Judge rules non-lasix races unconstitutional in Kentucky

[Longshot]

Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway has found unconstitutional a Kentucky Horse Racing Commission regulation that permits racetracks to conduct races for which horses could not be treated with the legal anti-bleeder medication furosemide, according to a release Wednesday from the Kentucky Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association.

Agreeing with the position of the Kentucky HPBA, Conway’s office wrote in its opinion that the KHRC’s action allowing tracks to stage furosemide-free races is an “invalid delegation of administrative rule-making authority to private actors” and that “determination of whether a race is furosemide-free cannot be left solely to individual racetracks.”

[azeri98]

Why is it so hard to get rid of drugs in racing? Europe and Japan seem to be doing fine without it.

[chadk66]

I'm all for lasix use but I don't think this judge's ruling will hold up under challenge. A track is a private enterprise that can do whatever it so chooses in this regard. Next thing you know this judge will be reinstating lance Armstrong

[Tom]

Don't judges have any real work to do?
Stupid ruling.
Judy Judy???

[Tall One]

And this guy could've been my governor.

Conway is just trying to flex some authority. They're in the business..won the bluegrass few years back, iirc, so there's an angle here. Believe that.

[menifee]

The Attorney Genral is not a judge - he is a member of the executive branch. This opinion was issued at the request of the Kentucky HBPA after the Kentucky Horse Racing commission granted Kee the right to card non-lasix races in accordance with International Medication Protocol. All the opinion states that under Kentucky law to approve that condition for a race (non-lasix), the KHRC needs to make that decision and cannot delegate that authority to tracks.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I'm all for lasix use but I don't think this judge's ruling will hold up under challenge. A track is a private enterprise that can do whatever it so chooses in this regard. Next thing you know this judge will be reinstating lance Armstrong
The original posting was a little confusing. The headline referenced a judge, but the posting referenced the Attorney General, who can only issue an opinion. Of course if the AG issued the opinion and a judge upheld it, that would be kosher.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Why is it so hard to get rid of drugs in racing? Europe and Japan seem to be doing fine without it.
There is a lot of depth to that discussion. The primary difference between other jurisdictions and North America is that NA allows raceday Lasix. That is the ONLY drug allowed within 24 hours of a race. All other approved therapeutic medications have residual limits that horses have to meet. Any drug not on the list of the approved 26 is essentially zero tolerance, and if a horse has even a trace in its system, it's a violation. There are a number of drugs on the approved medication list at ARCI that actually have tighter standards than Europe. I've also mentioned that if you took Dubai, Japan and Hong Kong together, they run fewer races in a year than NA runs in a week in August. When you need a tenth of the horses we do to fill races, banning Lasix is far less controversial, especially when you don't have to fill cards at a bunch of C level tracks. You can still find plenty of runners to fill fields in those places. Run 35-40 races in a weekend in NA and I guarantee we could do it without a drop of Lasix. I don't want to have the Lasix discussion, but off the cuff statements like why is it so hard to get rid of drugs in racing, followed by the implication that there are no drugs in other jurisdictions, are mythical. Tell me which of the 26 approved ARCI therapeutic medications shouldn't be on the list, or which of the 26 standards is too lax? 99% of the hot button discussion regarding drugs in racing is about one medication, Lasix, and the chances the anti-Lasix folks are going to convince the vast majority of horsemen to give it up, or the chances the vast majority of horsemen are going to convince the anti-Lasix folks to give it up are about the same as ISIL throwing down their weapons and saying screw it.

[chadk66]

The original posting was a little confusing. The headline referenced a judge, but the posting referenced the Attorney General, who can only issue an opinion. Of course if the AG issued the opinion and a judge upheld it, that would be kosher.that makes a lot more sense

[thespaah]

Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway has found unconstitutional a Kentucky Horse Racing Commission regulation that permits racetracks to conduct races for which horses could not be treated with the legal anti-bleeder medication furosemide, according to a release Wednesday from the Kentucky Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association.

Agreeing with the position of the Kentucky HPBA, Conway’s office wrote in its opinion that the KHRC’s action allowing tracks to stage furosemide-free races is an “invalid delegation of administrative rule-making authority to private actors” and that “determination of whether a race is furosemide-free cannot be left solely to individual racetracks.”
First.....shame on the Kentucky horsemen from challenging this. It makes them look real bad....
Second....And this is strictly my opinion so please, no flaming....
This is an example of an unjust law perpetrated on the public by ham handed government.
Them: "it's the law"
US: it's a stupid law
Them: it's the law...
Is that good government?

[thespaah]

The Attorney Genral is not a judge - he is a member of the executive branch. This opinion was issued at the request of the Kentucky HBPA after the Kentucky Horse Racing commission granted Kee the right to card non-lasix races in accordance with International Medication Protocol. All the opinion states that under Kentucky law to approve that condition for a race (non-lasix), the KHRC needs to make that decision and cannot delegate that authority to tracks.
Notwithstanding the law as it is written, it appears as though the Keeneland management skipped a step and did not kneel and kiss the KHRC's ring.

[thespaah]

Why is it so hard to get rid of drugs in racing? Europe and Japan seem to be doing fine without it.
The med rules are almost like an entitlement. Once in place, an entitlement is impossible to get rid of....

[thespaah]

There is a lot of depth to that discussion. The primary difference between other jurisdictions and North America is that NA allows raceday Lasix. That is the ONLY drug allowed within 24 hours of a race. All other approved therapeutic medications have residual limits that horses have to meet. Any drug not on the list of the approved 26 is essentially zero tolerance, and if a horse has even a trace in its system, it's a violation. There are a number of drugs on the approved medication list at ARCI that actually have tighter standards than Europe. I've also mentioned that if you took Dubai, Japan and Hong Kong together, they run fewer races in a year than NA runs in a week in August. When you need a tenth of the horses we do to fill races, banning Lasix is far less controversial, especially when you don't have to fill cards at a bunch of C level tracks. You can still find plenty of runners to fill fields in those places. Run 35-40 races in a weekend in NA and I guarantee we could do it without a drop of Lasix. I don't want to have the Lasix discussion, but off the cuff statements like why is it so hard to get rid of drugs in racing, followed by the implication that there are no drugs in other jurisdictions, are mythical. Tell me which of the 26 approved ARCI therapeutic medications shouldn't be on the list, or which of the 26 standards is too lax? 99% of the hot button discussion regarding drugs in racing is about one medication, Lasix, and the chances the anti-Lasix folks are going to convince the vast majority of horsemen to give it up, or the chances the vast majority of horsemen are going to convince the anti-Lasix folks to give it up are about the same as ISIL throwing down their weapons and saying screw it.
All of which makes complete sense.
However, New York was one the last states to ban race day meds. The state finally had to get in line as other states in the northeast, one by one legalized race day meds.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

All of which makes complete sense.
However, New York was one the last states to ban race day meds. The state finally had to get in line as other states in the northeast, one by one legalized race day meds.
I believe they were the last holdout and it has only been since 1995. Like many of the states that gave in, it was primarily a result of pressure from the horsemen. As someone remarked at the time, Lasix may be good for the horse, but we don't know if it is good for racing.

[nearco]

I've also mentioned that if you took Dubai, Japan and Hong Kong together, they run fewer races in a year than NA runs in a week in August. When you need a tenth of the horses we do to fill races, banning Lasix is far less controversial, especially when you don't have to fill cards at a bunch of C level tracks.

That is absolute bullshit. Not sure why you feel the need to lie.

There were 42975 TB races run in US in 2013. That's for a country with a population of 320m people.

There were 17249 TB races in Japan+HK+UAE combined in 2013. The collective population of those countries is 143m people.

In other words they have 44% the population of the US and run about 40% as many races.

So your contention that they run as many races per year as the US does in a week is bullshit.

BTW, they also have larger fields and more starts per horse per year. And they do that without Lasix.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

That is absolute bullshit. Not sure why you feel the need to lie.

There were 42975 TB races run in US in 2013. That's for a country with a population of 320m people.

There were 17249 TB races in Japan+HK+UAE combined in 2013. The collective population of those countries is 143m people.

In other words they have 44% the population of the US and run about 40% as many races.

So your contention that they run as many races per year as the US does in a week is bullshit.

BTW, they also have larger fields and more starts per horse per year. And they do that without Lasix.

Where should I start? Let's start with your statistic about the number of races in Hong Kong, Dubai and Japan. Hong Kong has 83 racing days, 830 races. Dubai has 23 racing days, another 200 or so races. That's less than a thousand races a YEAR at those two tracks. Japan has a lot of races, although your number includes jumps and draft races and races at the equivalent of fair tracks and municipal tracks. There are 10 major tracks operated by the Japan Racing Association, 288 race days. And you know what else Japan does? It makes sure the major tracks are not competing with each other. So if you want to make an apples to apples comparison, it's about 4,000 races a year not 17,000, or less than a tenth of the races run in North America.

Now I would never be so classless as to call you a liar and a bullshitter because you threw up misleading statsitics. I would just point out to you that you misrepresented the total number of races, especially considering Dubai and Hong Kong have such a small number of races and that 75% of the number of races comes from major racetracks in Japan. Now I will concede I could have been more precise by saying what I was including for Japan, major race tracks.

What else? In the summer in North America there are 35 or so thoroughbred tracks operating. So that would be 1,700 - 2,000 races a week. Yes, you got me. I should have said NA runs more races in two weeks in August than the other places run all year. This Sunday, a day in the middle of winter on a Holiday weekend, 12 tracks were running in NA. Whether your number of races in NA is correct, I don't know for sure, but it's possible it is the right number. If it is, the apples to apples comparison is that we are running more than 10 times the number of races.

The ratio of races to population was pretty absurd, again considering 75% of the races are in Japan. It would be like saying the average population of Canada and the United Sates is 200 million. It's a completely irrelevant statistic and makes no point at all. And that's not to mention only 37 North American jurisdictions have tracks and not all the non-racing jurisdictions have pari-mutuel wagering through ADWs, so you couldn't count the entire population of the United States and Canada (you excluded Canada - another oversight) in your ratio calculation.

Here's another thing you missed. In Japan the Japan Racing Association controls gambling, as does the Hong Kong Jockey Club. No casinos to compete with. So guess what? That can attract more horses and have bigger purses because they don't have competition for the gambling dollar. You want to gamble? You're going to the racetrack or Macao.

Starts per horse. NA is competitive with most of the world. Europe, Australia, NA all have about 6 starts per horse per year. Even if you were only intuitive, it makes no sense that Hong Kong or Dubai would average more than that considering they run less than a thousand races a year. Pretty much the same in Japan. I just haven't seen a statistic that suggests those jurisdictions are averaging more starts per year than NA.

No, you're not a liar or a bullshitter. If you were I'd have to believe you were consciously trying to mislead people, and frankly I just believe you were ignorant of how to use statistics and not doing due diligence on your research and not very eloquent when it came to disagreeing with people. But even if you have a point that I underestimated the number of races in Japan (but not by the orders of magnitude you suggested), my point that you can run Lasix free if you are running less than a thousand races a year in Hong Kong and Dubai should be pretty obvious, and may be about as easy if you are running 3,000 races a year at major tracks in Japan. How they do it for all the other races they run in Japan is harder to explain, but it's a lot easier if you control every aspect of racing like they do in those three jurisdictions. For goodness sake, in Japan the JRA even controls the shipping of animals. In Hong Kong the HKJC employs everyone except the trainer.

Try not to miss the forest for the trees. Those three jurisdictions are hardly comparable to how racing is run in North America. But, just to avoid an argument, next time I'll leave Japan out of the discussion.

[classhandicapper]

These arguments about lasix come down to "deep down inside I know this is the wrong thing for the well being of the horses, but the well being of the horses is secondary to the economics. On the economics, I can make a pretty good case (though not conclusive) that we are better off with a situation where everyone feels compelled to drug all their horses so they aren't at a competitive disadvantage even though only some of them need it".

That the one and only sure fire truth on this issue.

[nearco]

Where should I start? Let's start with your statistic about the number of races in Hong Kong, Dubai and Japan. Hong Kong has 83 racing days, 830 races. Dubai has 23 racing days, another 200 or so races. That's less than a thousand races a YEAR at those two tracks. Japan has a lot of races, although your number includes jumps and draft races and races at the equivalent of fair tracks and municipal tracks. There are 10 major tracks operated by the Japan Racing Association, 288 race days. And you know what else Japan does? It makes sure the major tracks are not competing with each other. So if you want to make an apples to apples comparison, it's about 4,000 races a year not 17,000, or less than a tenth of the races run in North America.

Now I would never be so classless as to call you a liar and a bullshitter because you threw up misleading statsitics. I would just point out to you that you misrepresented the total number of races, especially considering Dubai and Hong Kong have such a small number of races and that 75% of the number of races comes from major racetracks in Japan. Now I will concede I could have been more precise by saying what I was including for Japan, major race tracks.

What else? In the summer in North America there are 35 or so thoroughbred tracks operating. So that would be 1,700 - 2,000 races a week. Yes, you got me. I should have said NA runs more races in two weeks in August than the other places run all year. This Sunday, a day in the middle of winter on a Holiday weekend, 12 tracks were running in NA. Whether your number of races in NA is correct, I don't know for sure, but it's possible it is the right number. If it is, the apples to apples comparison is that we are running more than 10 times the number of races.

The ratio of races to population was pretty absurd, again considering 75% of the races are in Japan. It would be like saying the average population of Canada and the United Sates is 200 million. It's a completely irrelevant statistic and makes no point at all. And that's not to mention only 37 North American jurisdictions have tracks and not all the non-racing jurisdictions have pari-mutuel wagering through ADWs, so you couldn't count the entire population of the United States and Canada (you excluded Canada - another oversight) in your ratio calculation.

Here's another thing you missed. In Japan the Japan Racing Association controls gambling, as does the Hong Kong Jockey Club. No casinos to compete with. So guess what? That can attract more horses and have bigger purses because they don't have competition for the gambling dollar. You want to gamble? You're going to the racetrack or Macao.

Starts per horse. NA is competitive with most of the world. Europe, Australia, NA all have about 6 starts per horse per year. Even if you were only intuitive, it makes no sense that Hong Kong or Dubai would average more than that considering they run less than a thousand races a year. Pretty much the same in Japan. I just haven't seen a statistic that suggests those jurisdictions are averaging more starts per year than NA.

No, you're not a liar or a bullshitter. If you were I'd have to believe you were consciously trying to mislead people, and frankly I just believe you were ignorant of how to use statistics and not doing due diligence on your research and not very eloquent when it came to disagreeing with people. But even if you have a point that I underestimated the number of races in Japan (but not by the orders of magnitude you suggested), my point that you can run Lasix free if you are running less than a thousand races a year in Hong Kong and Dubai should be pretty obvious, and may be about as easy if you are running 3,000 races a year at major tracks in Japan. How they do it for all the other races they run in Japan is harder to explain, but it's a lot easier if you control every aspect of racing like they do in those three jurisdictions. For goodness sake, in Japan the JRA even controls the shipping of animals. In Hong Kong the HKJC employs everyone except the trainer.

Try not to miss the forest for the trees. Those three jurisdictions are hardly comparable to how racing is run in North America. But, just to avoid an argument, next time I'll leave Japan out of the discussion.

The Japan stats do NOT include Draft racing, and are just TB races. And Japan has a tiny amount of jump races, about as many as the US. So they are flat to flat comparison. They include JRA and NRA tracks. If you are going to include every track/race in the US, then you have to include every race in Japan, not just the JRA tracks. If you are only going to compare to JRA stats, then you can only include the "Big Time" US tracks like Santa Anita, Belmont etc in the US stats. Apples to apples.
Bottom line is that Japan races almost as much as the US, when compared for population size, and the size of the country, both those are important considerations. Japan can have several tracks races within a couple of hours of each other racing on a given day. They do it without lasix. So your contention the US HAS TO HAVE lasix doesn't hold up.

Average number of starts per horse in Japan for 2014 was 7.7. In the US it was 6.18.

As regards competition for the Gambling dollar/yen, Japan has plenty of both legal and illegal gambling... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambling_in_Japan
A buddy of mine used to race bikes (Keirin) in Japan, and huge money was bet on it.
There are also over 12,000 Pachinko parlours in Japan, and they bet close to $200billion on it.

Using HK and UAE as a comparison is disingenuous as they are two of the tiniest racing jurisdictions in the world and both have fairly unique setups.
Try comparing to Japan, Australia, or the big three in Europe taken as a whole. All manage to race horses without lasix.
The US used to manage to be able to do it too. Ironically, or maybe not so ironically, horses in the US made more starts pre-Lasix.... http://www.jockeyclub.com/default.asp?section=FB&area=10
So that also seems to counter the argument that it has to be available or there wouldn't be enough horses making enough starts to sustain racing.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

The Japan stats do NOT include Draft racing, and are just TB races. And Japan has a tiny amount of jump races, about as many as the US. So they are flat to flat comparison. They include JRA and NRA tracks. If you are going to include every track/race in the US, then you have to include every race in Japan, not just the JRA tracks. If you are only going to compare to JRA stats, then you can only include the "Big Time" US tracks like Santa Anita, Belmont etc in the US stats. Apples to apples.
Bottom line is that Japan races almost as much as the US, when compared for population size, and the size of the country, both those are important considerations. Japan can have several tracks races within a couple of hours of each other racing on a given day. They do it without lasix. So your contention the US HAS TO HAVE lasix doesn't hold up.

Average number of starts per horse in Japan for 2014 was 7.7. In the US it was 6.18.

As regards competition for the Gambling dollar/yen, Japan has plenty of both legal and illegal gambling... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambling_in_Japan
A buddy of mine used to race bikes (Keirin) in Japan, and huge money was bet on it.
There are also over 12,000 Pachinko parlours in Japan, and they bet close to $200billion on it.

Using HK and UAE as a comparison is disingenuous as they are two of the tiniest racing jurisdictions in the world and both have fairly unique setups.
Try comparing to Japan, Australia, or the big three in Europe taken as a whole. All manage to race horses without lasix.
The US used to manage to be able to do it too. Ironically, or maybe not so ironically, horses in the US made more starts pre-Lasix.... http://www.jockeyclub.com/default.asp?section=FB&area=10
So that also seems to counter the argument that it has to be available or there wouldn't be enough horses making enough starts to sustain racing.
I've never contended North America has to have Lasix. I've contended it's not fair to use certain jurisdictions as comparable justification for why the NA could run without Lasix, especially jurisdictions that have gambling monopolies and tight fisted control over all aspects of racing. Based on the scientific studies that have been done, it is also highly probable that the other jurisdictions have their fair share of bleeders. It isn't hard to exclude the Class 4 bleeders - they are only 3-5% of the total. The question, and I'm not sure I know the answer, is are they managing bleeding the old fashioned way, by denying food and water for 24-48 hours before the race. Ultimately, that has the same effect as Lasix - water and weight loss - and may actually be more inhumane than Lasix. The WHOA people contend you can manage bleeders through better horsemanship, and that most trainers are lazy and just want to go to the Lasix. I know of no study that documents that approach but it would be an interesting study.

Where we can agree is that Dubai and Hong Kong are not comparable as arguments for how racing can be conducted without Lasix. There are too few races and too few horses involved and it could easily be argued that they could be Lasix free based on numbers alone. But I wasn't being disingenuous, I was reacting to the poster who cited Hong Kong, something that is very common when arguing about how to do racing right.

