haven't used it in a long time so others could help more.

TimeformUS you just click on the top 3 in any race and it opens the Charts window. The charts display the current figure and allow scrolling through each horse's entire history, and clicking on any figure takes you to that chart.

Thanks, I appreciate the info. I do have the web site bookmarked but, I haven't gone thru the tutorials etc.

lamboguy
05-25-2015, 02:25 PM
My point is that Lasix is obviously performance enhancing because it prevents pulmonary bleeding. The question is, is it performance enhancing for another physiological reason?that is 100% wrong, lasix does not prevent bleeding, its supposed to stop fluid retention in the body. a horse can still bleed while on lasix. i said this before there are plenty of other things you can give a horse to prevent bleeding that actually work, but not sure how good those things are for the horse either.

whodoyoulike
05-25-2015, 02:28 PM
Maybe because you're not getting REAL info that's going to help you win bets. If you were eating a doughnut listening to Art Sherman talk about CC (for example) is he ever going to tell you anything that will help you get an edge? No, he's just going to talk about how well CC is training and what a character his owners are. Nothing ground breaking that would get someone to get out of bed at 7am and head over there for.


I attended these Q&A sessions for years and Trevor and his guests (jockeys and trainers) were always candid with their responses. The sessions started around 8 a.m. and always had several hundred in attendance. An additional benefit was you could watch the morning workouts which Trevor occasionally commented during the two hours (a lot of free donuts).

whodoyoulike
05-25-2015, 02:40 PM
that is 100% wrong, lasix does not prevent bleeding, its supposed to stop fluid retention in the body. a horse can still bleed while on lasix. i said this before there are plenty of other things you can give a horse to prevent bleeding that actually work, but not sure how good those things are for the horse either.


I've always read this was the primary reason for it's use.

Interesting, thanks for the info.

lamboguy
05-25-2015, 02:44 PM
I've always read this was the primary reason for it's use.

Interesting, thanks for the info.
it helps to prevent lung infections that bleeding or fluid can cause.

Ruffian1
05-25-2015, 03:14 PM
Maybe because you're not getting REAL info that's going to help you win bets. If you were eating a doughnut listening to Art Sherman talk about CC (for example) is he ever going to tell you anything that will help you get an edge? No, he's just going to talk about how well CC is training and what a character his owners are. Nothing ground breaking that would get someone to get out of bed at 7am and head over there for.

I gave real info that helped people win bets. It's all in asking the right question. And asking the right person, so as to get an honest answer. In that sense, I was your guy. Guess you should have gotten out of bed and come down to Md. back in the day and asked me.:)

Stillriledup
05-25-2015, 03:52 PM
I gave real info that helped people win bets. It's all in asking the right question. And asking the right person, so as to get an honest answer. In that sense, I was your guy. Guess you should have gotten out of bed and come down to Md. back in the day and asked me.:)

Its hard to get out of bed before 11, but maybe i would have found a way if i knew winners were waiting!

Tom
05-25-2015, 04:26 PM
Can you provide to me a little more direction on where I can find this out?

Obviously, I no longer regularly use DRF or have I used TimeformUS. Nothing personal, just set in my ways but I'm always willing to learn new things if it will improve my game.

Thanks,

If you sign up for Sim Daily, you can look at a page where all the stakes run are listed along with Beyers. More importantly, you can go to the winners book - a chart for each track for the last year showing race conditions, times, and race Beyer.

Very handy tool if you use Beyers, or even if you don't. It's about $98 for 6
months.

HalvOnHorseracing
05-25-2015, 06:42 PM
that is 100% wrong, lasix does not prevent bleeding, its supposed to stop fluid retention in the body. a horse can still bleed while on lasix. i said this before there are plenty of other things you can give a horse to prevent bleeding that actually work, but not sure how good those things are for the horse either.

It reduces pulmonary hypertension which prevents bleeding, and yes, it does stop fluid retetion. So I should have said, it limits EIPH, which I said on a number of other occasions but I was in a hurry to get to the track. It does not make the underlying point any different.

Ruffian1
05-25-2015, 06:51 PM
Its hard to get out of bed before 11, but maybe i would have found a way if i knew winners were waiting!

:D. I like it.

But... you would be amazed at what you can experience before 7AM.

Just be sure and try it someday.:ThmbUp:

Stillriledup
05-25-2015, 06:54 PM
:D. I like it.

But... you would be amazed at what you can experience before 7AM.

Just be sure and try it someday.:ThmbUp:

The only time i'm up before 7am is when i haven't gone to sleep yet. ;)

ultracapper
05-25-2015, 07:07 PM
The only time i'm up before 7am is when i haven't gone to sleep yet. ;)

I was just going to say that, even though it's not as true as it used to be. HAha. And some of the things I experienced before 7am, well, I'm sure you all know what I mean.

clocker7
05-25-2015, 07:56 PM
I am anti-WHOA, but not because they are anti-Lasix. Because they argue in absolutes, in anecdotes, in emotional arguments. They say that "good horsemanship" can prevent bleeding. They argue that trainers are too lazy to train their horses properly. I've got those emails. I've repeatedly said I could be convinced racing could be as successful without Lasix with some better proof than what WHOA offers. That is the difference between me and WHOA. I suspect nothing short of God's word would convince them.

As to a study, of course one could be designed to demonstrate that Lasix is performance enhancing beyond weight loss and reduction of pulmonary bleeding. Treadmill studies are done all the time to simulate racing conditions. I would think it would be possible to get detailed biofeedback of the horse running without Lasix, then scope the horse afterward to determine if bleeding occurred. If no bleeding occurred, inject the Lasix, repeat the experiment, scope the horse and if the horse is clean again compare the times and the biometrics. Did it improve lung function? Heart function? If you are over 50, you've probably already had the same test done by your cardiologist.

The fact that neither side is insisting that the question be resolved does not appear to me to be a sign that it cannot be resolved, but that the proper information and data will ultimately result in one side being wrong and one side being right and that is less tolerable than agreeing to disagree.

I want an answer. I demand an answer. And I'd be fine having to live with a definititve answer.

Great post.

sammy the sage
05-25-2015, 09:06 PM
if human athletes are NOT allowed a drug to correct certain physical problems in some sports...why should horses...they shouldn't....PERIOD...end of discussion...rest of the world doing rather WELL...following THAT protocol...

HalvOnHorseracing
05-25-2015, 09:57 PM
if human athletes are NOT allowed a drug to correct certain physical problems in some sports...why should horses...they shouldn't....PERIOD...end of discussion...rest of the world doing rather WELL...following THAT protocol...

You obviously didn't read the post on my blog Lasix:Fact or Myth in which I pointed out some of the enlightened major sports standards. Does football allow injections of narcotic painkillers DURING A GAME? Yup. Tennis ok with painkillers? Yup. How about amphetamines -- where does baseball stand on that? 250,000 picograms or less is not considered a violation. Ah, what about a cortisone injection. Yep, it's ok. I know. You meant the Olympics. Ibuprofen? Ok. Asthma medication. Ok. Caffeine. Ok. Here's the difference. Horseracing - none of those things are legal in a post race test. Painkillers, amphetamines, cortisone--essentially zero. Not an advil, not a prilosec, not an accidental cup of coffee. Sports concentrates on illegal drugs (coke, heroin, PCP, even weed-but not at a level below 50,000 picograms) and performance enhancing substances (steroids, amphetamines, HGH, blood doping). Horseracing has standards for 26 allowable therapeutic medications designed to mimimize the amount of any of those drugs in their system. It allows exactly ONE medication within 24 hours of a race - Lasix. Name a drug that is not legal for certain problems in some sports that is legal in horseracing. Apparently that PERIOD --- end of discussion was a little premature. Ironic t-shirt by the way.