I also conceded that Japan is in a different category than those two jurisdictions. Where I think the discussion gets disingenuous is to simply proclaim other jurisdictions can race without Lasix so why can't we without going into the details of how they do it. The implication seems absurdly that their horses don't bleed and ours do. Or that bleeding doesn't make any difference to racing horses, that they can run the same times regardless. It also strikes me that in those other jurisdictions you can never be confident that your horse faded due to lack of condition instead of bleeding. Given that in NA almost all horses race on Lasix, it becomes more of a non-factor for handicappers, and most serious handicappers like the idea of that consistency.

So I would still contend the numbers in NA make it harder to discard Lasix, but I would still be curious about how the other jurisdictions manage horses without Lasix. What irritates me, and what started my rant was this off the cuff stuff that if they can do it, we can do it without any recognition of the differences. Give me an idea of how we manage a quarter million starts and have no issues with bleeding. As a handicapper, I'll take the consistency that comes with Lasix over the uncertainty that would come with a ban simply in the name of racing purity. Give me an answer that provides handicapping confidence, not just a "they can do it, so can we."

[chadk66]

These arguments about lasix come down to "deep down inside I know this is the wrong thing for the well being of the horses, but the well being of the horses is secondary to the economics. On the economics, I can make a pretty good case (though not conclusive) that we are better off with a situation where everyone feels compelled to drug all their horses so they aren't at a competitive disadvantage even though only some of them need it".

That the one and only sure fire truth on this issue.As a former trainer that used absolutely zero illegal drugs and put the horses best interest first and foremost, I feel your statement is absurd. My personal opinion, and many feel the same, is that Lasix does relatively little to no harm to a horse. In comparison, bleeding is far more detrimental to a horse both physically and mentally. Aside from minor short term dehydration, there is no other downfall to using lasix. the amount of dehydration is so small that a horse that washes out terribly looses far more bodily fluids than a horse on lasix that is attributed to the lasix. It's actually pretty laughable the comparison. so your argument should include banning any horse that washes out beyond an acceptable level.

[forced89]

If they are serious, the tracks in Kentucky should do what Oaklawn Park is doing;i.e. pay a bonus to winning horses that ran without lasix.

[chadk66]

If they are serious, the tracks in Kentucky should do what Oaklawn Park is doing;i.e. pay a bonus to winning horses that ran without lasix.somehow they would find that discriminatory.:D

[HalvOnHorseracing]

If they are serious, the tracks in Kentucky should do what Oaklawn Park is doing;i.e. pay a bonus to winning horses that ran without lasix.
They did that at Arapahoe Park. I believe less than 1% of the winners earned the bonus. But nobody seemed to complain.

[cj]

They did that at Arapahoe Park. I believe less than 1% of the winners earned the bonus. But nobody seemed to complain.

Why would anyone complain? Horses that don't run on Lasix are at a competitive disadvantage.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Why would anyone complain? Horses that don't run on Lasix are at a competitive disadvantage.
They might have complained about the track giving winning horses that didn't run on Lasix a bonus. You never know how the horsemen will react. Apparently they complained about Lasix free races, so it isn't out of the question they'd complain about giving Lasix free horses a bonus.

What I wondered was if the trainers who didn't give a Lasix shot and won denied food and water in an effort to mimic the diuretic effects of Lasix, what they said trainers did in the time before Lasix. I have to look into this more, but it would seem like pissing away a bunch of water weight four hours before a race would have less of an effect on the the ability of a horse to throw a top effort than going 24+ hours without food or water. I was thinking about boxers who lose 15-30 pounds right before weigh-in and then rehydrate to fight. At the weigh-in they are in a definite weakened state. Just wondering if horsemen are so passionate about the issue because there really are no substitutes for Lasix in their minds and obviously it has become an essential part of their training.

[cj]

They might have complained about the track giving winning horses that didn't run on Lasix a bonus. You never know how the horsemen will react. Apparently they complained about Lasix free races, so it isn't out of the question they'd complain about giving Lasix free horses a bonus.

What I wondered was if the trainers who didn't give a Lasix shot and won denied food and water in an effort to mimic the diuretic effects of Lasix, what they said trainers did in the time before Lasix. I have to look into this more, but it would seem like pissing away a bunch of water weight four hours before a race would have less of an effect on the the ability of a horse to throw a top effort than going 24+ hours without food or water. I was thinking about boxers who lose 15-30 pounds right before weigh-in and then rehydrate to fight. At the weigh-in they are in a definite weakened state. Just wondering if horsemen are so passionate about the issue because there really are no substitutes for Lasix in their minds and obviously it has become an essential part of their training.

The biggest harm of running on Lasix, IMO, is that horses don't recover quickly and it is leading to diminishing field sizes. For horses that NEED Lasix, fine, it is better than not running at all. But for horses that don't really need it, it is hurting the game. They need to run on it to stay level competitively, but they can't return to action as quickly.

[forced89]

The biggest harm of running on Lasix, IMO, is that horses don't recover quickly and it is leading to diminishing field sizes. For horses that NEED Lasix, fine, it is better than not running at all. But for horses that don't really need it, it is hurting the game. They need to run on it to stay level competitively, but they can't return to action as quickly.

I agree with the above comments. Back when I first started owning horses a horse couldn't get Lasix unless the State Vet certified that the horse had bled either during a race or after a workout. When the Racing Form showed a horse being "First Time Lasix" it was automatically bet down in his next race.

[chadk66]

don't believe all the garbage about horses not recovering very fast from lasix. 95% recover just fine. Back when I trained horses had to be certified bleeders to use lasix. So I had a barn with about 50% of each. When a horse was put on lasix, aside from an isolated case or two, you would never have known they had used it. It's blown way out of proportion. We usually put electrolytes in the water and they bounced right back and went to the track two days later. Occasionally we would give a horse an electrolyte jug for insurance. I had many horses that ran every two weeks just like clockwork using lasix. How we've morphed into "you can't run lasix horses very often" is mind boggling.

[chadk66]

Here is one of my lasix horses race record. Considering this horse rarely if ever raced outside of MN that's a pile of starts in a year. I claimed this horse in early or mid 87'

Statistics By Year

Year Starts Firsts Seconds Thirds Earnings 1989 15 1 5 4 $10,469 1988 16 2 0 2 $8,038 1987 20 4 2 2 $12,045 1986 10 1 2 0 $6,099 1985 5 0 1 0

[mountainman]

Sure, let's ban Lasix and revert to the good ole days when players had NO idea which trainers were administering it (or some unscrupulous substitute)illegally. Yep. That'll work.

[Stillriledup]

Sure, let's ban Lasix and revert to the good ole days when players had NO idea which trainers were administering it (or some unscrupulous substitute)illegally. Yep. That'll work.

Here's a question for you, if a horse shows no Lasix in the drf, is that horse tested for Lasix in a post race test?

[cj]

Sure, let's ban Lasix and revert to the good ole days when players had NO idea which trainers were administering it (or some unscrupulous substitute)illegally. Yep. That'll work.

Nobody would get away with using Lasix illegally any longer. It is too easily tested for these days.

Horses that don't use it should get an advantage to so that they aren't forced to use it to compete. Why are people ok with that "drug them all" mentality? That makes zero sense to me. Right now, the connections of horses that don't bleed enough to effect performance (the majority of horses, by the way) have two options:


Use Lasix anyway to play on an even playing field
Don't use Lasix and spot the opposition 2 to 3 lengths


How is this a good thing for any but the minority of horses that can't race without lasix?

[cj]

Here's a question for you, if a horse shows no Lasix in the drf, is that horse tested for Lasix in a post race test?

Yes, I believe they are. Horses are routinely tested for Lasix to ensure they are actually getting it when they are supposed to and they are not getting it when they shouldn't be.

[thespaah]

Why would anyone complain? Horses that don't run on Lasix are at a competitive disadvantage.
How so?

[thespaah]

As a former trainer that used absolutely zero illegal drugs and put the horses best interest first and foremost, I feel your statement is absurd. My personal opinion, and many feel the same, is that Lasix does relatively little to no harm to a horse. In comparison, bleeding is far more detrimental to a horse both physically and mentally. Aside from minor short term dehydration, there is no other downfall to using lasix. the amount of dehydration is so small that a horse that washes out terribly looses far more bodily fluids than a horse on lasix that is attributed to the lasix. It's actually pretty laughable the comparison. so your argument should include banning any horse that washes out beyond an acceptable level.
Did you not ever use legal race day meds?

[thespaah]

Here's a question for you, if a horse shows no Lasix in the drf, is that horse tested for Lasix in a post race test?
I can tell you this. IN NY and NJ, In the money horses were sent post race to the "spit box" for collection of a urine sample. Also. Beaten favorites as well as a horse selected at random from each race.
I have no clue what the procedure is now.

[cj]

How so?

I don't know the exact reasons why, I just know it is so based on about 30 years experiences and a database that goes back 15 years. I have my suspicions why but do they really matter?

Let me ask you a question. Why do you think nearly all trainers/owners are paying to use a drug that isn't really needed by the majority of the horse population?

[thespaah]

I don't know the exact reasons why, I just know it is so based on about 30 years experiences and a database that goes back 15 years. I have my suspicions why but do they really matter?

Let me ask you a question. Why do you think nearly all trainers/owners are paying to use a drug that isn't really needed by the majority of the horse population?
A Perception that there is always a chance their horse may be at a disadvantage?

Question...Does your research lend any credence to the notion that first time/second time lasix horses do indeed sometimes exhibit a performance bump?

[cj]

A Perception that there is always a chance their horse may be at a disadvantage?

Question...Does your research lend any credence to the notion that first time/second time lasix horses do indeed sometimes exhibit a performance bump?


Sure, of course it does. Because we don't get all the information, we don't know which horses need Lasix and which don't. So obviously "some" of the improvement is due to horses that actually needing Lasix racing without bleeding and running better. But, 20-25 years ago, it was different. Horses didn't race on Lasix until they actually bled. It was easy to tell where a horse stood without bleeding before Lasix, and where they stood after it from a speed figure perspective.

We didn't get where we are today by accident. Horsemen may not know why, but they figured out pretty quickly that horses ran better on Lasix than they did without it. They also watched enough "new lasix" horses rising up the class ladder to know that it was enhancing performance, not just stopping EIPH. Suddenly, horsemen were doing everything they could to get on the wonder drug. Scoping horses became the norm, and receiving Lasix for a tiny amount that couldn't possibly effect performance was all it took to get it. Eventually it was nothing but a signature, vets just signed off on it without any real exam.

Today, we don't even pretend any longer. Nearly all first time starters debut on Lasix, and those that don't underperform by a large margin on win percentage, ROI, and speed figures.

People that haven't followed long enough may not know the whole history of Lasix, but I do. It is pretty sickening where we are now where nearly every horse is drugged.

[Donttellmeshowme]

The biggest harm of running on Lasix, IMO, is that horses don't recover quickly and it is leading to diminishing field sizes. For horses that NEED Lasix, fine, it is better than not running at all. But for horses that don't really need it, it is hurting the game. They need to run on it to stay level competitively, but they can't return to action as quickly.




That would be incorrect. Horses recover just fine. Diminishing field sizes is because too many tracks running at same time and running 5 days a week.Lasix is fine for horses that bleed and i would say 90% of horses will bleed a little during a race.

[Donttellmeshowme]

I don't know the exact reasons why, I just know it is so based on about 30 years experiences and a database that goes back 15 years. I have my suspicions why but do they really matter?

Let me ask you a question. Why do you think nearly all trainers/owners are paying to use a drug that isn't really needed by the majority of the horse population?




You dont know the reasons? Are you freakin serious? You make a statement but cant back it up. A database?


Let me ask you this have you ever worked on the backside of a race track and if so what was your job description?

[Donttellmeshowme]

Sure, of course it does. Because we don't get all the information, we don't know which horses need Lasix and which don't. So obviously "some" of the improvement is due to horses that actually needing Lasix racing without bleeding and running better. But, 20-25 years ago, it was different. Horses didn't race on Lasix until they actually bled. It was easy to tell where a horse stood without bleeding before Lasix, and where they stood after it from a speed figure perspective.

We didn't get where we are today by accident. Horsemen may not know why, but they figured out pretty quickly that horses ran better on Lasix than they did without it. They also watched enough "new lasix" horses rising up the class ladder to know that it was enhancing performance, not just stopping EIPH. Suddenly, horsemen were doing everything they could to get on the wonder drug. Scoping horses became the norm, and receiving Lasix for a tiny amount that couldn't possibly effect performance was all it took to get it. Eventually it was nothing but a signature, vets just signed off on it without any real exam.

Today, we don't even pretend any longer. Nearly all first time starters debut on Lasix, and those that don't underperform by a large margin on win percentage, ROI, and speed figures.

People that haven't followed long enough may not know the whole history of Lasix, but I do. It is pretty sickening where we are now where nearly every horse is drugged.




Lasix is legal..........


I have no problem with 1st time starters getting. It takes 6-9 months to get a horse ready to run its first race maybe longer. Im using a 2 yr old as an example from breaking the horse and getting it legged up to the steady works it has. Say you have a 1st time starter who is working bullets and has the some nice works you put it in a race and the horse is 2/1 and runs dead last and has blood gushing out his nostrils. So now you miss out on any purse revenue because you didnt use Lasix to prevent the bleeding and now you have to wait 4-6 weeks before you can run the horse again because you have to clean out his system. Thanks but no thanks. I will use the lasix. Cost me too much money not to use it.

[Stillriledup]

You dont know the reasons? Are you freakin serious? You make a statement but cant back it up. A database?


Let me ask you this have you ever worked on the backside of a race track and if so what was your job description?

You don't have to have 'worked on the backside' or 'ridden a horse' to know something about a particular subject.

[cj]

You dont know the reasons? Are you freakin serious? You make a statement but cant back it up. A database?


Let me ask you this have you ever worked on the backside of a race track and if so what was your job description?

Completely, 1000% irrelevant. It isn't my job to know why.

[cj]

Lasix is legal..........


I have no problem with 1st time starters getting. It takes 6-9 months to get a horse ready to run its first race maybe longer. Im using a 2 yr old as an example from breaking the horse and getting it legged up to the steady works it has. Say you have a 1st time starter who is working bullets and has the some nice works you put it in a race and the horse is 2/1 and runs dead last and has blood gushing out his nostrils. So now you miss out on any purse revenue because you didnt use Lasix to prevent the bleeding and now you have to wait 4-6 weeks before you can run the horse again because you have to clean out his system. Thanks but no thanks. I will use the lasix. Cost me too much money not to use it.

Bunch of hogwash. The "preventive" argument is new and only came about as a reason to sidestep horses actually having to bleed.

[Donttellmeshowme]

Completely, 1000% irrelevant. It isn't my job to know why.




Answer my question? have you worked on the backside?

[chadk66]

Did you not ever use legal race day meds?never used banamine in KY even though it was illegal. I didn't feel comfortable doing that . didn't feel it was in the horses best interest. If my horse needed banamine to run he shouldn't be running. That's just the way I looked at it. I would say I ran with bute 75% of the time. Didn't usually use it with two year olds because there wasn't really a reason to do it. I never kept my horses on bute on a regular basis. too hard on them. used it race day strictly for anti-inflamatory reasons, such as muscle soreness, etc.

[Donttellmeshowme]

never used banamine in KY even though it was illegal. I didn't feel comfortable doing that . didn't feel it was in the horses best interest. If my horse needed banamine to run he shouldn't be running. That's just the way I looked at it. I would say I ran with bute 75% of the time. Didn't usually use it with two year olds because there wasn't really a reason to do it. I never kept my horses on bute on a regular basis. too hard on them. used it race day strictly for anti-inflamatory reasons, such as muscle soreness, etc.



Banamine was illegal? Damn its legal where im at.

[cj]

Answer my question? have you worked on the backside?

No, I have never worked on the backstretch. I've spent plenty of time there.

Neither of those matter. I know how to measure the speed of racehorses. Nobody on the backside that I have met is very good at that. Where would they find the time? Many trainers use speed figures to place horses and judge ability. Owners use them to buy and sell horses. But they aren't making the figures themselves.

[Donttellmeshowme]

No, I have never worked on the backstretch. I've spent plenty of time there.

Neither of those matter. I know how to measure the speed of racehorses. Nobody on the backside that I have met is very good at that. Where would they find the time? Many trainers use speed figures to place horses and judge ability. Owners use them to buy and sell horses. But they aren't making the figures themselves.



Why are you so against using Lasix? You do know its legal in the U.S.?

[cj]

Why are you so against using Lasix? You do know its legal in the U.S.?

That is where you are wrong. I said I'm fine with Lasix for horses that actually need it and bleed enough to hinder performance. But there should be a weight penalty to even things out if a horse uses Lasix. Even that may not be enough as doubt 5 pounds would be enough to overcome the edge, but it would be a start.

The way the rules are now horses are drugged to keep the field level. How is that good for the sport?

I've already said all this so at this point I have to assume you are just trolling. Post something worthwhile or don't post.

[Donttellmeshowme]

That is where you are wrong. I said I'm fine with Lasix for horses that actually need it and bleed enough to hinder performance. But there should be a weight penalty to even things out if a horse uses Lasix. Even that may not be enough as doubt 5 pounds would be enough to overcome the edge, but it would be a start.

The way the rules are now horses are drugged to keep the field level. How is that good for the sport?

I've already said all this so at this point I have to assume you are just trolling. Post something worthwhile or don't post.




Horses are not drugged to keep the field level. I had a vet tell me most every horse will bleed at some point in a race. 99% of horses will bleed. Therefore Lasix comes into play. Not drugged. Every horse needs lasix.

[cj]

Horses are not drugged to keep the field level. I had a vet tell me most every horse will bleed at some point in a race. 99% of horses will bleed. Therefore Lasix comes into play. Not drugged. Every horse needs lasix.

Yeah, sure they do. Amazing the rest of the world still has racing.

[Donttellmeshowme]

Yeah, sure they do. Amazing the rest of the world still has racing.




You keep believing some horses dont need lasix and i will believe that 99% need Lasix.

[Saratoga_Mike]

You keep believing some horses dont need lasix and i will believe that 99% need Lasix.

I believe a large-scale study was conducted in Australia or South Africa, which showed approximately 50% of racehorses bleed. I'll try to find it and post a link.

[chadk66]

Banamine was illegal? Damn its legal where im at.Only place I ever raced where it was legal was KY. But you have to understand that was quite a few years ago.

[chadk66]

I believe a large-scale study was conducted in Australia or South Africa, which showed approximately 50% of racehorses bleed. I'll try to find it and post a link.this is pretty damn close I would think.

[forced89]

My horses work fine without Lasix. I use it on race day just to make sure I'm not spotting the rest of the horses a length or two.

[thespaah]

Banamine was illegal? Damn its legal where im at.
As a race day med?

[thespaah]

My horses work fine without Lasix. I use it on race day just to make sure I'm not spotting the rest of the horses a length or two.
Do you find the majority of trainers work/jog their horses without Lasix?

[PaceAdvantage]

Horses are not drugged to keep the field level. I had a vet tell me most every horse will bleed at some point in a race. 99% of horses will bleed. Therefore Lasix comes into play. Not drugged. Every horse needs lasix.I'm surprised evolution hasn't developed a little "Lasix" organ right next to the pancreas...

[chadk66]

Do you find the majority of trainers work/jog their horses without Lasix?Nobody I've ever known works or trains their horses on Lasix aside from a rare occurance such as a horse that bled profusely while working or racing. They may use it to make sure the horse isn't going to bleed through it just as bad. I don't recall ever using it in the morning at any time.

[Donttellmeshowme]

As a race day med?