HalvOnHorseracing
05-25-2015, 10:50 PM
When a horse starts or bleeds profusely (or whatever) wouldn't the horse slow down or even stop running?

Btw, do you have a medical or legal background?

You seem to always make a reference to these areas of knowledge.

Of course when a horse's lungs start filling up with blood running speed will be impaired. The post you were responding to was in response to a previous post. I'm saying three things. Weight loss can be performance enhancing, and we've covered that in the posts already. It's physics. The same amount of thrust applied to a body of lower weight will casue it to accelerate faster. Improved lung function can be performance enhancing, and you really don't need to be a doctor to figure that one out. The question I asked was, other than the two things we know are performance enhancing, what other physiological change could explain performance enhancement? This was in response to anecdotal observations that horses run faster on Lasix.

Make sense?

As Bob Dylan said, you don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

Stillriledup
05-25-2015, 11:28 PM
Of course when a horse's lungs start filling up with blood running speed will be impaired. The post you were responding to was in response to a previous post. I'm saying three things. Weight loss can be performance enhancing, and we've covered that in the posts already. It's physics. The same amount of thrust applied to a body of lower weight will casue it to accelerate faster. Improved lung function can be performance enhancing, and you really don't need to be a doctor to figure that one out. The question I asked was, other than the two things we know are performance enhancing, what other physiological change could explain performance enhancement? This was in response to anecdotal observations that horses run faster on Lasix.

Make sense?

As Bob Dylan said, you don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

I think the 64 dollar question is this. If one horse is predisposed to NOT bleed or not bleed as much (as other horses) due to his genetics and another horse is more of a "bleeder" due to just random factors in genetics, would it be fair to "enhance" the bleeder with chemical so he can keep up with the horse who has the "better breeding" for lack of better words?

Here's a thread from a bodybuilding site, its oldish from 2007, but interesting discussion here from hard core bodybuilders and lasix and how they use it (or not) in competition. I thought it was an interesting read.

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=3391031

cj
05-25-2015, 11:29 PM
Of course when a horse's lungs start filling up with blood running speed will be impaired. The post you were responding to was in response to a previous post. I'm saying three things. Weight loss can be performance enhancing, and we've covered that in the posts already. It's physics. The same amount of thrust applied to a body of lower weight will casue it to accelerate faster. Improved lung function can be performance enhancing, and you really don't need to be a doctor to figure that one out. The question I asked was, other than the two things we know are performance enhancing, what other physiological change could explain performance enhancement? This was in response to anecdotal observations that horses run faster on Lasix.

Make sense?

As Bob Dylan said, you don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

Another thing that has only been briefly touched on is that Lasix is not always effective. I wouldn't even say it is rare for horses to bleed despite getting Lasix. I don't have the exact percentages in front of me, but memory I'm think low 70% range. I'm sure I'll be corrected of wrong.

Found a few things here: http://equimed.com/news/products/effects-of-lasix-use-in-race-horses-pros-and-cons

“Using a visual endoscopic scoring system, numerous studies conducted after racing have shown either a slight or no reduction in EIPH in horses administered furosemide before racing” .

This one clearly contradicts the eight pounds listed in this thread earlier, and that is just pre-race.

The panel also discussed whether Lasix improved a horse’s performance beyond that resulting from stemming internal bleeding. Dr. Bramlage said he thought it does because a horse loses approximately twenty pounds of fluid from the colon due to urination before a race. But when used in nearly all horses the effect would be similar in all participants and would produce a level playing field.

This is exactly what I've said all along, other horses are given Lasix to remain competitive, not because they need it.

The one thing that is clear to me is that not nearly enough study was done on the drug before it was approved. I mean, they are just horses I guess. That must have been the thought.

As for "demanding" anything as a bettor...yeah right. I can't get tracks to time races properly or explain using various run ups for the same distance on the same day, but I'm going to get somewhere demanding further study of Lasix?

rastajenk
05-26-2015, 07:38 AM
Why do people grant horse racing immunity from the law of diminishing returns? At nearly every level of the discussion... nano/pico testing levels, the amount of the enhancement of any given med, the costs and risks of next-gen drugs whose effectiveness is known only by word-of-mouth... reasonable persons should be able to ask, how much more of racing's limited resources should be directed to this end in order to please the coalition of anti-drug purists who love the horse and monolithic "bettors" who know that drugs alter the results from some other pre-determined possibility?

chadk66
05-26-2015, 08:35 AM
I'm not sure why anybody is taking this much time to discuss a drug that will never be banned.

lamboguy
05-26-2015, 08:35 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/sports/30racing.html?_r=0

sammy the sage
05-26-2015, 08:46 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/sports/30racing.html?_r=0

"It also demonstrated how, beyond the prospect of unobstructed breathing, the medication can enhance the performance of a horse. Horses that were treated with Lasix lost an average of 27.9 pounds between injection and a weight measurement after the race, while untreated horses lost an average of 11.9 pounds."

chadk66
05-26-2015, 08:48 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/sports/30racing.html?_r=0Imagine that. It's rather ironic, I'm sitting at the computer this morning and my wife is watching HRTV. She is watching a show about Eight Belles. They just made a mention about drugs, etc. The show says that the TRA and industry leaders are proposing the following changes to the sport. One was drug rules across state lines, etc. I kind of chuckled. Then I had her look at the info and this was done in 2008. So seven years later we are not a step further in doing any of the things they had listed on the screen.

chadk66
05-26-2015, 08:57 AM
"It also demonstrated how, beyond the prospect of unobstructed breathing, the medication can enhance the performance of a horse. Horses that were treated with Lasix lost an average of 27.9 pounds between injection and a weight measurement after the race, while untreated horses lost an average of 11.9 pounds."so basically the study is claiming performance enhancement because of the 16lb (average) less weight of the horse. Boy that's a major enhancement lol. But problem is they didn't touch on how it's neutralized because a horse has less bodily fluid to call upon late in a race. Now they just need to do a study on that aspect. It's also rather funny when commentators/horsemen are talking about certain horses in a pre-race show they always boast about how such and such should run so much better today because he appears to have gained weight since his last start. All this means is that you can make all this mean whatever you want it to mean. So in the end it really doesn't matter since nearly all horses are racing with lasix. They all have this edge of race loss. So from a handicapping standpoint it has no bearing.

DeltaLover
05-26-2015, 09:09 AM
I'm not sure why anybody is taking this much time to discuss a drug that will never be banned.

What makes you so sure about that?

Last time I have checked it was banned in the most successful and advanced (from a horse racing view) countries..

HalvOnHorseracing
05-26-2015, 09:59 AM
If almost all horses are getting Lasix, that evens the playing field and is probably a good thing for handicappers. At that point the relevant question is, does Lasix have a long term deleterious effect on the horse? If the answer is yes, then a Lasix ban would get wider support. If it is no, then everything reverts to more philosophical positions, like should we be running horses closer to their natural state? The other points that have been brought up - Lasix may not be effective in 100% of the cases - still probably don't impact the handicapper because you can see the horse consistently back up when its lungs start to fill.

When I used to work with modelers, you would ask them, what is the answer? They would reply, what do you need the answer to be?

I wrote about opinion vs fact and noted that, using the death penalty as an example, you can calculate how much it costs the state to deal with appeals for sometimes decades, but whether or not that amount is a good reason to eliminate the penalty depends totally on your opinion. For some people no amount would be an inhibition to bringing someone who committed a heinous crime to justice. Unless the Lasix issue is argued based on tangible scientific fact, then it will come down to individual opinion, and good luck finding an answer that doesn't piss one or both sides off.

And sometimes even when you produce a fact, people's opinions can take precendence. I once told someone I knew that if you shot a gun on a perfectly straight line and dropped a bullet from the exact height of the barrel at the exact same time the bullet exited, both would hit the groud simultaneously (ignore curvature of the earth for the moment) because gravitational force is not affected by horizontal velocity. There was no way this person could wrap his mind around that idea. The bullet from the gun had to hit the ground after the dropped bullet, laws of the physical universe be damned.

The best we can do is inform the discussion with fact and hope that we can come to the right policy.

chadk66
05-26-2015, 10:02 AM
What makes you so sure about that?

Last time I have checked it was banned in the most successful and advanced (from a horse racing view) countries..I've explained this before. you will see many horses sent to pasture. the number of entries now is extremely low, it'll plummet with banning lasix. If your lucky you'll have half a dozen major tracks. I think the people that control what happens in racing will allow it. It would shock me to no end. I don't know this but I'd bet those countries your referring to have far less horses racing than we do.

cj
05-26-2015, 10:17 AM
If almost all horses are getting Lasix, that evens the playing field and is probably a good thing for handicappers.

Only in North American horse racing would drugging every (nearly) entrant be considered a positive by some.

As I mentioned earlier, it is very clear not enough study was done before the drug was legalized.

DeltaLover
05-26-2015, 10:33 AM
I've explained this before. you will see many horses sent to pasture. the number of entries now is extremely low, it'll plummet with banning lasix. If your lucky you'll have half a dozen major tracks. I think the people that control what happens in racing will allow it. It would shock me to no end. I don't know this but I'd bet those countries your referring to have far less horses racing than we do.

I favour the idea of retiring crippled horses and having much less racing. This will be (extremely) beneficial for the game as it will result to more transparency, larger fields, easier and better administration any many more benefits.

Having half a dozen, high quality tracks is exactly what we need...

Ruffian1
05-26-2015, 10:46 AM
Only in North American horse racing would drugging every (nearly) entrant be considered a positive by some.

As I mentioned earlier, it is very clear not enough study was done before the drug was legalized.

Would tend to agree CJ.

The biggest loser in all this is the industry itself, at least in North America. The breeding has become totally saturated with less "bleeder sound" horses.
In the mid to late 70's, a bad bleeding mare was rarely if ever bred . Just about the same with colts, but maybe a little less restrictive.
Everyone knew who the true bad bleeders were. But that changed . Today, we have no idea who bleeds badly and who scoped with 2 specs of blood to view.
Getting lasix banned will be darn near impossible without a long term plan that starts with future stallions and mares. And that will cost people tons of money that own those high end horses. They won't go for it quietly.
Dates will need to be cut back, and management might like it but state lawmakers looking for tax dollars will scream. It's a real mess and I just don't see the incentive for high ups to address it. Of course horsemen will scream, but honestly, they have very little pull compared to what they used to have. What are they going to do? Strike. Go right ahead, the tracks would love to be a simulcast and no show to put on place. It's the show that costs so much, not the TV's .
IMO, they probably should, but to what end? I don't know. But cold turkey would shut down many tracks unless of course they did the NYRA shuffle, which was hay, oats, water and about 30 drugs to prevent bleeding most of which I had never heard of. Too me, that would really screw up the customer and would not be fair to them at all.

HalvOnHorseracing
05-26-2015, 10:57 AM
Only in North American horse racing would drugging every (nearly) entrant be considered a positive by some.

As I mentioned earlier, it is very clear not enough study was done before the drug was legalized.

We're not disagreeing. But the point that handicappers like the consistency Lasix creates should not be lost as a reason why public support is not greater. You can think it disgusting, but it doesn't make it less true. Tell me the last time someone said, if it wasn't for the Lasix I'd have nailed that race? It has become fully integrated into the handicapper's craft. And the fact of the matter is that none of us knows with any certainty what might change under a Lasix ban. If it creates chaos, perhaps there will be a backlash. If handicappers adjust quickly we can hand the fight over to the PETA people to complain about denial of food and water if trainers decide to go that route.

What I've said in a number of posts is that the WHOA people have completely neglected the implementation details. In the absence of a a tangible plan, fear, hypotheticals and speculation takes over. Do we start by banning it for next year's two year old crop but allow it to be grandfathered for the other age groups? What happens when those two year olds are old enough to race against older horses on Lasix? How do you get all the jurisdictions to buy into it simultaneously? What happens when one state (say Colorado) gets such tremendous pressure from its horsemen that they refuse to ban the medication? How do you re-train trainers to be successful without Lasix? On and on. The anti-Lasix group is so focused on the end result they haven't addressed the details.

I've similarly said not enough study has been done. And the other point I was making was that even if the face of studies and reports, sometimes opinion is too powerful.

HalvOnHorseracing
05-26-2015, 11:03 AM
Would tend to agree CJ.

The biggest loser in all this is the industry itself, at least in North America. The breeding has become totally saturated with less "bleeder sound" horses.
In the mid to late 70's, a bad bleeding mare was rarely if ever bred . Just about the same with colts, but maybe a little less restrictive.
Everyone knew who the true bad bleeders were. But that changed . Today, we have no idea who bleeds badly and who scoped with 2 specs of blood to view.
Getting lasix banned will be darn near impossible without a long term plan that starts with future stallions and mares. And that will cost people tons of money that own those high end horses. They won't go for it quietly.
Dates will need to be cut back, and management might like it but state lawmakers looking for tax dollars will scream. It's a real mess and I just don't see the incentive for high ups to address it. Of course horsemen will scream, but honestly, they have very little pull compared to what they used to have. What are they going to do? Strike. Go right ahead, the tracks would love to be a simulcast and no show to put on place. It's the show that costs so much, not the TV's .
IMO, they probably should, but to what end? I don't know. But cold turkey would shut down many tracks unless of course they did the NYRA shuffle, which was hay, oats, water and about 30 drugs to prevent bleeding most of which I had never heard of. Too me, that would really screw up the customer and would not be fair to them at all.

Excellent post. The issue of separate jurisdictions may prove intractable. The issue of how it could be made to work is the 800 pound gorilla.

chadk66
05-26-2015, 12:39 PM
exactly. it would take a national ban on lasix. we can't even get a national drug policy. isn't going to happen. and as Ruffian said, there would be too many losers in the banning of Lasix. It'll never happen. And if you go down the breeding avenue, how are you going to determine true bleeders anymore.