Yep it was 48 hrs out and then 24 hrs out. This was about 5 years ago it might of changed im going to have to find out.

[mountainman]

Nobody would get away with using Lasix illegally any longer. It is too easily tested for these days.

Horses that don't use it should get an advantage to so that they aren't forced to use it to compete. Why are people ok with that "drug them all" mentality? That makes zero sense to me. Right now, the connections of horses that don't bleed enough to effect performance (the majority of horses, by the way) have two options:


Use Lasix anyway to play on an even playing field
Don't use Lasix and spot the opposition 2 to 3 lengths


How is this a good thing for any but the minority of horses that can't race without lasix?

What does "horses that can't race without Lasix" even MEAN?? A better frame of reference would be horses whose performance would be compromised by bleeding preventable with Lasix. And I don't accept that the merits of Lasix are quantifiable or lend themselves to generalization.

Nor would banning Lasix eradicate the administration of illegal bleeder meds. It would merely bestow an advantage on horsemen more skilled at beating the test barn.

[cj]

What does "horses that can't race without Lasix" even MEAN?? A better frame of reference would be horses whose performance would be compromised by bleeding preventable with Lasix. And I don't accept that the merits of Lasix are quantifiable or lend themselves to generalization.

Nor would banning Lasix eradicate the administration of illegal bleeder meds. It would merely bestow an advantage on horsemen more skilled at beating the test barn.


It means horses that are known bleeders, and I mean bleeding that effects performance, not scoping to find the smallest trace to get the drug. It really doesn't matter if you accept it to me. The numbers speak for themselves.

That last paragraph is quite the doozy. We can't catch the cheaters, so drug them all! That is awesome!

[outofthebox]

Yep it was 48 hrs out and then 24 hrs out. This was about 5 years ago it might of changed im going to have to find out.With the new ARCI guidelines set in October, Banamine is now given 36 hours out..

[chadk66]

It means horses that are known bleeders, and I mean bleeding that effects performance, not scoping to find the smallest trace to get the drug. It really doesn't matter if you accept it to me. The numbers speak for themselves.

That last paragraph is quite the doozy. We can't catch the cheaters, so drug them all! That is awesome!I agree with using it on only those that it effects their performance. But you statement "not scoping to find the smallest trace to get the drug" is nonsense. Horses don't have to visibly bleed out their nostrils to benefit from it. In fact 99 percent don't bleed from the nostrils to the point of being visible outside. There is no one size fits all approach to this really. Of the hundred plus scope jobs I've been involved with the amount of blood varied with every one. I've had some that we knew were bleeding but had no evidence of it through the scope. Finally after three or four races with scopes following there was finally the smallest amount that showed up. Put on lasix the horse started running to it's pre bleeding level again.

[Tom]

Funny how NY never used to allow it and had the bast racing anywhere.
Now, every horse needs it?

BS. Maybe every TRAINER needs it to make up for his lack of ability these days.

[cj]

I agree with using it on only those that it effects their performance. But you statement "not scoping to find the smallest trace to get the drug" is nonsense. Horses don't have to visibly bleed out their nostrils to benefit from it. In fact 99 percent don't bleed from the nostrils to the point of being visible outside. There is no one size fits all approach to this really. Of the hundred plus scope jobs I've been involved with the amount of blood varied with every one. I've had some that we knew were bleeding but had no evidence of it through the scope. Finally after three or four races with scopes following there was finally the smallest amount that showed up. Put on lasix the horse started running to it's pre bleeding level again.

I'm not saying horses shouldn't be scoped. I don't mean to imply that every horses that needs Lasix visibly bleeds. I'm saying that what was done is horses were scoped and every the smallest, trace amount was used to get horses on Lasix. That is how we got where we are today.

Why were horsemen doing all they could to get horses on Lasix? Because they aren't stupid, they knew they were racing at a disadvantage without it.

[mountainman]

It means horses that are known bleeders, and I mean bleeding that effects performance, not scoping to find the smallest trace to get the drug. It really doesn't matter if you accept it to me. The numbers speak for themselves.

That last paragraph is quite the doozy. We can't catch the cheaters, so drug them all! That is awesome!

More vagueness, and attempting to pass your opinions and generalized observations off as fact. How would you possibly know what amount of bleeding "affects performance?" Lots of vets believe there's a lot of hidden bleeding that affects the performance(s) of lots of horses.

Again, I don't buy your implied premises. You want to throw all horses into two vague camps, with no territory in between. And who says what numbers "speak for themselves??"

And I realize it doesn't matter to you what I think or accept. Back at ya, Craig. And I don't like the direction this exchange is headed.

But for purposes of debate, I'll conclude my part by opining that not all drugging is bad, that the benefits of Lasix far outweigh the negatives, and in this case, the genie will never go back into the bottle, anyway.

Please have the last word , sir.

[thespaah]

I agree with using it on only those that it effects their performance. But you statement "not scoping to find the smallest trace to get the drug" is nonsense. Horses don't have to visibly bleed out their nostrils to benefit from it. In fact 99 percent don't bleed from the nostrils to the point of being visible outside. There is no one size fits all approach to this really. Of the hundred plus scope jobs I've been involved with the amount of blood varied with every one. I've had some that we knew were bleeding but had no evidence of it through the scope. Finally after three or four races with scopes following there was finally the smallest amount that showed up. Put on lasix the horse started running to it's pre bleeding level again.
I've witnessed horses being scoped as well. I had to hold the horse's head steady...In any event, my question is if the scope is clean, then how does one determine whether or not the horse has bled?

[chadk66]

I'm not saying horses shouldn't be scoped. I don't mean to imply that every horses that needs Lasix visibly bleeds. I'm saying that what was done is horses were scoped and every the smallest, trace amount was used to get horses on Lasix. That is how we got where we are today.

Why were horsemen doing all they could to get horses on Lasix? Because they aren't stupid, they knew they were racing at a disadvantage without it.you either see blood or you don't see blood. even the tiniest amount indicates EIPH.

[chadk66]

I've witnessed horses being scoped as well. I had to hold the horse's head steady...In any event, my question is if the scope is clean, then how does one determine whether or not the horse has bled?it's not easy. As a trainer you have a gut feeling based on how the horse ran previously and what characteristics he is exhibiting while currently racing/suspecting bleeding. Jockey's also are very good at detecting or suspecting bleeding. Not all bleeders show in a scope. I would venture to guess 25% don't. They also may not show blood for a couple hours post race. I've had horses we scoped as soon as they got back to the barn and found nothing. Looked again two hours later and there it was big as you please.

[cj]

it's not easy. As a trainer you have a gut feeling based on how the horse ran previously and what characteristics he is exhibiting while currently racing/suspecting bleeding. Jockey's also are very good at detecting or suspecting bleeding. Not all bleeders show in a scope. I would venture to guess 25% don't. They also may not show blood for a couple hours post race. I've had horses we scoped as soon as they got back to the barn and found nothing. Looked again two hours later and there it was big as you please.


All of this is outdated. Nearly all horses start with Lasix now, and if they don't, they almost all get it soon enough. They don't have to bleed any longer. Sure, maybe somebody signs off that the horse bled, but that isn't reality.

[cj]

More vagueness, and attempting to pass your opinions and generalized observations off as fact. How would you possibly know what amount of bleeding "affects performance?" Lots of vets believe there's a lot of hidden bleeding that affects the performance(s) of lots of horses.

Again, I don't buy your implied premises. You want to throw all horses into two vague camps, with no territory in between. And who says what numbers "speak for themselves??"

And I realize it doesn't matter to you what I think or accept. Back at ya, Craig. And I don't like the direction this exchange is headed.

But for purposes of debate, I'll conclude my part by opining that not all drugging is bad, that the benefits of Lasix far outweigh the negatives, and in this case, the genie will never go back into the bottle, anyway.

Please have the last word , sir.

I'll just add that if we need to drug all horses to race, that isn't really a sport that I think has much future.

[chadk66]

All of this is outdated. Nearly all horses start with Lasix now, and if they don't, they almost all get it soon enough. They don't have to bleed any longer. Sure, maybe somebody signs off that the horse bled, but that isn't reality.I realize that. I was still discussing what you said earlier and how things were and still should be possibly. Although I'm really not opposed that they can all run on the stuff so that the betting public feels like it's an even playing field.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Yep it was 48 hrs out and then 24 hrs out. This was about 5 years ago it might of changed im going to have to find out.

Banamine is one of the 26 approved medications on the ARCI list and is legal in most jurisdictions. The standard for post-race compliance is 20 nanograms/mL To meet the standard, the recommended withdrawal time for a 10cc dose is 32 hours. There is no drug that is legal to administer on raceday (within 24 hours) other than Lasix. However, in the end, the medication standards govern regardless of when medication was administered.

[johnhannibalsmith]

... There is no drug that is legal to administer on raceday (within 24 hours) other than Lasix. ...

Did those relatively few jurisdictions that were allowing it not long ago discontinue allowing use of aminocaproic acid, estrogen, and all the other adjuncts (KY red, et al)?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

More vagueness, and attempting to pass your opinions and generalized observations off as fact. How would you possibly know what amount of bleeding "affects performance?" Lots of vets believe there's a lot of hidden bleeding that affects the performance(s) of lots of horses.

Again, I don't buy your implied premises. You want to throw all horses into two vague camps, with no territory in between. And who says what numbers "speak for themselves??"

And I realize it doesn't matter to you what I think or accept. Back at ya, Craig. And I don't like the direction this exchange is headed.

But for purposes of debate, I'll conclude my part by opining that not all drugging is bad, that the benefits of Lasix far outweigh the negatives, and in this case, the genie will never go back into the bottle, anyway.

Please have the last word , sir.
In the end there are two questions we have to answer definitiely. Is Lasix bad for the horse in the long term? Is Lasix bad for racing in the long term? I haven't seen anything that suggests horses have residual health problems from the use of Lasix during a racing career. However, it might be worth asking if in North America certain sires are genetically passing along the tendency to bleed. So perhaps there is an argument that in the long term if Lasix is banned and horses with more serious bleeding issues will not have successful careers and will not be part of the breeding stock. Of course, I suspect that the best racehorses are not serious bleeders in the first place. In fact, only 3-5% of horses are level 4 bleeders. So it is speculative whether the tendency of the breed to bleed would be significantly improved, since it isn't likely serious bleeders are breeding anyway. Of course it would be hard to know whether or not it would make a difference without actually trying it, which isn't going to happen soon. In terms of whether it is bad for racing, it depends on the perspective. From a handicapper's perspective, it creates a consistency and essentially makes handicapping easier. All horses are getting a similar benefit so you don't have to evaluate the factor. So even if it has performance enhancing effect beyond controlling bleeding (and we know from physics that applying the same force to a lighter object - horses lose weight on Lasix -will cause it to accelerate quicker), it generally evens out. In the end it seems to come down to an issue of perception and credibility. Will racing prosper if the one allowable raceday medication is banned? If Lasix is banned, unless information on the level of bleeding for each runner is published it at least puts handicappers at a disadvantage. And if it is allowed for "true" bleeders, where do you draw the line? Level 4? 3? 2? I'm of the opinion that the Lasix issue creates a convenient distraction for racing to not deal with the real issues like take, field size, and poor racetrack administration. For all the people who think racing in Hong Kong or Dubai or Europe is better because of a Lasix ban, it's more complicated than that. I don't think the Lasix ban helps horsemen, horses, or handicappers, but I'd be interested to hear the arguments about why it would.

[cj]

In the end there are two questions we have to answer definitiely. Is Lasix bad for the horse in the long term? Is Lasix bad for racing in the long term? I haven't seen anything that suggests horses have residual health problems from the use of Lasix during a racing career. However, it might be worth asking if in North America certain sires are genetically passing along the tendency to bleed. So perhaps there is an argument that in the long term if Lasix is banned and horses with more serious bleeding issues will not have successful careers and will not be part of the breeding stock. Of course, I suspect that the best racehorses are not serious bleeders in the first place. In fact, only 3-5% of horses are level 4 bleeders. So it is speculative whether the tendency of the breed to bleed would be significantly improved, since it isn't likely serious bleeders are breeding anyway. Of course it would be hard to know whether or not it would make a difference without actually trying it, which isn't going to happen soon. In terms of whether it is bad for racing, it depends on the perspective. From a handicapper's perspective, it creates a consistency and essentially makes handicapping easier. All horses are getting a similar benefit so you don't have to evaluate the factor. So even if it has performance enhancing effect beyond controlling bleeding (and we know from physics that applying the same force to a lighter object - horses lose weight on Lasix -will cause it to accelerate quicker), it generally evens out. In the end it seems to come down to an issue of perception and credibility. Will racing prosper if the one allowable raceday medication is banned? If Lasix is banned, unless information on the level of bleeding for each runner is published it at least puts handicappers at a disadvantage. And if it is allowed for "true" bleeders, where do you draw the line? Level 4? 3? 2? I'm of the opinion that the Lasix issue creates a convenient distraction for racing to not deal with the real issues like take, field size, and poor racetrack administration. For all the people who think racing in Hong Kong or Dubai or Europe is better because of a Lasix ban, it's more complicated than that. I don't think the Lasix ban helps horsemen, horses, or handicappers, but I'd be interested to hear the arguments about why it would.

I'll throw one out there...it would allow horses to race more often. Competing while dehydrated is not good.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Did those relatively few jurisdictions that were allowing it not long ago discontinue allowing use of aminocaproic acid, estrogen, and all the other adjuncts (KY red, et al)?
Any drug not on the allowable list, or for which there isn't a standard, is essentially zero tolerance. However, certain supplements, including enzymes, are not banned for use. Look at a bag of commercial feed and see what it contains. With supplements you are taking chances. They aren't FDA approved and it's even chancey that they contain the ingredients in the amounts on the label.

Everything is performance enhancing, even water, hay and oats. The line should be drawn in the same place the major sports draw it. Where the substance affects body shape and muscle mass, heart-lung performance, or where it masks serious injury.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I'll throw one out there...it would allow horses to race more often. Competing while dehydrated is not good.
It's another conundrum. How do you test it empirically without banning Lasix?

I've mentioned boxers lose 15-30 pounds - 10-20% - of their body weight before a fight and a day later they go 12 rounds. Horses lose a lot less as a percentage of total body weight. I agree they certainly would need time to recover from a stressful effort while somewhat dehydrated. I just don't have any idea how long and how much more often they might race. But I see the potential benefit. It might help average field size if they could race more often.

[cj]

It's another conundrum. How do you test it empirically without banning Lasix?

I've mentioned boxers lose 15-30 pounds - 10-20% - of their body weight before a fight and a day later they go 12 rounds. Horses lose a lot less as a percentage of total body weight. I agree they certainly would need time to recover from a stressful effort while somewhat dehydrated. I just don't have any idea how long and how much more often they might race. But I see the potential benefit. It might help average field size if they could race more often.


I don't think it hurts performance at all, even for boxers, but it does take them long to recover. Of course boxers don't fight all that often so it isn't that big a deal.

All we can go by is the pre Lasix days. Horses ran much more often. I'm not saying it is all Lasix of course, but I think it is a part of it.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Any drug not on the allowable list, or for which there isn't a standard, is essentially zero tolerance. However, certain supplements, including enzymes, are not banned for use. Look at a bag of commercial feed and see what it contains. With supplements you are taking chances. They aren't FDA approved and it's even chancey that they contain the ingredients in the amounts on the label.

Everything is performance enhancing, even water, hay and oats. The line should be drawn in the same place the major sports draw it. Where the substance affects body shape and muscle mass, heart-lung performance, or where it masks serious injury.

I meant specifically the other bleeder meds that I mentioned that were/are used which were permitted as raceday meds in several jurisdictions not that long ago at a minimum. I remember Kentucky phasing them out a few years ago, but haven't kept up on every jurisdiction and thought maybe off the top of your head you knew that they (the adjuncts) had been banished across the board. When I read the portion of the post that I quoted, my kneejerk reaction was that there must be a holdout somewhere that still allows Amicar (aminocaproic acid) and estros at a minimum, but I forget how quickly time passes and how little I pay attention to some things any longer and thought maybe I'd get it lined out once and for all. I'll try to gooooogle for a list of permitted meds in each jurisdiction or something.

Edited:

Didn't take too long to answer myself. First stop Louisiana 2015 rules.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I meant specifically the other bleeder meds that I mentioned that were/are used which were permitted as raceday meds in several jurisdictions not that long ago at a minimum. I remember Kentucky phasing them out a few years ago, but haven't kept up on every jurisdiction and thought maybe off the top of your head you knew that they (the adjuncts) had been banished across the board. When I read the portion of the post that I quoted, my kneejerk reaction was that there must be a holdout somewhere that still allows Amicar (aminocaproic acid) and estros at a minimum, but I forget how quickly time passes and how little I pay attention to some things any longer and thought maybe I'd get it lined out once and for all. I'll try to gooooogle for a list of permitted meds in each jurisdiction or something.

Edited:

Didn't take too long to answer myself. First stop Louisiana 2015 rules.
Louisiana is a little different than some other jurisdictions. They are closer to the idea of banning actual performance enhancing drugs than other states. I'm not surprised at their rule. There's more to it, but Louisiana has kind of thumbed their nose at ARCI.

[Donttellmeshowme]

It's another conundrum. How do you test it empirically without banning Lasix?

I've mentioned boxers lose 15-30 pounds - 10-20% - of their body weight before a fight and a day later they go 12 rounds. Horses lose a lot less as a percentage of total body weight. I agree they certainly would need time to recover from a stressful effort while somewhat dehydrated. I just don't have any idea how long and how much more often they might race. But I see the potential benefit. It might help average field size if they could race more often.




Horses are given build up jugs the 1-3 days after the race. Therefore no dehydration will set in. Now all trainers dont give the build up jug. Why? thats a damn good question but if you not then you not winning any races.

[chadk66]

I'll throw one out there...it would allow horses to race more often. Competing while dehydrated is not good.that's not correct either. Most of my lasix horses ran every two weeks. The others would have if I would have been able to get them in races. I looked back at some of my horses pp's and found some raced as many as 20 or more races in a year on lasix. Are there horses that need longer time between racese? Of course. Is it because of lasix use? Hard to say. sometimes races just knock horses out longer than other horses. Unless you have a horse that is a horrible drinker, I had one, it's really not an issue.

[chadk66]

CJ,
look up the number and frequency of this small list of horses, which were all lasix horses. This is just a small sample I can provide.
Hula Song
Night Rover
Strong Beat
Sir Instant
Smartens Pride
Fling It At Em
Bask In The Wind
Balistico

These are a few of the horses I ran regularly on about a two week schedule. Some twelve days. Occasionally a race wouldn't fill so they had to wait a bit. These horses had close to zero health issues. Strong Beat had some foot problems when I got him that I was able to straighten up rather quickly. These horses ran their guts out each and every time. And we're tearing the barn down the next day. I had one mare that was a MN bred that we ran in MD one winter. She was a multiple stakes winner in MN. Ran for about 20K in Baltimore. In April one year she ran in Baltimore and got on the van the next day for a trip to MN. My plan was to walk her for a good week then start her back. Well by day two we couldn't walk her anymore in the barn. she was tearing the place apart. took her to the track. She was insane to train she was feeling so good. so I said screw it and entered her and she won for fun. I think it was ten days after her last race in Baltimore. I can give you more horses if you need. And I know of many from other trainers that I raced against on a regular basis that were lasix horses. It is totally an old wives tale regarding horses not being able to run back frequently on lasix. If you have a good training program and a good feed program it isn't an issue. But you have to take care of them.