PaceAdvantage
05-26-2015, 04:43 PM
And this horse racing exists as it does today, great job.Bingo bango...we have a winner!

lamboguy
05-26-2015, 05:12 PM
"It also demonstrated how, beyond the prospect of unobstructed breathing, the medication can enhance the performance of a horse. Horses that were treated with Lasix lost an average of 27.9 pounds between injection and a weight measurement after the race, while untreated horses lost an average of 11.9 pounds."the 28 pounds could amount to close to 3% of the total body weight of the animal in 1 day. that can't be healthy in a million years.

chadk66
05-26-2015, 05:52 PM
the 28 pounds could amount to close to 3% of the total body weight of the animal in 1 day. that can't be healthy in a million years.it's water weight. it's just like the fat chick that takes the latest diet pills and looses 10 pounds in a week. then by the next weekend it's all back on again.

cj
05-26-2015, 06:14 PM
it's water weight. it's just like the fat chick that takes the latest diet pills and looses 10 pounds in a week. then by the next weekend it's all back on again.

Before exercise?

chadk66
05-26-2015, 06:24 PM
Before exercise?fat chicks don't exercise

cj
05-26-2015, 06:26 PM
fat chicks don't exercise

Not going to win over many with those kinds of posts. Come on, you're better than that.

That said, it is a terrible comparison then. A person taking water pills to lose weight and doing nothing physically would be far different than a person taking water pills then going out and jogging three miles.

Grits
05-26-2015, 07:17 PM
it's water weight. it's just like the fat chick that takes the latest diet pills and looses 10 pounds in a week. then by the next weekend it's all back on again.

You are so, so outclassed.

chadk66
05-26-2015, 08:04 PM
You are so, so outclassed.nah just bored with all this nonsense.

sammy the sage
05-26-2015, 09:23 PM
so basically the study is claiming performance enhancement because of the 16lb (average) less weight of the horse. Boy that's a major enhancement lol. But problem is they didn't touch on how it's neutralized because a horse has less bodily fluid to call upon late in a race. Now they just need to do a study on that aspect. It's also rather funny when commentators/horsemen are talking about certain horses in a pre-race show they always boast about how such and such should run so much better today because he appears to have gained weight since his last start. All this means is that you can make all this mean whatever you want it to mean. So in the end it really doesn't matter since nearly all horses are racing with lasix. They all have this edge of race loss. So from a handicapping standpoint it has no bearing.

Wrong...the Euro Grass runner's PROVE it...by shipping over the Arlington million or BC or other high profile...and THE 1st time Lasix 2nd tier horse beats 1st tier Euro MOST of the time w/out....or why else would people like O'Brien START using...just for ONE race....

hopefully you trained better than you handicap... :faint:

chadk66
05-27-2015, 07:57 PM
Wrong...the Euro Grass runner's PROVE it...by shipping over the Arlington million or BC or other high profile...and THE 1st time Lasix 2nd tier horse beats 1st tier Euro MOST of the time w/out....or why else would people like O'Brien START using...just for ONE race....

hopefully you trained better than you handicap... :faint:I said straight up on day one I was a horrible handicapper. :D

lamboguy
05-30-2015, 09:31 PM
i am entering a horse tomorrow, Sunday for Thursday, in Belmont, METEOROID that has never run with lasix and will be in a mile and 3/8 turf race and should run big.

magwell
05-30-2015, 11:42 PM
i am entering a horse tomorrow, Sunday for Thursday, in Belmont, METEOROID that has never run with lasix and will be in a mile and 3/8 turf race and should run big.Please explain your reasoning even though it's legal to run on lasix, your willing to take the chance of losing the the purse if any and maybe doing damage to the horses lungs if he might bleed, rather than being preventative first ?

lamboguy
05-31-2015, 02:29 AM
Please explain your reasoning even though it's legal to run on lasix, your willing to take the chance of losing the the purse if any and maybe doing damage to the horses lungs if he might bleed, rather than being preventative first ?the horse has run in Europe where it is not allowed. we ran him on the jump a few weeks ago over 2 miles and had no problem at all with him and he ran second. 1 3/8 mile on the flat is what this horse does best and i expect him to run a real good race. if we think lasix will help him run better after this race we will get him on the stuff. usually when people buy horses overseas to bring here you think he will improve with the addition of lasix. so far this horse has not shown any indication that it will help him.

Robert Goren
05-31-2015, 08:12 AM
On Breeders Cup, we seen horses who have run very well in Europe (they would not be here if they hadn't) improve dramatically with the aid of Lasix. After watching that happen over and over again, I find very hard to believe that it is not a performance enhancing drug or at least is being used to mask one.

biggestal99
05-31-2015, 10:14 AM
On Breeders Cup, we seen horses who have run very well in Europe (they would not be here if they hadn't) improve dramatically with the aid of Lasix. After watching that happen over and over again, I find very hard to believe that it is not a performance enhancing drug or at least is being used to mask one.

do you believe Flintshire (no raceday Lasix)beats Main Sequence in the Breeders Cup turf last year.

Allan

lamboguy
05-31-2015, 10:50 AM
my partner trained a horse every year that he sent up to Saratoga and won 8 years in a row there, some may of heard of the horse FOURSTARDAVE. he never ran with any bleeding medications and ran until age 12, at the end it was a steeple race. this was still in the days when racetracks were pretty full of people. this horse was a big drawing card for the track every time he ran. i really don't know how much better a career this horse might have had if any with the use of lasix.

the thing that kept him going was the winter breaks he got in Ocala to clear out his head. when he came back he was always anxious to run and loved being in a race.

some horses can cramp up with lasix and the use of it does more harm than good.

chadk66
05-31-2015, 05:20 PM
On Breeders Cup, we seen horses who have run very well in Europe (they would not be here if they hadn't) improve dramatically with the aid of Lasix. After watching that happen over and over again, I find very hard to believe that it is not a performance enhancing drug or at least is being used to mask one.how does one determine if a European horse, whom has never raced here, improves greatly off Lasix here at the Breeders cup?

biggestal99
06-01-2015, 05:55 AM
how does one determine if a European horse, whom has never raced here, improves greatly off Lasix here at the Breeders cup?

Well one can use the racing post rating.

Magician race before the bc of 2013. RPR is 101
Magician bc RPR is 123

Magician race before the Arlington million of 2014. RPR is 105
Magician race arlington million RPR is 116

Of course, thats only one horse but i can show horse after horse if you like

Allan

Tall One
06-01-2015, 09:12 AM
Did Arcangues race with Lasix in the BC Classic?

With the big race coming up, Go and Go shipped in and beat Unbridled who had to run without the big L that day.

Robert Goren
06-01-2015, 10:29 AM
how does one determine if a European horse, whom has never raced here, improves greatly off Lasix here at the Breeders cup?It beats horses it was losing to in Europe.

chadk66
06-01-2015, 08:13 PM
It beats horses it was losing to in Europe.honestly that really doesn't mean anything. horses beat horses they weren't beating in the past all the time. and it really comes into play when you ship those same horses to a new track. And then add onto that a shipment from Europe. Maybe the horse really liked the track. Or the different climate, etc. Some of the stuff that's being thrown around on here is utterly amazing.

Chaka26
06-03-2015, 08:13 PM
Chad,
I am relatively new to horse racing-since 2011- so i have heard the drugs lasix and bute etc but i dont know how they affect a horse..i know their purpose -for bleeders,etc

Is lasix like my albuterol for a nebulized inhaler where it helps breathe but no real effect on your person? I assume lasix is a liquid and nebulizers use vapor but the residual effects on the user are the same
Or
is lasix like ephedrine a bronchial dilator which can open airways but increases heart rate and several other side effects warm body temp, sweats etc
Definitely a stimulant used by people to stay awake among other things

If its the former then lMO lasix is no way/cannot be remotely considered to be a performance enhancer..if its like the latter it absolutely is

Couldnt a case be made for the study showing first lasix second start showing improvement be merely just improvement from experience. Isnt jump from first start to,second start big anyway in most cases?

Thanks
Bob

HalvOnHorseracing
06-03-2015, 10:51 PM
Chad,
I am relatively new to horse racing-since 2011- so i have heard the drugs lasix and bute etc but i dont know how they affect a horse..i know their purpose -for bleeders,etc

Is lasix like my albuterol for a nebulized inhaler where it helps breathe but no real effect on your person? I assume lasix is a liquid and nebulizers use vapor but the residual effects on the user are the same
Or
is lasix like ephedrine a bronchial dilator which can open airways but increases heart rate and several other side effects warm body temp, sweats etc
Definitely a stimulant used by people to stay awake among other things

If its the former then lMO lasix is no way/cannot be remotely considered to be a performance enhancer..if its like the latter it absolutely is

Couldnt a case be made for the study showing first lasix second start showing improvement be merely just improvement from experience. Isnt jump from first start to,second start big anyway in most cases?

Thanks
Bob

This string was started by referencing my article Lasix: Fact and Myth available at http://halveyonhorseracing.com/?p=1690

Lasix is a diuretic meaning it gets rid of water in a horse's system. During extreme physical stress during a race horses are subject to exercise induced pulmonary hypertension or EIPH. Pressure buildup causes small capillaries in the lung to burst resulting in the accumulation of blood in the lung. This in turn impedes breathing. The Lasix reduces EIPH allowing the horse to breathe easier and more efficiently use oxygen.

Lasix is given as an injection of up to 10 cc's no less than four hours before a race. It is not like albuterol (but I believe the drug Clenbuterol which has been given to horses is). It is not a stimulant like ephedrine. However, it can be performance enhancing because the Lasix will cause the horse to shed weight. It is a physics principle that if the same force is applied to two objects where one weighs less than the other, the lighter object overcomes inertia and accelerates more quickly.

The concern is that horses that do not suffer from EIPH can be given a Lasix shot and performance will improve, ostensibly due to the weight loss.

Bute, or phenylbutazone, is an anti-inflammatory. Drugs like aspirin, bute, banamine are in a class of drugs called NSAIDs, or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. They do have an analgesic effect as well. In a generic sense, they are performance enhancing as well. Reduced swelling in a joint will allow the horse to move more efficiently.

I would argue that everything is performance enhancing if it makes a horse feel better. However, the idea of PED in other sports is usually limited to drugs that artificially increase musculature (like steroids) or heart-lung function (like amphetamines) and there are usually de minimus levels set to define violations.

If you go to the web site for the Association of Racing Commissioners International you can find a list of the 26 approved therapeutic medications for racehorses with allowable levels.

Robert Goren
06-03-2015, 11:32 PM
honestly that really doesn't mean anything. horses beat horses they weren't beating in the past all the time. and it really comes into play when you ship those same horses to a new track. And then add onto that a shipment from Europe. Maybe the horse really liked the track. Or the different climate, etc. Some of the stuff that's being thrown around on here is utterly amazing. It means quite a bit if you are betting on the horses. It happens enough to persuade me it makes a difference, probably a lot of difference. But the biggest argument for Lasix being a PED is the fact that almost every trainer in the US runs their horses on it in every race. If it did not act like a PED, then you would see at least some horses running without it. It cost money and as you well know there is quite few outfits that are just squeezing by. They doing everything they can to hold down costs. The one thing they are not doing is stopping the use of Lasix. They don't stop using Lasix because they know they would be hurting the horse's chances if they did not use it.

lamboguy
06-03-2015, 11:52 PM
i am entering a horse tomorrow, Sunday for Thursday, in Belmont, METEOROID that has never run with lasix and will be in a mile and 3/8 turf race and should run big.
race 5 #4

rider change to Cruz

ReplayRandall
06-04-2015, 12:05 AM
i am entering a horse tomorrow, Sunday for Thursday, in Belmont, METEOROID that has never run with lasix and will be in a mile and 3/8 turf race and should run big.
The form shows the horse is owned by Amy Taylor Rowe..... Is that your wife?

lamboguy
06-04-2015, 12:18 AM
The form shows the horse is owned by Amy Taylor Rowe..... Is that your wife?no, i don't own this horse at all, just managed it for the trainer.

this lady went over to the sales in Europe with the trainer to buy horses.

i am friendly with the trainer, she is the wife of steeplechase rider Paddy Young.

they do an excellent job training horses, she won a Grade 1 race in Saratoga a few years ago.

i have other horses that i take care of and one of my own, a 2 yo that should start at the end of the Belmont meet or the beginning of Saratoga if all goes well.

ReplayRandall
06-04-2015, 12:29 AM
no, i don't own this horse at all, just managed it for the trainer.

this lady went over to the sales in Europe with the trainer to buy horses.

i am friendly with the trainer, she is the wife of steeplechase rider Paddy Young.

they do an excellent job training horses, she won a Grade 1 race in Saratoga a few years ago.

i have other horses that i take care of and one of my own, a 2 yo that should start at the end of the Belmont meet or the beginning of Saratoga if all goes well.
I like the bullet work on May 27th for 5F at Fair Hill in 1:01 flat.. :ThmbUp:

Chaka26
06-04-2015, 07:36 AM
This string was started by referencing my article Lasix: Fact and Myth available at http://halveyonhorseracing.com/?p=1690

Lasix is a diuretic meaning it gets rid of water in a horse's system. During extreme physical stress during a race horses are subject to exercise induced pulmonary hypertension or EIPH. Pressure buildup causes small capillaries in the lung to burst resulting in the accumulation of blood in the lung. This in turn impedes breathing. The Lasix reduces EIPH allowing the horse to breathe easier and more efficiently use oxygen.

Lasix is given as an injection of up to 10 cc's no less than four hours before a race. It is not like albuterol (but I believe the drug Clenbuterol which has been given to horses is). It is not a stimulant like ephedrine. However, it can be performance enhancing because the Lasix will cause the horse to shed weight. It is a physics principle that if the same force is applied to two objects where one weighs less than the other, the lighter object overcomes inertia and accelerates more quickly.

The concern is that horses that do not suffer from EIPH can be given a Lasix shot and performance will improve, ostensibly due to the weight loss.

Bute, or phenylbutazone, is an anti-inflammatory. Drugs like aspirin, bute, banamine are in a class of drugs called NSAIDs, or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. They do have an analgesic effect as well. In a generic sense, they are performance enhancing as well. Reduced swelling in a joint will allow the horse to move more efficiently.

I would argue that everything is performance enhancing if it makes a horse feel better. However, the idea of PED in other sports is usually limited to drugs that artificially increase musculature (like steroids) or heart-lung function (like amphetamines) and there are usually de minimus levels set to define violations.

If you go to the web site for the Association of Racing Commissioners International you can find a list of the 26 approved therapeutic medications for racehorses with allowable levels.

Thanks halv for detailed reply. My reply is not personal though i use the word "you"

If theres no stimulating effect why do the horses ears stand up like they do?

Regarding the lighter equal faster principle -thats assuming all things are exactly equal but with horses they are all different weights strengths sizes shapes and ability

If the weight principle is the key to success why spend all this time handicapping and just bet the lightest horse to win? I doubt there would be much success

How much weight difference is there between horses in a given race?
anyone know what weights for upcoming belmont horses range?