[Stillriledup]

that's not correct either. Most of my lasix horses ran every two weeks. The others would have if I would have been able to get them in races. I looked back at some of my horses pp's and found some raced as many as 20 or more races in a year on lasix. Are there horses that need longer time between racese? Of course. Is it because of lasix use? Hard to say. sometimes races just knock horses out longer than other horses. Unless you have a horse that is a horrible drinker, I had one, it's really not an issue.

The position you're defending is that some horses (or most horses) need drugs (Lasix) to run. As a trainer and caretaker, don't you think it's up to you to look out for the best interests of the animal? Is pumping drugs into horses looking out for THEIR best interests?

[Donttellmeshowme]

Everyone is forgetting something.

Every horse is different and i mean every horse. Some horses get dehydrated some do not. Some work bullets in the morning some cant outrun me in the morning. Some eat once a day some eat 3 times a day. tall are making the assumption that every horse is the same they are not.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

The position you're defending is that some horses (or most horses) need drugs (Lasix) to run. As a trainer and caretaker, don't you think it's up to you to look out for the best interests of the animal? Is pumping drugs into horses looking out for THEIR best interests?
There is no question that by definition all horses experience pulmonary hypertension under racing stress. It is also the case that most horses experience some level of EIPH under that stress. Why would you think that treating a horse for diagnosable condition is not looking out for the best interests of an animal? Would you not administer an antibiotic if the horse had an infection? After all the discussion trying to flesh out the complexities of the issue, suggesting that trainers are willy-nilly "pumping drugs" into horses sounds like unfairly taking a shot. There is certainly discussion to be had surrounding whether treatment should be related to severity of EIPH, but if a horse is a confirmed bleeder, it would be inhumane not to treat it. There is already a reactionary group that substitutes inflamatory pejoratives like pumping drugs instead of administering medication. A horse gets a maximum 10cc injection four hours before a race, and these days trainers are administering far smaller doses of 3-5cc's to most horses. If you don't like Lasix, offer an argument that gets at why it has deleterious health effects because any argument that suggests trainers are abusing horses by treating EIPH is frivolous and frankly without merit.

[Donttellmeshowme]

Damn i like you Halv that was spot on.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Everyone is forgetting something.

Every horse is different and i mean every horse. Some horses get dehydrated some do not. Some work bullets in the morning some cant outrun me in the morning. Some eat once a day some eat 3 times a day. tall are making the assumption that every horse is the same they are not.
I'm not sure who forgot it or what the point is. Like any drug, Lasix may work better on some horses than others, but it generally works as a diruetic on almost any horse. It's like humans. They are all different, but the polio vaccine essentially prevents the disease in all of them.

[Stillriledup]

There is no question that by definition all horses experience pulmonary hypertension under racing stress. It is also the case that most horses experience some level of EIPH under that stress. Why would you think that treating a horse for diagnosable condition is not looking out for the best interests of an animal? Would you not administer an antibiotic if the horse had an infection? After all the discussion trying to flesh out the complexities of the issue, suggesting that trainers are willy-nilly "pumping drugs" into horses sounds like unfairly taking a shot. There is certainly discussion to be had surrounding whether treatment should be related to severity of EIPH, but if a horse is a confirmed bleeder, it would be inhumane not to treat it. There is already a reactionary group that substitutes inflamatory pejoratives like pumping drugs instead of administering medication. A horse gets a maximum 10cc injection four hours before a race, and these days trainers are administering far smaller doses of 3-5cc's to most horses. If you don't like Lasix, offer an argument that gets at why it has deleterious health effects because any argument that suggests trainers are abusing horses by treating EIPH is frivolous and frankly without merit.

Are Lasix and antibiotics similar? I'm confused at the comparison.

As far as confirmed bleeders go, wouldn't it be better to rest the horse until he 'heels' or retire the horse if he can't race without drugs? Wouldn't retirement be a more humane option?

[johnhannibalsmith]

...Wouldn't retirement be a more humane option?

Why even chart this course? When wouldn't it be more humane to retire a horse with a problem that needs to be managed? Is that really what you want? In the case of extreme bleeders, I agree with you. And I have done what you are suggesting in that case. But, to say that if a horse needs lasix to effectively manage the problem and still be able to compete comfortably and to his ability then he should be retired seems inconsistent with what I would expect you to want from owners/trainers in the grand scheme of things if we are to apply that standard to all cases of injury/malady that need veterinary intervention to be remedied satisfactorily.

There's a worthy case against lasix, even if the pragmatist in me doesn't generally support it when push comes to shove. This isn't a particularly good one in its selective application. In my opinion, of course.

[cj]

CJ,
look up the number and frequency of this small list of horses, which were all lasix horses. This is just a small sample I can provide.
Hula Song
Night Rover
Strong Beat
Sir Instant
Smartens Pride
Fling It At Em
Bask In The Wind
Balistico

These are a few of the horses I ran regularly on about a two week schedule. Some twelve days. Occasionally a race wouldn't fill so they had to wait a bit. These horses had close to zero health issues. Strong Beat had some foot problems when I got him that I was able to straighten up rather quickly. These horses ran their guts out each and every time. And we're tearing the barn down the next day. I had one mare that was a MN bred that we ran in MD one winter. She was a multiple stakes winner in MN. Ran for about 20K in Baltimore. In April one year she ran in Baltimore and got on the van the next day for a trip to MN. My plan was to walk her for a good week then start her back. Well by day two we couldn't walk her anymore in the barn. she was tearing the place apart. took her to the track. She was insane to train she was feeling so good. so I said screw it and entered her and she won for fun. I think it was ten days after her last race in Baltimore. I can give you more horses if you need. And I know of many from other trainers that I raced against on a regular basis that were lasix horses. It is totally an old wives tale regarding horses not being able to run back frequently on lasix. If you have a good training program and a good feed program it isn't an issue. But you have to take care of them.

Nobody said every horse is effected the same way, and I'm sure a some of it is trainers changing methods, they got Frankel-ed.

[Stillriledup]

Why even chart this course? When wouldn't it be more humane to retire a horse with a problem that needs to be managed? Is that really what you want? In the case of extreme bleeders, I agree with you. And I have done what you are suggesting in that case. But, to say that if a horse needs lasix to effectively manage the problem and still be able to compete comfortably and to his ability then he should be retired seems inconsistent with what I would expect you to want from owners/trainers in the grand scheme of things if we are to apply that standard to all cases of injury/malady that need veterinary intervention to be remedied satisfactorily.

There's a worthy case against lasix, even if the pragmatist in me doesn't generally support it when push comes to shove. This isn't a particularly good one in its selective application. In my opinion, of course.

Ill chart the course because trainers are not arguing for Lasix because giving a horse more drugs is helping the horse, they're arguing because giving the Lasix makes them 'better trainers'.

Most trainers are not using Lasix as a last resort, they're using it as a first resort and they're using it on everyone for the most part.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Are Lasix and antibiotics similar? I'm confused at the comparison.

As far as confirmed bleeders go, wouldn't it be better to rest the horse until he 'heels' or retire the horse if he can't race without drugs? Wouldn't retirement be a more humane option?

Antibiotics and Lasix are both therapeutic medications used to treat medical conditions. They obviously are different classes of drugs, but they are used for the same type of purpose. Let me see if I can make this simple. Horse gets sick. Horse gets treated with medication that will resolve the problem. The process is the same even if the condition or the drug isn't.

You don't heal from a congenital condition, and studies have established most horses will have EIPH to some degree. You can't retire every horse that bleeds. The worst bleeders and horses that bleed through Lasix are often retired. Owners spend a lot of money buying horses. Why would he retire a horse that is a level 3 bleeder that can be reduced to level 1 on Lasix and have a successful racing career? It's not an illogical thought from an owner.

There are different reasons people oppose Lasix. One reason is that if Lasix was banned, the available pool of horses would drop, at least initially. If that happens, marginal racetracks would have a hard time getting enough horses to hold a proper meet. There are some that think the more marginal tracks that close, the better it is for racing, and if a Lasix ban does that, it's a good secondary outcome.

[cj]

Antibiotics and Lasix are both therapeutic medications used to treat medical conditions. They obviously are different classes of drugs, but they are used for the same type of purpose. Let me see if I can make this simple. Horse gets sick. Horse gets treated with medication that will resolve the problem. The process is the same even if the condition or the drug isn't.

You don't heal from a congenital condition, and studies have established most horses will have EIPH to some degree. You can't retire every horse that bleeds. The worst bleeders and horses that bleed through Lasix are often retired. Owners spend a lot of money buying horses. Why would he retire a horse that is a level 3 bleeder that can be reduced to level 1 on Lasix and have a successful racing career? It's not an illogical thought from an owner.

There are different reasons people oppose Lasix. One reason is that if Lasix was banned, the available pool of horses would drop, at least initially. If that happens, marginal racetracks would have a hard time getting enough horses to hold a proper meet. There are some that think the more marginal tracks that close, the better it is for racing, and if a Lasix ban does that, it's a good secondary outcome.

It goes back to the beginning though. All we heard (I'm assuming you remember this) was how great Lasix would be for the game. It would allow bleeders to continue racing and it would lead to race cards full of big fields. Obviously this didn't happen. It has gotten worse with field sizes. It isn't all Lasix, but some of it is. We were sold a bill of goods just like we were with slot machines.

[Donttellmeshowme]

It goes back to the beginning though. All we heard (I'm assuming you remember this) was how great Lasix would be for the game. It would allow bleeders to continue racing and it would lead to race cards full of big fields. Obviously this didn't happen. It has gotten worse with field sizes. It isn't all Lasix, but some of it is. We were sold a bill of goods just like we were with slot machines.




Too many tracks running is leading to the field sizes not Lasix. Wasnt the breeding numbers down again last year?

[Saratoga_Mike]

It goes back to the beginning though. All we heard (I'm assuming you remember this) was how great Lasix would be for the game. It would allow bleeders to continue racing and it would lead to race cards full of big fields. Obviously this didn't happen. It has gotten worse with field sizes. It isn't all Lasix, but some of it is. We were sold a bill of goods just like we were with slot machines.

I would have supported legalizing Lasix when it happened, but in hindsight it was probably a mistake for the reasons CJ has so well articulated in this thread.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Too many tracks running is leading to the field sizes not Lasix. Wasnt the breeding numbers down again last year?

In the past decade, the number of races has declined by 16%.

http://www.jockeyclub.com/default.asp?section=FB&area=18

[cj]

Too many tracks running is leading to the field sizes not Lasix. Wasnt the breeding numbers down again last year?

Facts don't support this notion, races are way down. Yes, foal crop is smaller but fields were shrinking well before that became an issue.

[Tall One]

The position you're defending is that some horses (or most horses) need drugs (Lasix) to run. As a trainer and caretaker, don't you think it's up to you to look out for the best interests of the animal? Is pumping drugs into horses looking out for THEIR best interests?


I thought the position Chad was taking was horses who need Lasix, may not need as much time to recover as you'd think. He cited a few examples of runners in his care that proved otherwise.

If the horse is a legit bleeder, then by all means administer the meds, but it's ridiculous seeing a field of 2YOs making their first start and all with the L. That goes to what CJ said a couple pages back...if this is where we are, then we've got more of a problem than a decline in the number of races.

Great thread guys. This is a gray area I'm glad we're getting some good level headed insight and discussions on. :ThmbUp:

[HalvOnHorseracing]

It goes back to the beginning though. All we heard (I'm assuming you remember this) was how great Lasix would be for the game. It would allow bleeders to continue racing and it would lead to race cards full of big fields. Obviously this didn't happen. It has gotten worse with field sizes. It isn't all Lasix, but some of it is. We were sold a bill of goods just like we were with slot machines.

I respect your position, CJ, and I think you came to it honestly. It would be great if we could get everyone on the same page, whatever the page.

Yes, I remember. Colorado was one of the first states to approve Lasix, and at the time racing did flourish, but I suspect the absence or presence of Lasix had little to do with it. Lasix was never a panacea nor the great scourge. Much like when horsemen said Lasix would be great, banning Lasix now will not be the one thing that will turn the game around. I'm not sure just how much field size would improve, and while I admit I'm fine with Lasix, I'd still find it easier to make the argument it helps field size rather than hinders it because of recovery time. Frankly, if anyone could make a convincing argument that banning Lasix would solve the real problems in racing, I'd say let's do it. If some track had the nuts to run a Lasix free meet and prove the point, it would be a great start.

It is an issue that has taken on importance far beyond its significance. The PETA people hate racing, and even if Lasix was banned, they'd still hate racing. Other animal rights people want to equate Lasix with animal abuse, and that is just an emotional appeal that tries to equate serious PEDs with a fairly benign therapeutic medication. The reason why people say "pumping drugs" is to plant the seed that Lasix is somehow equivalent to steroids, cocaine, or crystal meth. Hell, I've had occasion to be on Lasix, and I didn't suffer when I was on it. I just pissed a lot. Most serious handicappers don't care, or favor Lasix because in a strange way it levels the playing field. I get that there a those that see it as a purity issue, and in a romantic way it would be nice to view racing as above all the fray, but that's like suggesting everything was better in the good old days.

The issues are more related to the economics of the game. Average starts per year in North America are about the same as they are in Europe or Australia, and those jurisdictions don't have Lasix. Think about places like Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Delaware, NY. Purses have gone through the roof because of casino money. Trainers can make as much money with 3 or 4 wins a year as they used to with 6 or 7. $80K for a MSW at SAR? You can pay the nut for a year of upkeep and training with one win. Horses earn money for more places than they used to. Freakin' 6th place pays off! A statebred CL $25K with a $47K purse in January at AQU. That was a stakes purse not that long ago. Groupthink, a low level claimer, eaned $50K in six races without a win in 2014, $111K with two wins in nine races in 2015. Trainers don't have to race their horses 13 times to make a living, except at small tracks without casino supplemented purses where they do race more often.

Trainers are no longer are happy with 12% win percentages. They need clients, and you get clients by having a high win percentage. Todd Pletcher and Bob Baffert can pick their owners and horses. And when they get a dud, it shows up in December in a $25K claimer. If you race your horse into condition, your percentage goes down and you have a tougher time attracting clients. When I started in the game, you could almost automatically ignore any horse that had been off 30 days. Now, trainers bring their horses to the track ready to win so they don't have a lower percentage. It's a competitive business. They don't race animals with small physical ailments as much as they used to. There was a time when bute was a legal raceday medication. Shoot 'em up and let 'em run. Those days are gone.

Breeders don't get the tax advantages they used to. Why do you think so many got out of the game? States have sales tax on claims. There's a clever interpretation of what you should pay sales tax on. It's a shitty business to be in from a business perspective. You can't possibly have the field size they did 40 years ago when the foal crop was three times what it is now.

Maybe Lasix is a part of it, but I think there are probably a dozen reasons more important than Lasix why racing is not flourishing, and maybe that many that would explain smaller field size before coming on Lasix. There are moments I think, ban Lasix, then when you have the same problems filling fields and making racing viable maybe you'll deal with them because you won't have Lasix to hide behind. Little would be better than not having to have this discussion because the issue was resolved to everyone's satisfaction once and for all.

[cj]

I respect your position, CJ, and I think you came to it honestly. It would be great if we could get everyone on the same page, whatever the page.

Yes, I remember. Colorado was one of the first states to approve Lasix, and at the time racing did flourish, but I suspect the absence or presence of Lasix had little to do with it. Lasix was never a panacea nor the great scourge. Much like when horsemen said Lasix would be great, banning Lasix now will not be the one thing that will turn the game around. I'm not sure just how much field size would improve, and while I admit I'm fine with Lasix, I'd still find it easier to make the argument it helps field size rather than hinders it because of recovery time. Frankly, if anyone could make a convincing argument that banning Lasix would solve the real problems in racing, I'd say let's do it. If some track had the nuts to run a Lasix free meet and prove the point, it would be a great start.

It is an issue that has taken on importance far beyond its significance. The PETA people hate racing, and even if Lasix was banned, they'd still hate racing. Other animal rights people want to equate Lasix with animal abuse, and that is just an emotional appeal that tries to equate serious PEDs with a fairly benign therapeutic medication. The reason why people say "pumping drugs" is to plant the seed that Lasix is somehow equivalent to steroids, cocaine, or crystal meth. Hell, I've had occasion to be on Lasix, and I didn't suffer when I was on it. I just pissed a lot. Most serious handicappers don't care, or favor Lasix because in a strange way it levels the playing field. I get that there a those that see it as a purity issue, and in a romantic way it would be nice to view racing as above all the fray, but that's like suggesting everything was better in the good old days.

The issues are more related to the economics of the game. Average starts per year in North America are about the same as they are in Europe or Australia, and those jurisdictions don't have Lasix. Think about places like Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Delaware, NY. Purses have gone through the roof because of casino money. Trainers can make as much money with 3 or 4 wins a year as they used to with 6 or 7. $80K for a MSW at SAR? You can pay the nut for a year of upkeep and training with one win. Horses earn money for more places than they used to. Freakin' 6th place pays off! A statebred CL $25K with a $47K purse in January at AQU. That was a stakes purse not that long ago. Groupthink, a low level claimer, eaned $50K in six races without a win in 2014, $111K with two wins in nine races in 2015. Trainers don't have to race their horses 13 times to make a living, except at small tracks without casino supplemented purses where they do race more often.

Trainers are no longer are happy with 12% win percentages. They need clients, and you get clients by having a high win percentage. Todd Pletcher and Bob Baffert can pick their owners and horses. And when they get a dud, it shows up in December in a $25K claimer. If you race your horse into condition, your percentage goes down and you have a tougher time attracting clients. When I started in the game, you could almost automatically ignore any horse that had been off 30 days. Now, trainers bring their horses to the track ready to win so they don't have a lower percentage. It's a competitive business. They don't race animals with small physical ailments as much as they used to. There was a time when bute was a legal raceday medication. Shoot 'em up and let 'em run. Those days are gone.

Breeders don't get the tax advantages they used to. Why do you think so many got out of the game? States have sales tax on claims. There's a clever interpretation of what you should pay sales tax on. It's a shitty business to be in from a business perspective. You can't possibly have the field size they did 40 years ago when the foal crop was three times what it is now.

Maybe Lasix is a part of it, but I think there are probably a dozen reasons more important than Lasix why racing is not flourishing, and maybe that many that would explain smaller field size before coming on Lasix. There are moments I think, ban Lasix, then when you have the same problems filling fields and making racing viable maybe you'll deal with them because you won't have Lasix to hide behind. Little would be better than not having to have this discussion because the issue was resolved to everyone's satisfaction once and for all.

Very good post Rich. I certainly don't think Lasix is the devil and removing it would help fix much, and I agree there are worse problems. But nobody is addressing any of the others in any meaningful way. You can only fight the fights that are actually on the table.

[chadk66]

The position you're defending is that some horses (or most horses) need drugs (Lasix) to run. As a trainer and caretaker, don't you think it's up to you to look out for the best interests of the animal? Is pumping drugs into horses looking out for THEIR best interests?that would apply if I felt lasic was bad for a horse. Which it isn't. So your opinion means nothing to me

[cj]

that would apply if I felt lasic was bad for a horse. Which it isn't. So your opinion means nothing to me

All drugs, no matter how good they sound, have side effects. So using them in horses that don't need them just doesn't sit right with me. I think that is a reasonable stance to have. Obviously some horsemen disagree, or we wouldn't have a sport where nearly every participant is drugged.

[chadk66]

Are Lasix and antibiotics similar? I'm confused at the comparison.