Why shouldnt bettors ask horse weights be listed on program if makes that much of difference? Why does no one talk about it?

I know its cost prohibitive but i would like to see pics of the horses in the programs so in past performances online you could see look back to see if horse is muscling up, losing/ gaining too much /too little weight or just growing as expected between races. I think it would be beneficial to the new fan seeing a picture vs just text stats and a name.
They might see a marking they like and start to,follow that horse. Much needs to be done getting new people in the game. I would create a generic program for the fans with limited info focusing on race finish, surface and race style of horse next to their name and pic. there is a lot to,overcome promoting due to the lack of races a horse can run.

On extremely windy days lasix weight loss would theoretically be a disadvantage- would it not? where a horse runs majority of the race into,the wind...after 90 seconds running into wind probably would theoretically be more drained for final stretch running with tailwind than a horse who didnt lose weight

Re: the feel better equal performance enhancing
If a healthy horse runs 12 second furlongs all day every day then gets injured and can only run 12.3 without pain meds. Given pain meds horse immediately can run back to normal 12 second furlongs but no better

How is that performance enhancing? All it did was allow
Horse to return to normal performance level

A healthy horse is going to perform better than injured horse is common sense so why do people penalize the injured horses with a stigma by resetting their par level to the subpar injured level?
Semantically its performance enhancing because the time improved from 12.3 to 12 but you are comparing apples and oranges -a healthy time vs injured time
Thus the phrase "back to normal"
Pre injury normal time 12 sec
Post injury time 12 sec
Where is the enhanced performance?

Are you going to not take aspirin for your next headache because it would be enhancing your performance making you feel better?
You wear tennis shoes or dress shoes right? Dont they enhance your performance getting thru the day better than if you wore nothing?

one could argue flaws of lighter=faster physics principle by removing the shoes -making you lighter- would not make you faster depending in the surface you run over. Like rocks, gravel, hot tar etc

Of course if one were removing oversized clown shoes :) one would probably be faster over any surface without them.

chadk66
06-04-2015, 08:29 AM
Chad,
I am relatively new to horse racing-since 2011- so i have heard the drugs lasix and bute etc but i dont know how they affect a horse..i know their purpose -for bleeders,etc

Is lasix like my albuterol for a nebulized inhaler where it helps breathe but no real effect on your person? I assume lasix is a liquid and nebulizers use vapor but the residual effects on the user are the same
Or
is lasix like ephedrine a bronchial dilator which can open airways but increases heart rate and several other side effects warm body temp, sweats etc
Definitely a stimulant used by people to stay awake among other things

If its the former then lMO lasix is no way/cannot be remotely considered to be a performance enhancer..if its like the latter it absolutely is

Couldnt a case be made for the study showing first lasix second start showing improvement be merely just improvement from experience. Isnt jump from first start to,second start big anyway in most cases?

Thanks
Boball lasix does is reduce hypertension through temporary dehydration. there are no stimulation properties whatsoever. Lasix is injected into the bloodstream four hours prior to a race. In twenty minutes or so the horse will start to urinate frequently for the next hour or so.

chadk66
06-04-2015, 08:38 AM
Chad,
I am relatively new to horse racing-since 2011- so i have heard the drugs lasix and bute etc but i dont know how they affect a horse..i know their purpose -for bleeders,etc

Is lasix like my albuterol for a nebulized inhaler where it helps breathe but no real effect on your person? I assume lasix is a liquid and nebulizers use vapor but the residual effects on the user are the same
Or
is lasix like ephedrine a bronchial dilator which can open airways but increases heart rate and several other side effects warm body temp, sweats etc
Definitely a stimulant used by people to stay awake among other things

If its the former then lMO lasix is no way/cannot be remotely considered to be a performance enhancer..if its like the latter it absolutely is

Couldnt a case be made for the study showing first lasix second start showing improvement be merely just improvement from experience. Isnt jump from first start to,second start big anyway in most cases?

Thanks
Bobsorry but I failed to answer your final question. In all honesty, aside from first time lasix use with experienced horses, it's virtually impossible to determine whether lasix improves a horse. In my own opinion, as a former trainer that raced during the days where some states allowed lasix and some didn't, lasix simply doesn't improve the performance of a horse that doesn't bleed. Lasix doesn't have the capability of true PED's to increase a horses god given ability to run. You'll hear all kinds of mythical crap thrown around about Lasix. 99% of which is just that , mythical crap. Take it from somebody that has ran horses, both bleeders and non bleeders on the stuff on a daily basis. And on top of that I'm as anti drug as it pretty much gets. Bute and Lasix is all they need. Bute to help with body aches and pains just like you and I get. And Lasix to prevent bleeding because I've seen what it does to horses both mentally and physically. And the use of lasix, if not abused, does virtually no harm to a horse. And I cannot fathom why anybody would abuse lasix. There would be no benefit to them to do that. That would be utter stupidity. I might have worked a horse on lasix in the morning a total of two times by the request of my vet. It takes an extremely bad bleeder to bleed in a morning workout of less than 3/4 of a mile.

chadk66
06-04-2015, 08:41 AM
This string was started by referencing my article Lasix: Fact and Myth available at http://halveyonhorseracing.com/?p=1690

Lasix is a diuretic meaning it gets rid of water in a horse's system. During extreme physical stress during a race horses are subject to exercise induced pulmonary hypertension or EIPH. Pressure buildup causes small capillaries in the lung to burst resulting in the accumulation of blood in the lung. This in turn impedes breathing. The Lasix reduces EIPH allowing the horse to breathe easier and more efficiently use oxygen.

Lasix is given as an injection of up to 10 cc's no less than four hours before a race. It is not like albuterol (but I believe the drug Clenbuterol which has been given to horses is). It is not a stimulant like ephedrine. However, it can be performance enhancing because the Lasix will cause the horse to shed weight. It is a physics principle that if the same force is applied to two objects where one weighs less than the other, the lighter object overcomes inertia and accelerates more quickly.

The concern is that horses that do not suffer from EIPH can be given a Lasix shot and performance will improve, ostensibly due to the weight loss.

Bute, or phenylbutazone, is an anti-inflammatory. Drugs like aspirin, bute, banamine are in a class of drugs called NSAIDs, or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. They do have an analgesic effect as well. In a generic sense, they are performance enhancing as well. Reduced swelling in a joint will allow the horse to move more efficiently.

I would argue that everything is performance enhancing if it makes a horse feel better. However, the idea of PED in other sports is usually limited to drugs that artificially increase musculature (like steroids) or heart-lung function (like amphetamines) and there are usually de minimus levels set to define violations.