As far as confirmed bleeders go, wouldn't it be better to rest the horse until he 'heels' or retire the horse if he can't race without drugs? Wouldn't retirement be a more humane option?
Well like I've stated before without lasix you won't have an industry for long. And just because a horse is retired doesn't mean he won't be abused in numerous ways wherever he/she resides. I'm sure your familiar with rescue horses. It's an ugly world out there

[Stillriledup]

that would apply if I felt lasic was bad for a horse. Which it isn't. So your opinion means nothing to me

Your argument FOR Lasix is an emotional one, I see a nerve has been touched, Lasix makes you a better trainer just like star players make coaches look better. Trainers aren't putting the horse first at the expense of their own win percentage and purse earnings. It's hard for me to buy into anything a trainer says about Lasix due to the conflict of interest.

[chadk66]

It goes back to the beginning though. All we heard (I'm assuming you remember this) was how great Lasix would be for the game. It would allow bleeders to continue racing and it would lead to race cards full of big fields. Obviously this didn't happen. It has gotten worse with field sizes. It isn't all Lasix, but some of it is. We were sold a bill of goods just like we were with slot machines.but it's no fault of lasix use.

[chadk66]

I thought the position Chad was taking was horses who need Lasix, may not need as much time to recover as you'd think. He cited a few examples of runners in his care that proved otherwise.

If the horse is a legit bleeder, then by all means administer the meds, but it's ridiculous seeing a field of 2YOs making their first start and all with the L. That goes to what CJ said a couple pages back...if this is where we are, then we've got more of a problem than a decline in the number of races.

Great thread guys. This is a gray area I'm glad we're getting some good level headed insight and discussions on. :ThmbUp:I totally agree with the two year old situation. No reason whatsoever to run a two year old in lasix. In fact there is no reason to run any horse on lasix that doesn't need it. There is no benefit to it.

[chadk66]

All drugs, no matter how good they sound, have side effects. So using them in horses that don't need them just doesn't sit right with me. I think that is a reasonable stance to have. Obviously some horsemen disagree, or we wouldn't have a sport where nearly every participant is drugged.using 10cc of a drug like lasix once every two or three weeks will not provide any side effects. If it was used in s daily basis you'd have a valid concern. But I know of no instances where it is used on a daily basis aside from humans. Which there are very few if any side effects

[cj]

Well like I've stated before without lasix you won't have an industry for long.

Now that is just being silly.

[Saratoga_Mike]

but it's no fault of lasix use.

How do you know so definitively? You're using anecdotal evidence (i.e., your personal experience) and extrapolating it across the industry. CJ is observing data and drawing inferences. His inferences could be incorrect, but your anecdotal evidence could be, too.

[chadk66]

Your argument FOR Lasix is an emotional one, I see a nerve has been touched, Lasix makes you a better trainer just like star players make coaches look better. Trainers aren't putting the horse first at the expense of their own win percentage and purse earnings. It's hard for me to buy into anything a trainer says about Lasix due to the conflict of interest.has absolutely nothing to do with emotions. It's based on reality. You have to remember I didn't use lasix in horses that weren't proven to need it. And my opinion is that racing a bleeder without lasix when they need it is far more harmful for them both mentally and physically than not using it. I'm not sure how you derive at lasix making me or anybody a better trained. That's one of the most absurd statements Ive ever heard. That's extremely illogical. And retiring a horse, aside from an extreme bleeder that bleeds through lasix, would be complete fantasy. Owners have a big investment. They expect a return in that in investment. The business would disappear following your protocol. If I would put my foot down and tell an owner I won't train his horse because he is a bleeder than he will simply lead it to the next barn. So then I no longer am allowed to look after that horses best interest so I may now be in the hands of the leading chemist.

[cj]

using 10cc of a drug like lasix once every two or three weeks will not provide any side effects. If it was used in s daily basis you'd have a valid concern. But I know of no instances where it is used on a daily basis aside from humans. Which there are very few if any side effects

http://therail.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/18/the-case-against-using-lasix/?_r=0

[Saratoga_Mike]

Now that is just being silly.

Isn't Lasix completely banned from Hong Kong racing? Is Hong Kong racing less viable b/c of it?

[chadk66]

How do you know so definitively? You're using anecdotal evidence (i.e., your personal experience) and extrapolating it across the industry. CJ is observing data and drawing inferences. His inferences could be incorrect, but youanecdotal evidence could be, too.i posted a small sampling of horses that ran every two weeks in lasix some as many as 20 plus times a year. And eI could probably give you fifty names or horses I remember from that era that did also. We had full fields most of the time aside from some tracks that didn't have enough quality horses at certain levels to fill a race. Training and owner methods and beliefs have changed. The new philosophy is to run far less often. And racing conditions in condition books is grossly different than what it was. Races are now written on a regular basis to accommodate certain trainers. The other trainers know this and won't run in races with conditions that are so vague and obviously set up for someone.

[chadk66]

http://therail.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/18/the-case-against-using-lasix/?_r=0so just what are these nasty side effects all these horses are effected with that werent 25 years ago lol

[cj]

so just what are these nasty side effects all these horses are effected with that werent 25 years ago lol

The major side effect of all diuretics is the danger of dehydration and electrolyte imbalance. Of particular importance is potassium, which is lost in increased amounts in the urine. Furosemide may also cause decreased levels of blood calcium. Both of these electrolytes are important in normal functioning of heart and skeletal musculature.

http://equimed.com/news/products/effects-of-lasix-use-in-race-horses-pros-and-cons

That is from a pro-Lasix article.

But here is the part that troubles me:

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.

We are drugging all horses so that a few can remain in racing while still keeping the others competitive. Even a pro-Lasix site admits it is a performance enhancer.

As I've been saying, that just doesn't sit well with me. If we need to drug horses so they can run, fine, drug the ones that need it. That has been going on for a century. We legalized a drug to help a few bleeders that need it to race, then we discovered that it helps horses run faster. So, to keep it legal, we have to give it to them all to "level the playing field." That is just sad. There has to be a way to level the playing field without drugging horses unnecessarily.

And finally...

Putting aside the debate and controversy, it is clear that Lasix does have an effect on the blood and the cardiovascular system of the horse and more research is needed to determine whether it is truly a benefit or a hindrance to horse health.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Very good post Rich. I certainly don't think Lasix is the devil and removing it would help fix much, and I agree there are worse problems. But nobody is addressing any of the others in any meaningful way. You can only fight the fights that are actually on the table.
Totally agree. Someone has to step up and that hasn't happened yet.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Isn't Lasix completely banned from Hong Kong racing? Is Hong Kong racing less viable b/c of it?

Not Hong Kong again. 83 racing days, 830 races a YEAR. Apples and spinach.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Not Hong Kong again. 83 racing days, 830 races a YEAR. Apples and spinach.

I understand your objection, but it's still relevant, imo. However, to appease you, how did US racing flourish* in 1960 without Lasix?

*defining flourish in this case as starts/horse

[Saratoga_Mike]

Not Hong Kong again. 83 racing days, 830 races a YEAR. Apples and spinach.

I did some research.

NO LASIX HK:
In 2009, the avg starts/horse in Hong Kong was slightly higher than 7.5 (Source: International Federation of Horse Stock Authority).

LASIX US/CAN:
In 2009, that number was 6.2/horse number in the US and Canada. If the US/Can stat is adjusted for 2-yr-olds (I don't think they do many 2-yr-old races in HK), the number moves to 6.8/horse (Source: Jockey Club).

[Stillriledup]

has absolutely nothing to do with emotions. It's based on reality. You have to remember I didn't use lasix in horses that weren't proven to need it. And my opinion is that racing a bleeder without lasix when they need it is far more harmful for them both mentally and physically than not using it. I'm not sure how you derive at lasix making me or anybody a better trained. That's one of the most absurd statements Ive ever heard. That's extremely illogical. And retiring a horse, aside from an extreme bleeder that bleeds through lasix, would be complete fantasy. Owners have a big investment. They expect a return in that in investment. The business would disappear following your protocol. If I would put my foot down and tell an owner I won't train his horse because he is a bleeder than he will simply lead it to the next barn. So then I no longer am allowed to look after that horses best interest so I may now be in the hands of the leading chemist.

When I say better trainer what I meant was better record wise, better ITM percentage and more purse earnings I didnt mean that you would magically get smarter.

[castaway01]

I did some research.

NO LASIX HK:
In 2009, the avg starts/horse in Hong Kong was slightly higher than 7.5 (Source: International Federation of Horse Stock Authority).

LASIX US/CAN:
In 2009, that number was 6.2/horse number in the US and Canada. If the US/Can stat is adjusted for 2-yr-olds (I don't think they do many 2-yr-old races in HK), the number moves to 6.8/horse (Source: Jockey Club).

Of course that could be explained by 100 other things besides Lasix. Like how Hong Kong racing is run by a central government authority and is totally socialized while our racing is like the Wild West, with 20 different groups with conflicting rules and opinions.

I'm actually amazed at the hype over Lasix. Some of the horrible things we've seen horses be given as drugs, and yet there's this fervor in some to ban Lasix. Lasix is about 174th on the list of problems in racing. I'd much rather see tests developed for the drugs that make certain trainers be able to claim horses and run them out of their skins than banning Lasix, which at least has a clinical use.

[Hambletonian]

come on, be real, the issue people have with lasix was it was the gateway drug. Once race day lasix became legal, bute was not far behind, changing the dynamic of racing forever.

and let's not forget it was only supposed to be used on bleeders. prior to lasix, on the NYRA circuit you bled twice in a certain time period, then you had to have a mandatory layoff. It was a big deal, you'd see horses shipping out to another circuit after the first bleeding incident. but the incidents of bleeding were rare.

and now every freaking horse is on lasix. I am guessing the vast majority of these would not have been considered bleeders back in the pre lasix days. either we are breeding successive generations of crap horses, or lasix is being overused.

the fact is that vet work is out of control today, yet horses race less and don't last as long. with all the great improvement in veterinary technology, horses just are not as solid as they were in the dark ages, what does that infer about our "betting racing through medication" here in the US?

[Tall One]

Great post... :ThmbUp:

[chadk66]

http://equimed.com/news/products/effects-of-lasix-use-in-race-horses-pros-and-cons

That is from a pro-Lasix article.

But here is the part that troubles me:



We are drugging all horses so that a few can remain in racing while still keeping the others competitive. Even a pro-Lasix site admits it is a performance enhancer.

As I've been saying, that just doesn't sit well with me. If we need to drug horses so they can run, fine, drug the ones that need it. That has been going on for a century. We legalized a drug to help a few bleeders that need it to race, then we discovered that it helps horses run faster. So, to keep it legal, we have to give it to them all to "level the playing field." That is just sad. There has to be a way to level the playing field without drugging horses unnecessarily.

And finally...that is strictly opinion. They are assuming it is based on this that and the other thing. When in reality it really doesn't. That kind of thing happens all the time in this world. One thinks something should happen because of certain things and it doesn't. I know of no horse that suffered any one of those issues from lasix use. They are saying it's a possiblity. but it rarely if ever happens. Can you name a single horse that suffered from those side effects from lasix? You should easily be able to throw out dozens if it was the case.

[chadk66]

come on, be real, the issue people have with lasix was it was the gateway drug. Once race day lasix became legal, bute was not far behind, changing the dynamic of racing forever.

and let's not forget it was only supposed to be used on bleeders. prior to lasix, on the NYRA circuit you bled twice in a certain time period, then you had to have a mandatory layoff. It was a big deal, you'd see horses shipping out to another circuit after the first bleeding incident. but the incidents of bleeding were rare.

and now every freaking horse is on lasix. I am guessing the vast majority of these would not have been considered bleeders back in the pre lasix days. either we are breeding successive generations of crap horses, or lasix is being overused.

the fact is that vet work is out of control today, yet horses race less and don't last as long. with all the great improvement in veterinary technology, horses just are not as solid as they were in the dark ages, what does that infer about our "betting racing through medication" here in the US?far as I know bute beat lasix to the punch on race day

[cj]

that is strictly opinion. They are assuming it is based on this that and the other thing. When in reality it really doesn't. That kind of thing happens all the time in this world. One thinks something should happen because of certain things and it doesn't. I know of no horse that suffered any one of those issues from lasix use. They are saying it's a possiblity. but it rarely if ever happens. Can you name a single horse that suffered from those side effects from lasix? You should easily be able to throw out dozens if it was the case.


You keep saying this, but I have data that confirms it is more than just opinion. Horses that run with Lasix run faster than those without it. It isn't even really debatable. I'll post some data tomorrow, but I'm not giving away the store.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I understand your objection, but it's still relevant, imo. However, to appease you, how did US racing flourish* in 1960 without Lasix?

*defining flourish in this case as starts/horse
Lasix dehydrates a horse. Perhaps there are other ways to dehydrate horses like withholding water. Trainers had that figured out even in 1960. OF course, in 1960 everyone believed that the only horses that bled were the ones that showed epistaxis. That, of course, turned out to not be true once the equine endoscope was invented in the 70's. So in 1960 trainers ran their horses unless they showed external signs of bleeding. As it turns out, we just knew those horses as fading pigs. As for racing flourishing, I'm sure you don't want to hear the history of racing, so I'll just note that in 1960 professional football and basketball were just beginning to grab the major place they now occupy. Racing was still one of the big three along with boxing and baseball but was on the early part of its downhill slide. I'll happily concede that if America had one authority that controls every aspect of racing from the grooms to the jockeys to the vets to the stewards and so on and so on, and if they ran say 40-50 races a day in all of North America, I guarantee we could be Lasix free, just like Hong Kong. Racing in 1960 and Hong Kong today are only comparable in the sense they both ran horses and didn't use Lasix, but I suspect there aren't a lot of other direct comparisons.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I did some research.

NO LASIX HK:
In 2009, the avg starts/horse in Hong Kong was slightly higher than 7.5 (Source: International Federation of Horse Stock Authority).

LASIX US/CAN:
In 2009, that number was 6.2/horse number in the US and Canada. If the US/Can stat is adjusted for 2-yr-olds (I don't think they do many 2-yr-old races in HK), the number moves to 6.8/horse (Source: Jockey Club).
I addressed some of this in post 105. Again, you have to tear into the statistic. In jurisdictions that run limited meets and have no casino revenue to supplement purses, horses run more often for obvious reasons. And where there is casino revenue supplementing purses, trainers don't have to start as often to make a decent living. As I pointed out, in NY you can win a couple of statebred allowances a year and pocket $100K. Trainers start less often to keep win percentage higher. They don't race horses into condition like they used to. They bring layoff horses ready. Grouping Arapahoe Park or Wyoming Downs in with Santa Anita and Belmont to come up with a statistic for North America is a little absurd when you think about it. 100 tracks versus two. But the idea that somehow absence of Lasix is causal for the difference in starts per year would only be valid if you could eliminate every other reason for the difference. If they ever ban Lasix, remember you heard it here first. The number of starts per year will not change all other things remaining equal.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Of course that could be explained by 100 other things besides Lasix. Like how Hong Kong racing is run by a central government authority and is totally socialized while our racing is like the Wild West, with 20 different groups with conflicting rules and opinions.

I'm actually amazed at the hype over Lasix. Some of the horrible things we've seen horses be given as drugs, and yet there's this fervor in some to ban Lasix. Lasix is about 174th on the list of problems in racing. I'd much rather see tests developed for the drugs that make certain trainers be able to claim horses and run them out of their skins than banning Lasix, which at least has a clinical use.

All fair points. I was just making the point that banning Lasix would not end racing in the US, as some have suggested/intimated here.

[Saratoga_Mike]

You keep saying this, but I have data that confirms it is more than just opinion. Horses that run with Lasix run faster than those without it. It isn't even really debatable. I'll post some data tomorrow, but I'm not giving away the store.

Funny, given you're a speed figure guru, your post reminds me of reading "Beyer on Speed." In the mid to late 1970s, I believe Maryland legalized Lasix. Prior to the simulcast age, Beyer was a regular at PIM and LRL. When he started to see horses race on Lasix, he could not believe the near across-the-board improvement. He quickly concluded it was helping more than just bleeders. It's funny to me how theoreticians here argue with a guy (you) who is betting real money and has no agenda beyond making money. You could always be wrong, but evidence is on your side, I believe.

[Tall One]

Lasix dehydrates a horse. Perhaps there are other ways to dehydrate horses like withholding water.


I believe this was similar to Nafzger's regimen with Unbridled leading up to the Belmont.

We all know what happened later that fall at Belmont when the heat and humidity weren't a concern.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

All fair points. I was just making the point that banning Lasix would not end racing in the US, as some have suggested/intimated here.
I'm not sure anyone said it would end racing, but you could certainly construct a scenario where the available pool of horses would decrease, at least initially, and this could affect the viability of lesser venues. I've also mentioned it would make handicapping harder unless we were given information on the tendency of a horse to bleed and whether trainers are using other treatments. Don't underestimate the fact that Lasix provides consistency for handicappers. I've also mentioned that the alternative to Lasix is denying a horse water 24-48 hours out, which certainly doesn't sound more humane than a shot of furosemide four hours before a race. Why would you not think it would have at least a short term effect on the available pool of horses? You think trainers will just run horses anyway knowing they will fail due to bleeding? Admittedly, only a small percentage of horses are level 4 bleeders, but I'm not sure anyone knows enough about the pool of runners to say how many horses bleed just bad enough to keep them from winning.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I did some research.

NO LASIX HK:
In 2009, the avg starts/horse in Hong Kong was slightly higher than 7.5 (Source: International Federation of Horse Stock Authority).

LASIX US/CAN:
In 2009, that number was 6.2/horse number in the US and Canada. If the US/Can stat is adjusted for 2-yr-olds (I don't think they do many 2-yr-old races in HK), the number moves to 6.8/horse (Source: Jockey Club).
Some back of the envelope calculations.

830 races
let's assume an average of 14 horses per race
11,620 total starters for the year
7.5 starts per year
1,500 total horses necessary to fill all fields

2,000 horses are stabled at Santa Anita alone.

Just speculating that if we only had to find 1,550 horses to run a year's worth of races in North America, we could easily find all non-bleeders.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

You keep saying this, but I have data that confirms it is more than just opinion. Horses that run with Lasix run faster than those without it. It isn't even really debatable. I'll post some data tomorrow, but I'm not giving away the store.
We know two things for sure. Horses will run to the limits of their ability if they don't bleed, and at the very least having to propel less weight should also improve time. So without doing any specific research we know Lasix provides a double bump of sorts. Looking at times for horses getting Lasix seems to confirm that. Whether Lasix has effects beyond those two things is speculative, but I don't see how anyone could disagree with the two known speed increasing effects of Lasix. It's science.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Some back of the envelope calculations.

830 races
let's assume an average of 14 horses per race
11,620 total starters for the year
7.5 starts per year
1,500 total horses necessary to fill all fields

2,000 horses are stabled at Santa Anita alone.

Just speculating that if we only had to find 1,550 horses to run a year's worth of races in North America, we could easily find all non-bleeders.

Yes, I've read there are approximately 1,500 t'breds in HK. Given there are no breeding operations in HK (please correct me if that's wrong), perhaps the entire country is an anomaly, where only non-bleeders are imported. Anything is possible.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Yes, I've read there are approximately 1,500 t'breds in HK. Given there are no breeding operations in HK (please correct me if that's wrong), perhaps the entire country is an anomaly, where only non-bleeders are imported. Anything is possible.

Why would that be anomalous? Logic would dictate that you wouldn't bring a horse that you knew was a bad enough bleeder that it had to run on Lasix. Besides, given that North America is the only jurisdiction allowing raceday Lasix, horses coming from other jurisdictions are already not running on Lasix. I'm not sure that many North American horses stable in HK for a season. It's more than possible. It's the likeliest possibility.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Why would that be anomalous? Logic would dictate that you wouldn't bring a horse that you knew was a bad enough bleeder that it had to run on Lasix. Besides, given that North America is the only jurisdiction allowing raceday Lasix, horses coming from other jurisdictions are already not running on Lasix. I'm not sure that many North American horses stable in HK for a season. It's more than possible. It's the likeliest possibility.

It would take a lot of screening and work to avoid all bleeders. Again, anything is possible. Thanks for your info.

[cj]

I'm not sure anyone said it would end racing,

Chadk actually did say it would end racing.

[Tom]

Funny how we used to get by without it.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Chadk actually did say it would end racing.
Well that was hyperbole. Sort of like when someone said Lasix would save racing.

[chadk66]

You keep saying this, but I have data that confirms it is more than just opinion. Horses that run with Lasix run faster than those without it. It isn't even really debatable. I'll post some data tomorrow, but I'm not giving away the store.I understand what your trying to say. But does your data show a horse over a long period of time running without lasix then over a long period of time with lasix? Because it's about one single horse with or without and not that horse compared to another without. I know of no possible way to run a controlled study based on a horse with or without. It's not even possible.

[Stillriledup]

We know two things for sure. Horses will run to the limits of their ability if they don't bleed, and at the very least having to propel less weight should also improve time. So without doing any specific research we know Lasix provides a double bump of sorts. Looking at times for horses getting Lasix seems to confirm that. Whether Lasix has effects beyond those two things is speculative, but I don't see how anyone could disagree with the two known speed increasing effects of Lasix. It's science.

Wouldn't Lasix in a horse who is not bleeding help that horse run faster (or get tired later, or get less tired, etc) due to non blood fluid (mostly water) being kept out of the lungs permitting more oxygen to get in there?

[chadk66]

Funny how we used to get by without it.we got by without it for several reasons. there were far more horses available at that time. drug testing was virtually useless and there were a ton of things available at the time to use that were probably better than lasix. I also think environmental issues have really played a role in it. GMO's for example. Horses are exposed to all kinds of substances they never used to be.

[chadk66]

Wouldn't Lasix in a horse who is not bleeding help that horse run faster (or get tired later, or get less tired, etc) due to non blood fluid (mostly water) being kept out of the lungs permitting more oxygen to get in there?In theory you could make that case. My personal experience is that it doesn't. And I'm far from alone in that belief. In the early days of lasix bettors complained big time that it wasn't an even playing field and they were being cheated. so the industry agreed and legalized it across the board. Now these very same people are complaining again. You just can't please some people.

[Stillriledup]

In theory you could make that case. My personal experience is that it doesn't. And I'm far from alone in that belief. In the early days of lasix bettors complained big time that it wasn't an even playing field and they were being cheated. so the industry agreed and legalized it across the board. Now these very same people are complaining again. You just can't please some people.

Thanks.

I think it would really come down to science. If there's less water in the lung, does that make room for more oxygen. Maybe the additional benefit is so minor that it's not really something the trainer or even the gamblers would notice, but some horse races and board spots are decided by hundredth of seconds, the added benefit wouldn't need to be much in some cases to affect the outcome.

[PaceAdvantage]

I'll just add that if we need to drug all horses to race, that isn't really a sport that I think has much future.Amen brutha...I think a lot of people who are posting in this thread have no realization of just what it is they are implying.

[mountainman]

And lots of others have no idea what it actually takes to get horses to the races and ready to perform. Here's a newsflash for you guys: Thoroughbreds aren't designed to carry slashing, screaming humans at high speeds for relatively long distances over hard surfaces-or ANY surface, for that matter. It's EXTREMELY damaging and stressful, and rarely ends well.

In a perfect world, no drugging would be necessary. But contrary to feel-good mythology, race horses are FAR from perfect running machines. They hurt, they breakdown, they wear down, and they bleed. Lasix helps considerably with the latter.

How many of you chronic "theorists" have ever even worked around thoroughbreds? Or seen one exit the track clean, but drop its head and gush back at the barn? And how many of you can name, without consulting the internet, 5 alternative measures to stop or curtail bleeding?

Most participants in this thread have NO idea what they are talking about.

[cj]

And lots of others have no idea what it actually takes to get horses to the races and ready to perform. Here's a newsflash for you guys: Thoroughbreds aren't designed to carry slashing, screaming humans at high speeds for relatively long distances over hard surfaces-or ANY surface, for that matter. It's EXTREMELY damaging and stressful, and rarely ends well.

In a perfect world, no drugging would be necessary. But contrary to feel-good mythology, race horses are FAR from perfect running machines. They hurt, they breakdown, they wear down, and they bleed. Lasix helps considerably with the latter.

How many of you chronic "theorists" have ever even worked around thoroughbreds? Or seen one exit the track clean, but drop its head and gush back at the barn? And how many of you can name, without consulting the internet, 5 alternative measures to stop or curtail bleeding?

Most participants in this thread have NO idea what they are talking about.

I've spent plenty of time around horses. You don't have to work around them to be around them and know what is going on.

[mountainman]

I've spent plenty of time around horses. You don't have to work around them to be around them and know what is going on.

You're kidding, right? Let's be real clear here. How much time have you spent working with active thoroughbreds ?? And how many have you seen bleed back at the barn?

[mountainman]

I've spent plenty of time around horses. You don't have to work around them to be around them and know what is going on.

And how many trainers have you discussed Lasix and bleeding with? In person and at length, I mean?

[cj]

And how many trainers have you discussed Lasix and bleeding with? In person and at length, I mean?

Several, and also a few vets and more than several owners.

[cj]

Also did work on a breeding farm outside McGuire AFB in my younger days, but that isn't really relevant to Lasix.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Wouldn't Lasix in a horse who is not bleeding help that horse run faster (or get tired later, or get less tired, etc) due to non blood fluid (mostly water) being kept out of the lungs permitting more oxygen to get in there?
I'll admit my knowledge of equine pulmonology has some severe limits, but I don't believe the problem is water in the lungs. As I've said, the stress of racing creates pulmonary hypertension which in turn causes small blood vessels in the bronchial region to rupture introducing blood into the tracheo-bronchial region. The blood is what interferes with lung function. Lasix systemically removes excess salt and fluid from the body, thus reducing blood pressure (hypertension). Anyone on the site who takes blood pressure medication may be taking a pill that also contains a diuretic. It is the reduction of pulmonary hypertension that leads to reduction in bleeding.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

And lots of others have no idea what it actually takes to get horses to the races and ready to perform. Here's a newsflash for you guys: Thoroughbreds aren't designed to carry slashing, screaming humans at high speeds for relatively long distances over hard surfaces-or ANY surface, for that matter. It's EXTREMELY damaging and stressful, and rarely ends well.

In a perfect world, no drugging would be necessary. But contrary to feel-good mythology, race horses are FAR from perfect running machines. They hurt, they breakdown, they wear down, and they bleed. Lasix helps considerably with the latter.

How many of you chronic "theorists" have ever even worked around thoroughbreds? Or seen one exit the track clean, but drop its head and gush back at the barn? And how many of you can name, without consulting the internet, 5 alternative measures to stop or curtail bleeding?

Most participants in this thread have NO idea what they are talking about.
There is hardly an athlete that doesn't need therapeutic treatment for either cogenital conditions or playing injuries. I would agree that to expect the horse could perform at the highest level of physical stress and never need treatment makes little sense. The argument against anti-bleeding medication strikes me as the same as saying asthmatics needing an inhaler should be banned from the Olympics. Would all those who believe horses requiring anti-bleeding treatment should be retired also believe that asthmatics should stay at home with surgical masks on, never stressing themselves to the point where they need an inhaler? Just as the medication allows asthmatics to live a fuller life, you might argue Lasix allows the horse to fulfill what it was bred to do.

The perfect world is of course irrelevant. The world is made up of nothing more or less than athletes of bone, muscle and sinew, and it is inevitable that at some point injury will occur and therapy will be necessary. The question is obviously, how far should we go to keep horses racing?

I'll just mention that using the term "drugging" as a synonym for therapeutic medication probably isn't a good idea. As I've mentioned, many anti-Lasix people love to create the idea that it is no different than drugs that have no purpose other than perfromance enhancement.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

And how many trainers have you discussed Lasix and bleeding with? In person and at length, I mean?
As Bob Dylan noted, you don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

So much for the lighthearted interlude in this string. We return you now to the heavy part.

[Saratoga_Mike]

They hurt, they breakdown, they wear down, and they bleed. Lasix helps considerably with the latter.

Most participants in this thread have NO idea what they are talking about.

In the mid to late 1970s when Lasix was first legalized, I was too young to hold an opinion on the matter. But without the benefit of hindsight, I would have supported the legalization. With the benefit of hindsight, I'm not sure that was the right call. At this point, I'm not sure what the right answer is. To be completely forthright, I've owned a lot of horses over time, all of which raced on Lasix. To race without it, one is at a competitive advantage, as CJ has correctly asserted repeatedly.

I've spent a lot of time on the backstretch, and there's no doubt the t'bred is a very fragile athlete. Shockingly so. I've never had a race, win or lose, where I didn't wonder after the race, "I wonder if he/she's okay?," whereas I grew up with standardbreds and that never crossed my mind. Therefore, I concede your point on the fragility of the t'bred. But the sport prospered in the 1960s without Lasix and horses made a lot more starts/year, so isn't CJ's position worth examining?

Did you train at one point? I apologize if you've already stated in the past.

[Saratoga_Mike]

The argument against anti-bleeding medication strikes me as the same as saying asthmatics needing an inhaler should be banned from the Olympics.
.

If 90% of Olympians were using an inhaler, the analogy would make more sense. Again, I'm not sure what to do on the Lasix issue, but I think we should be open-minded about it.

[dilanesp]

If 90% of Olympians were using an inhaler, the analogy would make more sense. Again, I'm not sure what to do on the Lasix issue, but I think we should be open-minded about it.

One thing that IS banned at the Olympics is Lasix.

It's a masking agent (which allows other doping to be undetected) as well as a performance enhancer. A positive test gets you a 2 year ban.

[Saratoga_Mike]

One thing that IS banned at the Olympics is Lasix.

It's a masking agent (which allows other doping to be undetected) as well as a performance enhancer. A positive test gets you a 2 year ban.

I didn't know that. Thanks.

[chadk66]

I'll admit my knowledge of equine pulmonology has some severe limits, but I don't believe the problem is water in the lungs. As I've said, the stress of racing creates pulmonary hypertension which in turn causes small blood vessels in the bronchial region to rupture introducing blood into the tracheo-bronchial region. The blood is what interferes with lung function. Lasix systemically removes excess salt and fluid from the body, thus reducing blood pressure (hypertension). Anyone on the site who takes blood pressure medication may be taking a pill that also contains a diuretic. It is the reduction of pulmonary hypertension that leads to reduction in bleeding.
It has nothing to do with water in the lungs. Another of the old wives tales that exhist.

[reckless]

Several, and also a few vets and more than several owners.

CJ, you don't need to prove your bonafides to anyone.

Racetrackers just love to try and demean anyone who is even remotely critical of the sport that many of them have helped ruin.

In horseracing you don't need to have hot-walked or groomed a horse to know that there are a lot of serious problems in our game and that the (basically ignored) drug issues will eventually prove to be the death knell of this once-great sport.

Racetrackers especially never seem to get it in their heads that a person also doesn't need to graduate from the Culinary Institute of America to know that the soup is too salty or that the steak is too tough. They don't get it at all; they never have and they never will.

[chadk66]

In the mid to late 1970s when Lasix was first legalized, I was too young to hold an opinion on the matter. But without the benefit of hindsight, I would have supported the legalization. With the benefit of hindsight, I'm not sure that was the right call. At this point, I'm not sure what the right answer is. To be completely forthright, I've owned a lot of horses over time, all of which raced on Lasix. To race without it, one is at a competitive advantage, as CJ has correctly asserted repeatedly.

I've spent a lot of time on the backstretch, and there's no doubt the t'bred is a very fragile athlete. Shockingly so. I've never had a race, win or lose, where I didn't wonder after the race, "I wonder if he/she's okay?," whereas I grew up with standardbreds and that never crossed my mind. Therefore, I concede your point on the fragility of the t'bred. But the sport prospered in the 1960s without Lasix and horses made a lot more starts/year, so isn't CJ's position worth examining?

Did you train at one point? I apologize if you've already stated in the past.I pointed out that making more starts due to not using Lasix is nonsense. Has nothing to do with that. I could give you a very long list of horses that ran every two weeks for several years on Lasix. Trainer/owner mentality has changed drastically. Also lack of horses to the point where races don't fill is another huge contributor to the lack of races a horse runs in a year. It's not strange to wait four to six weeks now due to races not filling.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I pointed out that making more starts due to not using Lasix is nonsense. Has nothing to do with that. I could give you a very long list of horses that ran every two weeks for several years on Lasix. Trainer/owner mentality has changed drastically. Also lack of horses to the point where races don't fill is another huge contributor to the lack of races a horse runs in a year. It's not strange to wait four to six weeks now due to races not filling.

You're very close-minded on this matter. You rely on anecdotal evidence, which is neither statistically significant nor scientifically valid. CJ may have already posted this, but I'll do it again.

"A team of highly respected, international researchers and scientists recently found that in 98% of horses they studied there was no association between exercise-induced pulmonary hemorrhage (EIPH) determined after an endoscopic examination and long-term racing performance.
It was published online in the Equine Veterinary Journal this spring.

The unique, long-term study found a lack of significant association between EIPH and a productive racing career, except in the most severe cases. The researchers reviewed the careers of 744 horses racing in Australia, where race-day medication is prohibited. The vast majority of those horses had productive racing careers without the use of furosemide."

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/87454/jockey-club-study-shows-lasix-not-needed

Again, I do not know the answer on this matter, but it isn't as open and shut as you want to believe.

[Stillriledup]

Here's an article from a bodybuilding perspective Lasix.

http://musculardevelopment.com/articles/fat-loss/590-fat-attack-apr-2003.html#.VpFlM8u9KSM

[Stillriledup]

I'll admit my knowledge of equine pulmonology has some severe limits, but I don't believe the problem is water in the lungs. As I've said, the stress of racing creates pulmonary hypertension which in turn causes small blood vessels in the bronchial region to rupture introducing blood into the tracheo-bronchial region. The blood is what interferes with lung function. Lasix systemically removes excess salt and fluid from the body, thus reducing blood pressure (hypertension). Anyone on the site who takes blood pressure medication may be taking a pill that also contains a diuretic. It is the reduction of pulmonary hypertension that leads to reduction in bleeding.

My question was that if Lasix pulls water molecules out of the lungs, would there be more 'room' for oxygen.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

If 90% of Olympians were using an inhaler, the analogy would make more sense. Again, I'm not sure what to do on the Lasix issue, but I think we should be open-minded about it.
The number of people using the inhaler is not the point. The point is that a therapeutic medication allows them compete whereas if they weren't allowed the medication they wouldn't be able to compete, just like some (not all) horses with Lasix. Give me a better example of using therapeutic medication that allows you to play to the limits of your inherent ability and I'll use it because that's what Lasix does for bleeders and what an inhaler does for asthmatics.

I've actually come to expect you to disagree with anything I come up with. I expect if I said the ABA and the NBA both used basketballs you'd say, no, one was multi-colored and the other was orange so it's not the same thing.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

It has nothing to do with water in the lungs. Another of the old wives tales that exhist.
I wasn't the one who said water in the lungs. I said pulmonary hypertension, which is exactly what it controls.

Perhaps you've heard the colloquialism, don't pop a blood vessel for someone getting stressed. Exactly what happens in the lung of a horse.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

One thing that IS banned at the Olympics is Lasix.

It's a masking agent (which allows other doping to be undetected) as well as a performance enhancer. A positive test gets you a 2 year ban.

You are correct that furosemide is banned, ironically for the same reason it works for horses - it means a loss of water weight which would make the athlete go faster. Increased urine production is also supposed to dilute the concentration of other substances. But it is not a masking agent, which refers to substances that will negate testing of banned substances. In horseracing the masking agent hypothesis has been dismissed for years.

[Cholly]

CJ, you don't need to prove your bonafides to anyone.

Racetrackers just love to try and demean anyone who is even remotely critical of the sport that many of them have helped ruin.

In horseracing you don't need to have hot-walked or groomed a horse to know that there are a lot of serious problems in our game and that the (basically ignored) drug issues will eventually prove to be the death knell of this once-great sport.

Racetrackers especially never seem to get it in their heads that a person also doesn't need to graduate from the Culinary Institute of America to know that the soup is too salty or that the steak is too tough. They don't get it at all; they never have and they never will.
:ThmbUp:

[HalvOnHorseracing]

My question was that if Lasix pulls water molecules out of the lungs, would there be more 'room' for oxygen.
Lasix dehydrates the body, it doesn't specifically target the lungs. Nor would this make sense physiologically. Air passes from the tracheal region to the bronchial tubes to the small sacs called alveoli in the lungs. The alveoli are surrounded by capillaries carrying blood. Oxygen passes through the alveoli into the blood in the capillaries which is then carried to the heart for distribution to the other organs. Efficiency is related to red blood cell count (which is why some athletes use EPO). If you've ever been to the doctor and had the clip they put on your finger, that measures oxygen saturation, and if you are normal it will be 98-99%. That's pretty tough to improve on. But it has nothing to do with water volume anywhere. It's not like, lets move these boxes and we'll have more room in here. You have a red blood cell count called a hematocrit level, epressed as a percentage of red blood cells in the blood. It can vary in adults from 40% or so to 55% or so. But Lasix doesn't improve red blood cell count, nor does the absence of a certain amount of water make way for more red blood cells.

And by the way, it is those tiny capillaries that burst under racing stress that causes blood to go into the lungs. That is what they mean by being a bleeder.

[chadk66]

I wasn't the one who said water in the lungs. I said pulmonary hypertension, which is exactly what it controls.

Perhaps you've heard the colloquialism, don't pop a blood vessel for someone getting stressed. Exactly what happens in the lung of a horse.
I know you didn't I was reiterating what you said.

[chadk66]

You're very close-minded on this matter. You rely on anecdotal evidence, which is neither statistically significant nor scientifically valid. CJ may have already posted this, but I'll do it again.

"A team of highly respected, international researchers and scientists recently found that in 98% of horses they studied there was no association between exercise-induced pulmonary hemorrhage (EIPH) determined after an endoscopic examination and long-term racing performance.
It was published online in the Equine Veterinary Journal this spring.

The unique, long-term study found a lack of significant association between EIPH and a productive racing career, except in the most severe cases. The researchers reviewed the careers of 744 horses racing in Australia, where race-day medication is prohibited. The vast majority of those horses had productive racing careers without the use of furosemide."