If you go to the web site for the Association of Racing Commissioners International you can find a list of the 26 approved therapeutic medications for racehorses with allowable levels.standing a horse in an ice tub is performance enhancement to many on this board. it should be in the racing form. along with how far the horse walks from his barn to the paddock. yes I'm being sarcastic but that's where we've come with this.

chadk66
06-04-2015, 08:45 AM
It means quite a bit if you are betting on the horses. It happens enough to persuade me it makes a difference, probably a lot of difference. But the biggest argument for Lasix being a PED is the fact that almost every trainer in the US runs their horses on it in every race. If it did not act like a PED, then you would see at least some horses running without it. It cost money and as you well know there is quite few outfits that are just squeezing by. They doing everything they can to hold down costs. The one thing they are not doing is stopping the use of Lasix. They don't stop using Lasix because they know they would be hurting the horse's chances if they did not use it.lasix costs $20. it's trivial. Like I've said, this myth regarding lasix has slowly developed over the past twenty five years. It's like anything else, you keep saying something long enough sooner or later everyone believes you. Handicappers started complaining on a national level about lasix use so they legalized it everywhere to appease everybody. So now there is a level playing field and still people are complaining. It's ridiculous. I rarely ever see track records being broken. I can't even tell you the last time I saw one. Some are half a century old. Yet lasix is supposed to be this amazing PED yet horses can't break track records on the magic juice. ;)

chadk66
06-04-2015, 08:46 AM
no, i don't own this horse at all, just managed it for the trainer.

this lady went over to the sales in Europe with the trainer to buy horses.

i am friendly with the trainer, she is the wife of steeplechase rider Paddy Young.

they do an excellent job training horses, she won a Grade 1 race in Saratoga a few years ago.

i have other horses that i take care of and one of my own, a 2 yo that should start at the end of the Belmont meet or the beginning of Saratoga if all goes well.How does a guy get one of these horse management gigs:cool:

chadk66
06-04-2015, 08:51 AM
Thanks halv for detailed reply. My reply is not personal though i use the word "you"

If theres no stimulating effect why do the horses ears stand up like they do?

Regarding the lighter equal faster principle -thats assuming all things are exactly equal but with horses they are all different weights strengths sizes shapes and ability

If the weight principle is the key to success why spend all this time handicapping and just bet the lightest horse to win? I doubt there would be much success

How much weight difference is there between horses in a given race?
anyone know what weights for upcoming belmont horses range?

Why shouldnt bettors ask horse weights be listed on program if makes that much of difference? Why does no one talk about it?

I know its cost prohibitive but i would like to see pics of the horses in the programs so in past performances online you could see look back to see if horse is muscling up, losing/ gaining too much /too little weight or just growing as expected between races. I think it would be beneficial to the new fan seeing a picture vs just text stats and a name.
They might see a marking they like and start to,follow that horse. Much needs to be done getting new people in the game. I would create a generic program for the fans with limited info focusing on race finish, surface and race style of horse next to their name and pic. there is a lot to,overcome promoting due to the lack of races a horse can run.

On extremely windy days lasix weight loss would theoretically be a disadvantage- would it not? where a horse runs majority of the race into,the wind...after 90 seconds running into wind probably would theoretically be more drained for final stretch running with tailwind than a horse who didnt lose weight

Re: the feel better equal performance enhancing
If a healthy horse runs 12 second furlongs all day every day then gets injured and can only run 12.3 without pain meds. Given pain meds horse immediately can run back to normal 12 second furlongs but no better

How is that performance enhancing? All it did was allow
Horse to return to normal performance level

A healthy horse is going to perform better than injured horse is common sense so why do people penalize the injured horses with a stigma by resetting their par level to the subpar injured level?
Semantically its performance enhancing because the time improved from 12.3 to 12 but you are comparing apples and oranges -a healthy time vs injured time
Thus the phrase "back to normal"
Pre injury normal time 12 sec
Post injury time 12 sec
Where is the enhanced performance?

Are you going to not take aspirin for your next headache because it would be enhancing your performance making you feel better?
You wear tennis shoes or dress shoes right? Dont they enhance your performance getting thru the day better than if you wore nothing?

one could argue flaws of lighter=faster physics principle by removing the shoes -making you lighter- would not make you faster depending in the surface you run over. Like rocks, gravel, hot tar etc

Of course if one were removing oversized clown shoes :) one would probably be faster over any surface without them.you get it;) When I trained I had a scale for horses. I weighed them every morning prior to and after training. And prior to and after races. I also pulled their temps every morning. You would be utterly amazed at how much a horses weight fluctuates twenty to thirty pounds. The amount of weight a horse drops from a race, from my experience, if more directly related to the temperature at the time. And the percentage of drop from horse to horse was all over the charts. The speed in which they regained the dropped weight from races was also all over the charts. The average was two to three days. But it was more dependent on their eating not their drinking. Giving a horse different water than they are used to drinking throws them off their water more than anything else. An example would be shipping a horse to another town to race. They often times take days to start drinking that water at any substantial amount. Hell I've had some horses that refused to drink from a black colored pail. Something about the dark pail. They'd drink fine from a lighter colored pail.

whodoyoulike
06-04-2015, 01:05 PM
lasix costs $20. it's trivial. Like I've said, this myth regarding lasix has slowly developed over the past twenty five years. It's like anything else, you keep saying something long enough sooner or later everyone believes you. Handicappers started complaining on a national level about lasix use so they legalized it everywhere to appease everybody. So now there is a level playing field and still people are complaining. It's ridiculous. I rarely ever see track records being broken. I can't even tell you the last time I saw one. Some are half a century old. Yet lasix is supposed to be this amazing PED yet horses can't break track records on the magic juice. ;)

I've seen them broken not as frequently as maybe before the last 10 years but, Bayern did set a new track record using Lasix at Parx late last year.

I personally dislike the extensive and abusive use of PED's because horses can't talk except to a few of us. People seem to ignore the collateral damage of possibly crippling or killing the horses, or jockeys and cheating the bettors and the other owners. The ones not harmed are the vets, trainers (sort of) and the race tracks.

chadk66
06-04-2015, 04:04 PM
I've seen them broken not as frequently as maybe before the last 10 years but, Bayern did set a new track record using Lasix at Parx late last year.

I personally dislike the extensive and abusive use of PED's because horses can't talk except to a few of us. People seem to ignore the collateral damage of possibly crippling or killing the horses, or jockeys and cheating the bettors and the other owners. The ones not harmed are the vets, trainers (sort of) and the race tracks.I agree, thankfully lasix isn't a PED.

cj
06-04-2015, 04:54 PM
Tracks are much deeper these days, mostly for safety reasons. That is why you don't see track records broken very often.

biggestal99
06-04-2015, 05:17 PM
I agree, thankfully lasix isn't a PED.

Yeah horses just run faster with raceday lasix than without it. Its absolutely does help most horses run faster for whatever reason.

Allan

Robert Goren
06-04-2015, 06:12 PM
lasix costs $20. it's trivial. Like I've said, this myth regarding lasix has slowly developed over the past twenty five years. It's like anything else, you keep saying something long enough sooner or later everyone believes you. Handicappers started complaining on a national level about lasix use so they legalized it everywhere to appease everybody. So now there is a level playing field and still people are complaining. It's ridiculous. I rarely ever see track records being broken. I can't even tell you the last time I saw one. Some are half a century old. Yet lasix is supposed to be this amazing PED yet horses can't break track records on the magic juice. ;)Track records get broke when the surface is right for them to be set. The way surface are maintained these days, no horse juiced or not should be close to one. They have figured out that surfaces that produce track records also produce injured horses. So we do not get those surfaces anymore, which is a good thing.

HalvOnHorseracing
06-04-2015, 07:25 PM
Thanks halv for detailed reply. My reply is not personal though i use the word "you"

If theres no stimulating effect why do the horses ears stand up like they do?

Regarding the lighter equal faster principle -thats assuming all things are exactly equal but with horses they are all different weights strengths sizes shapes and ability

If the weight principle is the key to success why spend all this time handicapping and just bet the lightest horse to win? I doubt there would be much success

How much weight difference is there between horses in a given race?
anyone know what weights for upcoming belmont horses range?