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/87454/jockey-club-study-shows-lasix-not-needed

Again, I do not know the answer on this matter, but it isn't as open and shut as you want to believe.
I'm not closed minded on the deal. I stated I would not run a horse on Lasix that wasn't a confirmed bleeder. In regard to the study, not all bleeders bleed enough to show up in an endo exam. So it's not the end all on that subject. I also made a claim that I feel bleeding can be contributed to numerous things, two of which are environment and feed. Which Australia would have both being different. As an example I bet they don't use GMO's in Australia. My point is this. There is not scientific was to prove a horse runs faster on Lasix than without. It's impossible to prove. You can't have a horse run twice at the same time both with and without Lasix. There is no control group in something like that. These experts are making a highly educated hypothesis. Which is fine. But why do you disregard actual daily experience working with these animals by trainers. Oh I get it, all trainers are druggist and have no intention of doing the best by the horse. Well guess what, that's BS. Not all of them are like that. Some claim I have an agenda. How could I, I don't even train or own race horses anymore. I have nothing to gain or loose. There are many on here that do have an agenda. And that is painfully obvious. Some also falsely believe they have the horses best interest at heart when it's actually quite the opposite.

[cj]

I'm not closed minded on the deal. I stated I would not run a horse on Lasix that wasn't a confirmed bleeder.

Maybe you got away with that years ago, but you wouldn't today, not without costing your horses purse money and / or value.

[chadk66]

Maybe you got away with that years ago, but you wouldn't today, not without costing your horses purse money and / or value.that's total hog wash. I beat drugged horses all the time without drugged horses. And I beat Lasix horses all the time with horses that didn't run on Lasix. Remember, we couldn't run all horses on Lasix. Everybody has their opinions on the matter. Nobody is going to change their minds. It is what it is. I sleep very well at night knowing I did what was in my horses best interest each and every day. That's really all that matters to me.

[Stillriledup]

Lasix dehydrates the body, it doesn't specifically target the lungs. Nor would this make sense physiologically. Air passes from the tracheal region to the bronchial tubes to the small sacs called alveoli in the lungs. The alveoli are surrounded by capillaries carrying blood. Oxygen passes through the alveoli into the blood in the capillaries which is then carried to the heart for distribution to the other organs. Efficiency is related to red blood cell count (which is why some athletes use EPO). If you've ever been to the doctor and had the clip they put on your finger, that measures oxygen saturation, and if you are normal it will be 98-99%. That's pretty tough to improve on. But it has nothing to do with water volume anywhere. It's not like, lets move these boxes and we'll have more room in here. You have a red blood cell count called a hematocrit level, epressed as a percentage of red blood cells in the blood. It can vary in adults from 40% or so to 55% or so. But Lasix doesn't improve red blood cell count, nor does the absence of a certain amount of water make way for more red blood cells.

And by the way, it is those tiny capillaries that burst under racing stress that causes blood to go into the lungs. That is what they mean by being a bleeder.

Thanks for the writeup.

[cj]

that's total hog wash. I beat drugged horses all the time without drugged horses. And I beat Lasix horses all the time with horses that didn't run on Lasix. Remember, we couldn't run all horses on Lasix. Everybody has their opinions on the matter. Nobody is going to change their minds. It is what it is. I sleep very well at night knowing I did what was in my horses best interest each and every day. That's really all that matters to me.

That stats simply don't back up your opinion, not even close.

[thespaah]

And how many trainers have you discussed Lasix and bleeding with? In person and at length, I mean?
anyone with a computer can research this. Or pick up a book on horse anatomy

[chadk66]

That stats simply don't back up your opinion, not even close.hit me with em

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I did a small study on first time Lasix use that was published in American Turf Monthly in....I want to say 1992. I'll have to see if I can find a copy because for the life of me I can't remember the results.

[cj]

hit me with em

I will by Tuesday. I keep trying to squeeze it in but not enough time on weekends with all the racing going on.

[cj]

I did a small study on first time Lasix use that was published in American Turf Monthly in....I want to say 1992. I'll have to see if I can find a copy because for the life of me I can't remember the results.

It won't matter. You'll get "well of course they improved, they bleed without it" rhetoric.

The best tests now are ROI...first time starters with and without Lasix, Euro shippers with and without Lasix, and just all horses with Lasix vs all horses without Lasix.

[chadk66]

I have to tell you about a very interesting/scary thing that happened to me one time. I had a horse at Canterbury named Abit Irish. Couldn't get him in a race so I entered him at Aksarben. He was a certified bleeder in Ark and MN and I entered him on Lasix as usual. Shipped to Omaha and the morning of the race turned in the foal papers. Couple hours later I get a page to come to the racing office. Turns out Neb didn't honor Ark. bleeders certificates. So they wouldn't let me race him on Lasix. I hadn't had this horse more than a couple months or so and had no idea how he would run. Not wanting this horse to experience bleeding again I started looking into options. I stopped in at a tack store and found some herbal/vitamin supplement paste they were marketing as a bleeder aid. Totally homeopathic and nothing that was illegal to use. Didn't figure it would really be of any benefit but didn't figure I had anything to loose at that point. I believe it said to give it two hours out so that's what I did. So we get to the paddock and this horse is on the muscle like I've never seen him before. He is foaming at the mouth and has the most intense look in his eye that I've ever seen in a horse. At that point I was actually somewhat concerned because he was definitely not acting like had had the previous couple times I ran him. New jockey, new track, I'm thinking this isn't going to be good. This horse normally ran from just off the pace. The race was 1-1/16. By the first turn he is in the lead and the jock has him collared big time. I figured sure enough he was going to pack it in half way down the back side. But the further they ran the further he got out away from them. Was many in front at the head of the lane and probably would have won by fifteen or more if he let him go. finished with his neck bowed and nose between his front legs. I stood there just flabbergasted. He cooled out like normal and was perfectly fine after the race. 99% of the trainers I know would have made that stuff mandatory use with every start from that point on. But that stuff scared the hell out of me and I never used it again.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I have to tell you about a very interesting/scary thing that happened to me one time. I had a horse at Canterbury named Abit Irish. Couldn't get him in a race so I entered him at Aksarben. He was a certified bleeder in Ark and MN and I entered him on Lasix as usual. Shipped to Omaha and the morning of the race turned in the foal papers. Couple hours later I get a page to come to the racing office. Turns out Neb didn't honor Ark. bleeders certificates. So they wouldn't let me race him on Lasix. I hadn't had this horse more than a couple months or so and had no idea how he would run. Not wanting this horse to experience bleeding again I started looking into options. I stopped in at a tack store and found some herbal/vitamin supplement paste they were marketing as a bleeder aid. Totally homeopathic and nothing that was illegal to use. Didn't figure it would really be of any benefit but didn't figure I had anything to loose at that point. I believe it said to give it two hours out so that's what I did. So we get to the paddock and this horse is on the muscle like I've never seen him before. He is foaming at the mouth and has the most intense look in his eye that I've ever seen in a horse. At that point I was actually somewhat concerned because he was definitely not acting like had had the previous couple times I ran him. New jockey, new track, I'm thinking this isn't going to be good. This horse normally ran from just off the pace. The race was 1-1/16. By the first turn he is in the lead and the jock has him collared big time. I figured sure enough he was going to pack it in half way down the back side. But the further they ran the further he got out away from them. Was many in front at the head of the lane and probably would have won by fifteen or more if he let him go. finished with his neck bowed and nose between his front legs. I stood there just flabbergasted. He cooled out like normal and was perfectly fine after the race. 99% of the trainers I know would have made that stuff mandatory use with every start from that point on. But that stuff scared the hell out of me and I never used it again.
Supplements. That's a thread by itself.

[chadk66]

Supplements. That's a thread by itself.yea no doubt.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

It won't matter. You'll get "well of course they improved, they bleed without it" rhetoric.

The best tests now are ROI...first time starters with and without Lasix, Euro shippers with and without Lasix, and just all horses with Lasix vs all horses without Lasix.
It actually appeared in the August 1990 issue. The study looked at two months in 1989 at Turf Paradise. Frankly, I used TuP because I had a full data set. As Chad has mentioned, back then the certification for bleeding was much tougher to obtain, so a lot of the horses getting first time Lasix had started previously. These were the results:

Track: Turf Paradise
Study Dates: February 1 through March 29, 1989
Number of Races: 465
Number of races with first time Lasix starters: 90
Number of first time Lasix starters: 97
Number of winners:7
Number in the money: 26
Average win mutuel: $11.60
Return on $2 win bet: -$112.20

Class # Starters Winners In the Money
Maiden 39 6 (15.4%) 18 (46.1%)
Claiming 49 1 (2.0%) 6 (12.2%)
Allowance 9 0 (0.0%) 2 (22.2%)

Because of the high number of maidens that finished in the money a $2 across the board wager actually produced a $10 total profit, a ridiculously low ROI. However, most of the profit came from three horses, and without those three it would have been a substantial loser.

One other statistic was that only 42% of the starters ran on Lasix. Apparently I didn't calculate the number of total winners that raced on Lasix. What the study also showed was that at that time some trainers were using Lasix as a last ditch strategy. I'm guessing that trainers didn't scope their horses as routinely because of either cost or the more archaic technology, so in some cases they may not have had a real sense of how badly their horse was bleeding.

So in 1990 things seemed a little different. How about that racing fans! I'll bet that wasn't what you expected.

[chadk66]

It actually appeared in the August 1990 issue. The study looked at two months in 1989 at Turf Paradise. Frankly, I used TuP because I had a full data set. As Chad has mentioned, back then the certification for bleeding was much tougher to obtain, so a lot of the horses getting first time Lasix had started previously. These were the results:

Track: Turf Paradise
Study Dates: February 1 through March 29, 1989
Number of Races: 465
Number of races with first time Lasix starters: 90
Number of first time Lasix starters: 97
Number of winners:7
Number in the money: 26
Average win mutuel: $11.60
Return on $2 win bet: -$112.20

Class # Starters Winners In the Money
Maiden 39 6 (15.4%) 18 (46.1%)
Claiming 49 1 (2.0%) 6 (12.2%)
Allowance 9 0 (0.0%) 2 (22.2%)

Because of the high number of maidens that finished in the money a $2 across the board wager actually produced a $10 total profit, a ridiculously low ROI. However, most of the profit came from three horses, and without those three it would have been a substantial loser.

One other statistic was that only 42% of the starters ran on Lasix. Apparently I didn't calculate the number of total winners that raced on Lasix. What the study also showed was that at that time some trainers were using Lasix as a last ditch strategy. I'm guessing that trainers didn't scope their horses as routinely because of either cost or the more archaic technology, so in some cases they may not have had a real sense of how badly their horse was bleeding.

So in 1990 things seemed a little different. How about that racing fans! I'll bet that wasn't what you expected.Thanks that pretty much sums up what I've been saying all along. and you of course lol
now pass the popcorn lol

[Stillriledup]

anyone with a computer can research this. Or pick up a book on horse anatomy

I disagree, if you don't work on the backside you can't possibly know as much about racing as those who do. There's no computers or books where you can learn certain things that can only be gotten by walking hots. Maybe we can all be as smart as Mark Patterson one day.

But I doubt it.

[Jeff P]

Here's what I have in my calendar year 2015 database, thoroughbreds only, all track codes, with the data broken out by Medication Code...


First, All Starters in the database:

Data Window Settings:
Connected to: C:\JCapper\exe\JCapper2.mdb
999 Divisor Odds Cap: None

SQL: SELECT * FROM STARTERHISTORY
WHERE [DATE] >= #01-01-2015#
AND [DATE] <= #12-31-2015#
ORDER BY [DATE], TRACK, RACE


Data Summary Win Place Show
-----------------------------------------------------
Mutuel Totals 494510.20 495659.30 494488.50
Bet -656466.00 -656466.00 -656466.00
-----------------------------------------------------
P/L -161955.80 -160806.70 -161977.50

Wins 42566 84734 123828
Plays 328233 328233 328233
PCT .1297 .2582 .3773

ROI 0.7533 0.7550 0.7533
Avg Mut 11.62 5.85 3.99
By: Medication Code

Value P/L Bet Roi Wins Plays Pct Impact Descr
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 -845.80 1900.00 0.5548 84 950 .0884 0.6818 Medication None
1 -130285.80 541060.00 0.7592 35770 270530 .1322 1.0196 Lasix Only
2 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000 Bute Only
3 -11814.30 46102.00 0.7437 3398 23051 .1474 1.1367 Lasix & Bute
4 -7036.40 30696.00 0.7708 1597 15348 .1041 0.8024 1st Time Lasix
5 -880.40 2070.00 0.5747 99 1035 .0957 0.7376 Bute & 1st Time Lasix
6 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
7 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
8 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
9 -11093.10 34638.00 0.6797 1618 17319 .0934 0.7204 Unknown/Designation missing in the data






Next, First Time Starters only:

Data Window Settings:
Connected to: C:\JCapper\exe\JCapper2.mdb
999 Divisor Odds Cap: None

SQL: SELECT * FROM STARTERHISTORY
WHERE STARTSLIFETIME = 0
AND [DATE] >= #01-01-2015#
AND [DATE] <= #12-31-2015#
ORDER BY [DATE], TRACK, RACE


Data Summary Win Place Show
-----------------------------------------------------
Mutuel Totals 25253.70 23316.00 22845.20
Bet -33520.00 -33520.00 -33520.00
-----------------------------------------------------
P/L -8266.30 -10204.00 -10674.80

Wins 1599 3100 4641
Plays 16760 16760 16760
PCT .0954 .1850 .2769

ROI 0.7534 0.6956 0.6815
Avg Mut 15.79 7.52 4.92
By: Medication Code

Value P/L Bet Roi Wins Plays Pct Impact Descr
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 -88.60 176.00 0.4966 5 88 .0568 0.5955 Medication None
1 -2.20 6.00 0.6333 1 3 .3333 3.4939 Lasix Only
2 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000 Bute Only
3 -2.40 32.00 0.9250 2 16 .1250 1.3102 Lasix & Bute
4 -5117.90 24558.00 0.7916 1263 12279 .1029 1.0781 1st Time Lasix
5 -812.60 1912.00 0.5750 90 956 .0941 0.9868 Bute & 1st Time Lasix
6 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
7 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
8 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
9 -2242.60 6836.00 0.6719 238 3418 .0696 0.7298 Unknown/Designation missing in the data






Non First Time Starters or horses with at least 1 lifetime start:

Data Window Settings:
Connected to: C:\JCapper\exe\JCapper2.mdb
999 Divisor Odds Cap: None

SQL: SELECT * FROM STARTERHISTORY
WHERE STARTSLIFETIME >= 1
AND [DATE] >= #01-01-2015#
AND [DATE] <= #12-31-2015#
ORDER BY [DATE], TRACK, RACE


Data Summary Win Place Show
-----------------------------------------------------
Mutuel Totals 469256.50 472343.30 471643.30
Bet -622946.00 -622946.00 -622946.00
-----------------------------------------------------
P/L -153689.50 -150602.70 -151302.70

Wins 40967 81634 119187
Plays 311473 311473 311473
PCT .1315 .2621 .3827

ROI 0.7533 0.7582 0.7571
Avg Mut 11.45 5.79 3.96
By: Medication Code

Value P/L Bet Roi Wins Plays Pct Impact Descr
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 -757.20 1724.00 0.5608 79 862 .0916 0.6968 Medication None
1 -130283.60 541054.00 0.7592 35769 270527 .1322 1.0053 Lasix Only
2 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000 Bute Only
3 -11811.90 46070.00 0.7436 3396 23035 .1474 1.1209 Lasix & Bute
4 -1918.50 6138.00 0.6874 334 3069 .1088 0.8274 1st Time Lasix
5 -67.80 158.00 0.5709 9 79 .1139 0.8662 Bute & 1st Time Lasix
6 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
7 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
8 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
9 -8850.50 27802.00 0.6817 1380 13901 .0993 0.7548 Unknown/Designation missing in the data


It appears almost all thoroughbreds are given lasix bleeder or not.

It appears first time starters racing on lasix are almost twice as likely to win vs. first time starters listed as medication none in the data.

As CJ mentioned earlier, flat win bet roi is higher for starters racing on meds vs. starters listed in the data as medication none.


-jp

.

[cj]

Thanks Jeff. It really isn't a debate it is so one sided. But still, some will tell us drugs don't matter and they aren't an advantage.

[dilanesp]

You are correct that furosemide is banned, ironically for the same reason it works for horses - it means a loss of water weight which would make the athlete go faster. Increased urine production is also supposed to dilute the concentration of other substances. But it is not a masking agent, which refers to substances that will negate testing of banned substances. In horseracing the masking agent hypothesis has been dismissed for years.

http://list.wada-ama.org/list/s5-diuretics-and-other-masking-agents/

You better tell the World Anti-Doping Agency about your "knowledge".

EDIT : and here's a Jamaican sprinter who got banned for using furosemide as a masking agent:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/8695269/London-2012-Olympics-Jamaican-sprinter-Steve-Mullings-tests-positive-for-masking-agent.html

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Thanks Jeff. It really isn't a debate it is so one sided. But still, some will tell us drugs don't matter and they aren't an advantage.
I believe that in 1990 trainers put horses on Lasix because they showed epistaxis or other obvious signs of bleeding, or trainers were just running through different options for improving a horse - sort of taking a stab. While the results of the small study I did were not definitive, it leads to that conclusion. Less than 50% of the all starters were on Lasix, and first time Lasix didn't make the sort of difference people perceived. In the article I said that even in 1990 people believed Lasix was a wonder drug, and first time Lasix was a can't miss angle. It certainly wasn't at Turf Paradise.

So what happened? How did almost all horses get on Lasix? My speculation is that given the modern fiber optic technology, it is easier to get deeper into the lung and find some evidence of capillaries breaking, no matter how small. Almost every horse will show bleeding, even if it is minor, under a certain amount of stress. Endoscopy has come a long, long way in the last 25 years. That is apparently enough to get them on the Lasix approved list. I'm also speculating that since the early days of Lasix trainers anecdotally noticed the improvement that came with Lasix and figured they needed to qualify their horses for the list.

The issue may be less with trainers than with racing rules that make it very easy to get a horse on Lasix, and as we've mentioned, trainers these days are pretty much feeling forced to run horses on Lasix.

I've said that the reduction in pulmonary hypertension will help some horses quite a bit, and maybe all horses a little bit, and the reduction is weight is simple physics. The same force moving less weight will accelerate quicker and the horse should have more what looks like "stamina." Those two factors should cause a horse to run faster than it would without the Lasix, and the factors are additive.

Frankly I'm perfectly satisfied that those two factors explain almost all the improvement we might see in the horse. Even a non-bleeder benefits by the weight loss. I haven't heard any other explanation offered.

I'm not sure what the argument is at this point. The use and results associated with Lasix use have apparently changed since the early days. If it didn't show spectacular differences in 1990 it was probably because the horses they put on it either were serious bleeders or were bad horses where Lasix wasn't going to turn them around. I'm at a loss to fully explain why it didn't seem to make the expected difference in 1990, although I had no data on the dosages being given or any other contributing factors. If it works today, it should have worked then. It also wouldn't be hard to argue that my sample size was small enough that the results could be questioned. But, in my defense, I needed to turn out an article and I did.

I'll say the same thing I said earlier. Given 95% of horses run on Lasix, unless it somehow improves some horses more than others, from a handicapping perspective it either evens out or is irrelevant. It also means handicappers can get by not knowing a respective animal's proclivity to bleed.

[Tall One]

Thanks Jeff. It really isn't a debate it is so one sided. But still, some will tell us drugs don't matter and they aren't an advantage.


It appears almost all thoroughbreds are given lasix bleeder or not.

It appears first time starters racing on lasix are almost twice as likely to win vs. first time starters listed as medication none in the data.

I'll just add that if we need to drug all horses to race, that isn't really a sport that I think has much future

[HalvOnHorseracing]

http://list.wada-ama.org/list/s5-diuretics-and-other-masking-agents/

You better tell the World Anti-Doping Agency about your "knowledge".