Why shouldnt bettors ask horse weights be listed on program if makes that much of difference? Why does no one talk about it?

I know its cost prohibitive but i would like to see pics of the horses in the programs so in past performances online you could see look back to see if horse is muscling up, losing/ gaining too much /too little weight or just growing as expected between races. I think it would be beneficial to the new fan seeing a picture vs just text stats and a name.
They might see a marking they like and start to,follow that horse. Much needs to be done getting new people in the game. I would create a generic program for the fans with limited info focusing on race finish, surface and race style of horse next to their name and pic. there is a lot to,overcome promoting due to the lack of races a horse can run.

On extremely windy days lasix weight loss would theoretically be a disadvantage- would it not? where a horse runs majority of the race into,the wind...after 90 seconds running into wind probably would theoretically be more drained for final stretch running with tailwind than a horse who didnt lose weight

Re: the feel better equal performance enhancing
If a healthy horse runs 12 second furlongs all day every day then gets injured and can only run 12.3 without pain meds. Given pain meds horse immediately can run back to normal 12 second furlongs but no better

How is that performance enhancing? All it did was allow
Horse to return to normal performance level

A healthy horse is going to perform better than injured horse is common sense so why do people penalize the injured horses with a stigma by resetting their par level to the subpar injured level?
Semantically its performance enhancing because the time improved from 12.3 to 12 but you are comparing apples and oranges -a healthy time vs injured time
Thus the phrase "back to normal"
Pre injury normal time 12 sec
Post injury time 12 sec
Where is the enhanced performance?

Are you going to not take aspirin for your next headache because it would be enhancing your performance making you feel better?
You wear tennis shoes or dress shoes right? Dont they enhance your performance getting thru the day better than if you wore nothing?

one could argue flaws of lighter=faster physics principle by removing the shoes -making you lighter- would not make you faster depending in the surface you run over. Like rocks, gravel, hot tar etc

Of course if one were removing oversized clown shoes :) one would probably be faster over any surface without them.

Lighter is only faster per individual. A horse with a certain ability that is running with less weight has the same musculature and should theoretically run faster. But a lighter horse with less musculature will not run faster than another horse just because of the weight differential. Remeber what I said. THE SAME FORCE APPLIED TO TWO OBJECTS WHERE ONE WEIGHS LESS THAN THE OTHER, THE OBJECT OF LOWER WEIGHT WILL ACCELERATE AND OVERCOME INERTIA FASTER THAN THE HEAVIER OBJECT. In other words, weight itself is not the relevant factor, force is.

Your question about weight is equally irrelvant. A lighter horse with the equivalent force to a heavier horse will run faster because that is physics. Posting weight doesn't tell you the horses natural ability to accelerate and maintain speed. Force and speed are implied by looking at race times.

Regardless of wind speed, a horse running in the front into a headwind is at a disadvantage, and that is irrelevant of weight. A horse running under cover is at an advantage. Running position and cover is the key, not weight.

Performance enhancing has a variety of meanings. A horse getting better feed or supplements may perform better. A horse having better fitting horseshoes will perform better. If you don't believe me, put on a pair of ill-fitting shoes and go for a run. Reducing inflammation will allow a horse to run to the best of it's inherent ability. All of those things are performance enhancing in a generic sense. But things like sterioids or amphetamines are performance enhancing it a different way. They add muscle and increase heart-lung efficiency in a way that isn't natural.

If you want to argue that anything that allows a horse to run to the best of its inherent ability is performance enhancing, you'd be correct in a generic way and you'd start a healthy argument between those who believe horses should run drug-free and those who believe that just like human athletes, certain therapeutics should be allowed.

At some point the physics argument becomes absurd. Shoes weigh a few ounces each. Removing the shoes won't make a nag run substantially faster. And perhaps the stickers on shoes will incrase grip and traction in a way that makes them an advantage over no shoes. Think of this. If you played tennis in street shoes your grip or foot comfort would be compromised over real tennis shoes.

I would say you might be way overthinking this. Aspirin is performance enhancing to you because you can function at a higher level with out a headache. In horseracing the rules are clear whether or not you believe they are arbitrary. Banamine above 20 ng/mL is a violation whether or even though all it does is reduce inflammation. If that sounds wrong, your argument is with RCI.

chadk66
06-05-2015, 08:15 AM
Lighter is only faster per individual. A horse with a certain ability that is running with less weight has the same musculature and should theoretically run faster. But a lighter horse with less musculature will not run faster than another horse just because of the weight differential. Remeber what I said. THE SAME FORCE APPLIED TO TWO OBJECTS WHERE ONE WEIGHS LESS THAN THE OTHER, THE OBJECT OF LOWER WEIGHT WILL ACCELERATE AND OVERCOME INERTIA FASTER THAN THE HEAVIER OBJECT. In other words, weight itself is not the relevant factor, force is.

Your question about weight is equally irrelvant. A lighter horse with the equivalent force to a heavier horse will run faster because that is physics. Posting weight doesn't tell you the horses natural ability to accelerate and maintain speed. Force and speed are implied by looking at race times.

Regardless of wind speed, a horse running in the front into a headwind is at a disadvantage, and that is irrelevant of weight. A horse running under cover is at an advantage. Running position and cover is the key, not weight.

Performance enhancing has a variety of meanings. A horse getting better feed or supplements may perform better. A horse having better fitting horseshoes will perform better. If you don't believe me, put on a pair of ill-fitting shoes and go for a run. Reducing inflammation will allow a horse to run to the best of it's inherent ability. All of those things are performance enhancing in a generic sense. But things like sterioids or amphetamines are performance enhancing it a different way. They add muscle and increase heart-lung efficiency in a way that isn't natural.

If you want to argue that anything that allows a horse to run to the best of its inherent ability is performance enhancing, you'd be correct in a generic way and you'd start a healthy argument between those who believe horses should run drug-free and those who believe that just like human athletes, certain therapeutics should be allowed.

At some point the physics argument becomes absurd. Shoes weigh a few ounces each. Removing the shoes won't make a nag run substantially faster. And perhaps the stickers on shoes will incrase grip and traction in a way that makes them an advantage over no shoes. Think of this. If you played tennis in street shoes your grip or foot comfort would be compromised over real tennis shoes.

I would say you might be way overthinking this. Aspirin is performance enhancing to you because you can function at a higher level with out a headache. In horseracing the rules are clear whether or not you believe they are arbitrary. Banamine above 20 ng/mL is a violation whether or even though all it does is reduce inflammation. If that sounds wrong, your argument is with RCI.Your explanation of this is excellent. We got off on the wrong foot and I apologize for that. I think we're in the same court when it comes to the majority of things horse related. We won't agree on everything but the majority of things I suspect. :ThmbUp:

HalvOnHorseracing
06-05-2015, 11:10 AM
Your explanation of this is excellent. We got off on the wrong foot and I apologize for that. I think we're in the same court when it comes to the majority of things horse related. We won't agree on everything but the majority of things I suspect. :ThmbUp:

Thanks for saying that. The great thing about the forums is the ability to offer all sorts of information and perspective. I enjoy being a part of it.

biggestal99
06-12-2015, 04:39 PM
Gulfstream s going to run some non raceday lasix 2 yearold maiden for 65k in their next condition book, wonder if they will get enough entries.

Allan