EDIT : and here's a Jamaican sprinter who got banned for using furosemide as a masking agent:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/8695269/London-2012-Olympics-Jamaican-sprinter-Steve-Mullings-tests-positive-for-masking-agent.html

Let me be clearer. In a generic sense one could use the term masking with regard to diuretics. They can dilute urine which could lower concentrations of other banned substances. This is different than masking agents that cover the presence of substances in the urine. That is what I said previously. Really two separate kinds of masking, and it is somewhat misleading to use them in the same way.

I also said that IN HORSERACING, the "diuretics mask other drugs" is not considered true because of the abilities of modern testing technology that uses both blood and urine. Rick Arthur, Steve Barker, Rick Sams and other prominent medical directors and pharmacologists have stated as much. Whatever WADA does, it doesn't seem to be as scrutinous as racing.

Finally, if you want to get another opinion of WADA, watch Doped: The Dirty Side of Sports.

[dilanesp]

Let me be clearer. In a generic sense one could use the term masking with regard to diuretics. They can dilute urine which could lower concentrations of other banned substances. This is different than masking agents that cover the presence of substances in the urine. That is what I said previously. Really two separate kinds of masking, and it is somewhat misleading to use them in the same way.

I also said that IN HORSERACING, the "diuretics mask other drugs" is not considered true because of the abilities of modern testing technology that uses both blood and urine. Rick Arthur, Steve Barker, Rick Sams and other prominent medical directors and pharmacologists have stated as much. Whatever WADA does, it doesn't seem to be as scrutinous as racing.

Finally, if you want to get another opinion of WADA, watch Doped: The Dirty Side of Sports.

In other words you posted deliberately misleading content hoping nobody would call you on it, and when someone did, part of your response is an ad hominem attack on the doping experts at WADA.

I don't think anyone should believe a word you write after a performance like this. You are basically willing to post any half truth that defends the doping of racehorses and then wait for us to look up what parts are false.

You need to start being more honest about this issue.

[chadk66]

Here's what I have in my calendar year 2015 database, thoroughbreds only, all track codes, with the data broken out by Medication Code...


First, All Starters in the database:

Data Window Settings:
Connected to: C:\JCapper\exe\JCapper2.mdb
999 Divisor Odds Cap: None

SQL: SELECT * FROM STARTERHISTORY
WHERE [DATE] >= #01-01-2015#
AND [DATE] <= #12-31-2015#
ORDER BY [DATE], TRACK, RACE


Data Summary Win Place Show
-----------------------------------------------------
Mutuel Totals 494510.20 495659.30 494488.50
Bet -656466.00 -656466.00 -656466.00
-----------------------------------------------------
P/L -161955.80 -160806.70 -161977.50

Wins 42566 84734 123828
Plays 328233 328233 328233
PCT .1297 .2582 .3773

ROI 0.7533 0.7550 0.7533
Avg Mut 11.62 5.85 3.99
By: Medication Code

Value P/L Bet Roi Wins Plays Pct Impact Descr
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 -845.80 1900.00 0.5548 84 950 .0884 0.6818 Medication None
1 -130285.80 541060.00 0.7592 35770 270530 .1322 1.0196 Lasix Only
2 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000 Bute Only
3 -11814.30 46102.00 0.7437 3398 23051 .1474 1.1367 Lasix & Bute
4 -7036.40 30696.00 0.7708 1597 15348 .1041 0.8024 1st Time Lasix
5 -880.40 2070.00 0.5747 99 1035 .0957 0.7376 Bute & 1st Time Lasix
6 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
7 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
8 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
9 -11093.10 34638.00 0.6797 1618 17319 .0934 0.7204 Unknown/Designation missing in the data






Next, First Time Starters only:

Data Window Settings:
Connected to: C:\JCapper\exe\JCapper2.mdb
999 Divisor Odds Cap: None

SQL: SELECT * FROM STARTERHISTORY
WHERE STARTSLIFETIME = 0
AND [DATE] >= #01-01-2015#
AND [DATE] <= #12-31-2015#
ORDER BY [DATE], TRACK, RACE


Data Summary Win Place Show
-----------------------------------------------------
Mutuel Totals 25253.70 23316.00 22845.20
Bet -33520.00 -33520.00 -33520.00
-----------------------------------------------------
P/L -8266.30 -10204.00 -10674.80

Wins 1599 3100 4641
Plays 16760 16760 16760
PCT .0954 .1850 .2769

ROI 0.7534 0.6956 0.6815
Avg Mut 15.79 7.52 4.92
By: Medication Code

Value P/L Bet Roi Wins Plays Pct Impact Descr
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 -88.60 176.00 0.4966 5 88 .0568 0.5955 Medication None
1 -2.20 6.00 0.6333 1 3 .3333 3.4939 Lasix Only
2 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000 Bute Only
3 -2.40 32.00 0.9250 2 16 .1250 1.3102 Lasix & Bute
4 -5117.90 24558.00 0.7916 1263 12279 .1029 1.0781 1st Time Lasix
5 -812.60 1912.00 0.5750 90 956 .0941 0.9868 Bute & 1st Time Lasix
6 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
7 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
8 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
9 -2242.60 6836.00 0.6719 238 3418 .0696 0.7298 Unknown/Designation missing in the data






Non First Time Starters or horses with at least 1 lifetime start:

Data Window Settings:
Connected to: C:\JCapper\exe\JCapper2.mdb
999 Divisor Odds Cap: None

SQL: SELECT * FROM STARTERHISTORY
WHERE STARTSLIFETIME >= 1
AND [DATE] >= #01-01-2015#
AND [DATE] <= #12-31-2015#
ORDER BY [DATE], TRACK, RACE


Data Summary Win Place Show
-----------------------------------------------------
Mutuel Totals 469256.50 472343.30 471643.30
Bet -622946.00 -622946.00 -622946.00
-----------------------------------------------------
P/L -153689.50 -150602.70 -151302.70

Wins 40967 81634 119187
Plays 311473 311473 311473
PCT .1315 .2621 .3827

ROI 0.7533 0.7582 0.7571
Avg Mut 11.45 5.79 3.96
By: Medication Code

Value P/L Bet Roi Wins Plays Pct Impact Descr
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 -757.20 1724.00 0.5608 79 862 .0916 0.6968 Medication None
1 -130283.60 541054.00 0.7592 35769 270527 .1322 1.0053 Lasix Only
2 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000 Bute Only
3 -11811.90 46070.00 0.7436 3396 23035 .1474 1.1209 Lasix & Bute
4 -1918.50 6138.00 0.6874 334 3069 .1088 0.8274 1st Time Lasix
5 -67.80 158.00 0.5709 9 79 .1139 0.8662 Bute & 1st Time Lasix
6 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
7 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
8 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
9 -8850.50 27802.00 0.6817 1380 13901 .0993 0.7548 Unknown/Designation missing in the data


It appears almost all thoroughbreds are given lasix bleeder or not.

It appears first time starters racing on lasix are almost twice as likely to win vs. first time starters listed as medication none in the data.

As CJ mentioned earlier, flat win bet roi is higher for starters racing on meds vs. starters listed in the data as medication none.


-jp

.all that really means to me is that a trainer that has a first time starter that he doesn't feel has much of a chance isn't wasting his money on Lasix. Also I couldn't really understand the results you posted. Not sure which ones were lasix and which weren't. looked like part of the page was missing.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

In other words you posted deliberately misleading content hoping nobody would call you on it, and when someone did, part of your response is an ad hominem attack on the doping experts at WADA.

I don't think anyone should believe a word you write after a performance like this. You are basically willing to post any half truth that defends the doping of racehorses and then wait for us to look up what parts are false.

You need to start being more honest about this issue.
I said the same thing twice. I had to do that because you couldn't comprehend the first one. Where did you get defending the doping of horses? For one thing, I've said that there is a difference between therapeutic medication and performance enhancing drugs. As I've mentioned, the extremists want to equate therapeutic medications with PEDs so they use terms like "doping," a word that originated with use of narcotics. Extremists want to interpret any effort to characterize both sides of an issue as favoring a drug dominated culture. Reasonable people can have a reasonable discussion about this and if you've read my stuff you'll realize any favoritism I have toward Lasix has nothing to do with keeping animals doped up and you are ridiculous to say so. I even agreed that Lasix has performance enhancing effects beyond just controlling bleeding.

There was no false part. I stand by what I said both times. I had to say the same thing twice because you didn't get it the first time. Or, to quote Simon and Garfunkel, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest. There is nothing I was dishonest about. If you're one of the people that sees Lasix as the scourge of racing, you're going to read whatever fits your rubric. I've said it twice now. Try to read what I said and do your very best to comprehend it with what little ability you have to do so. How in the world saying Lasix is not a masking agent in the same sense as drugs that actually cover other drugs could possibly be misinterpreted is beyond me. Lasix dilutes concentrations and if you want to call that masking fine, but don't equate the two concepts. How in the world saying TWICE that the masking theory has been dismissed in horseracing because of blood and urine testing technology seemed pretty easy to understand to me.

If I was the only one to point out the problems with WADA and USADA you might have a point. But given you only see what you want and don't comprehend most of what you read, I don't doubt you have no clue what criticisms have been leveled on them. You're an extremist on Lasix, and you'll never be able to see both sides of the issue. Worse than that you are willing to engage in character assasination to forward your agenda. If you want to have a fair discussion fine. All you have to do is show how what I said was incorrect.

[clocker7]

Other than 60-something organic chicks or vegan pusses, there is nothing more annoying than anti-lasix proselytizers. C'mon.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Other than 60-something organic chicks or vegan pusses, there is nothing more annoying than anti-lasix proselytizers. C'mon.
There's a group that includes her that has had it out for me on the Lasix issue because I have a blog that gets decent coverage. Believe it or not she's one of the mild ones. What they do is try to shift the issue from Lasix use to my credibility. They don't see two sides to the issue and anyone who disagrees gets villified. I don't know why I bother to take their bait.

[Stillriledup]

all that really means to me is that a trainer that has a first time starter that he doesn't feel has much of a chance isn't wasting his money on Lasix. Also I couldn't really understand the results you posted. Not sure which ones were lasix and which weren't. looked like part of the page was missing.

Ill add to this and say that some trainers run a horse a time or two before adding Lasix and the reason, and this is just my own opinion, they want to get some 'bottom' under their horse before adding L because they know the Lasix will make the horse run its best race, they don't want that horse to fire the biggest shot as a FTS so there is some truth to trainers running one out there with no Lasix and the horse is a complete throw out from a handicapping perspective.

It could be partly the trainer thinking no chance, but I believe it's mostly the trainer wanting to 'give' a horse a race for foundation sake. Not everyone is full bore to win as FTS.

[cj]

all that really means to me is that a trainer that has a first time starter that he doesn't feel has much of a chance isn't wasting his money on Lasix. Also I couldn't really understand the results you posted. Not sure which ones were lasix and which weren't. looked like part of the page was missing.

You can scroll. Come on Chad, the data couldn't be more clear unless you don't want it to be.

[Saratoga_Mike]

So what happened? How did almost all horses get on Lasix? My speculation is that given the modern fiber optic technology, it is easier to get deeper into the lung and find some evidence of capillaries breaking, no matter how small. Almost every horse will show bleeding, even if it is minor, under a certain amount of stress. Endoscopy has come a long, long way in the last 25 years. That is apparently enough to get them on the Lasix approved list. I'm also speculating that since the early days of Lasix trainers anecdotally noticed the improvement that came with Lasix and figured they needed to qualify their horses for the list.



I'm not arguing that technologies haven't improved, but that isn't the reason more and more horses are on Lasix today versus in 1985. It's because you're at a competitive disadvantage without it. You're too smart to deny this.

I believe a few years ago (maybe more recently?), you decided to take up the cause of differentiating between positives for therapeutics and illegal medications. You were embraced by many on the backside because of this. You were granted more access to insiders than you ever dreamed of. You have no desire to lose that access. Therefore, consciously or subconsciously, you won't consider data provided by CJ or Jeff that contradict your position, lest you lose that insider access.

Again, I don't know what to do on the Lasix issue, but there's much more gray than you and Chad admit.

[Saratoga_Mike]

all that really means to me is that a trainer that has a first time starter that he doesn't feel has much of a chance isn't wasting his money on Lasix. Also I couldn't really understand the results you posted. Not sure which ones were lasix and which weren't. looked like part of the page was missing.

To save $20? Come on.

[chadk66]

To save $20? Come on.why mess with it if you don't need it. A huge percentage of first timers have zero chance of winning. Most trainers wouldn't mess around with Lasix on a horse in it's first start when they have zero chance. It would be totally stupid. But don't take my word for it.

[chadk66]

Ill add to this and say that some trainers run a horse a time or two before adding Lasix and the reason, and this is just my own opinion, they want to get some 'bottom' under their horse before adding L because they know the Lasix will make the horse run its best race, they don't want that horse to fire the biggest shot as a FTS so there is some truth to trainers running one out there with no Lasix and the horse is a complete throw out from a handicapping perspective.

It could be partly the trainer thinking no chance, but I believe it's mostly the trainer wanting to 'give' a horse a race for foundation sake. Not everyone is full bore to win as FTS.
they aren't full bore on FTS because 90% of them have zero chance. it's just the way it is.

[Saratoga_Mike]

why mess with it if you don't need it. A huge percentage of first timers have zero chance of winning. Most trainers wouldn't mess around with Lasix on a horse in it's first start when they have zero chance. It would be totally stupid. But don't take my word for it.

Perhaps East Coast and other areas of the country's training/vet methods are different than your parochial view of things? Maybe that's possible? But don't take my word for it. Also, maybe the approach to Lasix has changed since you retired from training. Maybe that's possible?

[chadk66]

all that really means to me is that a trainer that has a first time starter that he doesn't feel has much of a chance isn't wasting his money on Lasix. Also I couldn't really understand the results you posted. Not sure which ones were lasix and which weren't. looked like part of the page was missing.
I didn't realize I could scroll over on the charts you posted. I couldn't see the far right column. So let me see if I understand this right looking at the bottom chart (medication code). Is the percentage column the win percentage of the horses running under what you have stated on the far right? IE-No medication at all winning and 9%? If that is correct your trying to make a case that Lasix is a performance enhancer because Lasix only horses win at 13% verses 9% for no medication. That is an enormously trivial amount of difference lol. And Lasix/bute combination wins at 14%. That's comical. Hell first time Lasix only wins at 11%. Your argument holds no water whatsoever to me now. I thought you were going to post some staggering figures. These figures basically mirror the figures Halvy posted on the Turf Paradise study. :sleeping:

[chadk66]

Perhaps East Coast and other areas of the country's training/vet methods are different than your parochial view of things? Maybe that's possible? But don't take my word for it. Also, maybe the approach to Lasix has changed since you retired from training. Maybe that's possible?
Yes it has. That's my point. Anybody can use it now. It's not secret who's using it. The playing field is as even as you can get in that regard. There are probably two tracks in the country that have legit first time starters, SA and Belmont. And that would be in Md Spwt races. Your making this far more complicated that it is. You honestly don't like the truth from a horseman's perspective. Too many handicappers think trainers are all crooks and druggists. LOL. There's plenty of them out there but not all. I don't know why you want to shoot the messenger when you don't like the message. I have no benefit whatsoever to lie to you, I no longer work in the business. The truth seems to be extremely painful for you to accept.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I'm not arguing that technologies haven't improved, but that isn't the reason more and more horses are on Lasix today versus in 1985. It's because you're at a competitive disadvantage without it. You're too smart to deny this.

I believe a few years ago (maybe more recently?), you decided that o take up the cause of differentiating between positives for therapeutics and illegal medications. You were embraced by many on the backside because of this. You were granted more access to insiders than you ever dreamed of. You have no desire to lose that access. Therefore, consciously or subconsciously, you won't consider data provided by CJ or Jeff that contradict your position, lest you lose that insider access.

Again, I don't know what to do on the Lasix issue, but there's much more gray than you and Chad admit.

I've agreed in multiple posts that there is a competitive advantage to Lasix. It is some combination of reducing pulmonary hypertension and the physics of propelling less weight, and the two factors are additive. I don't know the percentage of improvement associated with each, but I haven't heard some other physiological explanation for why Lasix improves runners. No matter. The two explanations I offer seem enough to confirm the potential for Lasix to improve runners, at least for me.

I mentioned the fibre optic technology as an explanation for how so many horses can qualify as bleeders, which in most jurisdictions they still have to do. It is the case that most horses will show some (even if it is small) level of bleeding under the right stress. Dr. Ken Hinchcliff who was one of the pioneer Lasix researchers suggested 50-70% of horses are confirmed bleeders, and that 100% of horses will show some EIPH after three strenuous workouts. Apparently, some EIPH is enough to get a horse on the bleeder list. All I've suggested is that a critical reason percentages went up was because it was easier to diagnose EIPH than it was in 1990. Without the advances in diagnostics, we may not have gotten to 95% Lasix use. That's all.

However, I don't disagree with the idea that trainers believe they are at a competitive disadvantage without Lasix. Perception is reality and if trainers believe they are at a competitive disadvantage it wouldn't be surprising for them to look to qualify their horse as a bleeder. However, if a horse shows no EIPH at all, you can still create water weight loss, which may create an equivalency to a horse on Lasix.

In 1990 there were still a lot of horsemen who had not been used to running horses on Lasix. It really only came into common use in the late 70's. That's different today. For the last 20+ years trainers Lasix has become a routine.

My Lasix stance is not driven by a belief it doesn't make a difference, and I believe CJ could confirm that. What I've said is that

1. If a horse has EIPH it is humane to treat it.
2. The non-medical alternatives to Lasix are potentially not humane and plenty of trainers will employ them if Lasix is banned. I get that there are people who believe if a horse bleeds badly enough to not have a racing career it should simply be retired. I disagree and I won't use the metaphor of an asthmatic and his inhaler to make the point.
3. Lasix creates an even playing field for the HANDICAPPER. It becomes all but irrelevant as a factor when evaluating a horse. It levels the playing field so to speak. That may upset the folks that believe we're drugging horses willy-nilly, but I know very few big time bettors that put Lasix use very high on their list of problems racing needs to solve now.
4. Even CJ agrees that there are horses with EIPH serious enough to warrant the use of Lasix. The problem is drawing the line, because if you allow Lasix for some you will have a fight with the horsemen. So maybe we can all agree that a level 4 bleeder gets Lasix and a level 0 bleeder doesn't. Now draw the line with level 1, 2, or 3 bleeders and good luck. I believe the resulting chaos for Lasix being legal/illegal simultaneously is not in the best interests of racing.
5. I don't believe there have been studies showing the long term health of a horse is compromised by the use of Lasix on raceday. If there were, I'd have no problem opposing the medication. That simple. I've had one of the anti-Lasix zealots suggest there is an epigenetic effect, so I went to the source of the person at MIT doing the research. Highly unlikely and you can read about it here. http://halveyonhorseracing.com/?p=1219 If a horse has a short term reaction (very uncommon) then it should be taken off the medication.
6. I haven't really heard non-anecdotal counter arguments to any of these points.

You're right that I find the use of terms like "drugging" or "doping" pejorative when it comes to Lasix. However, I won't react the same way to the term "over-medicated" from those who oppose Lasix.

Let me also disabuse anyone of the notion that the small study I did in 1990 represents my continuing position. Take the data for what it is worth. It was a different time and different place. The results were what they were, and I don't disavow doing the work, but c'mon. It proves nothing in 2015.

So CJ and Jeff's position about the improvement associated with Lasix doesn't conflict at all with my position favoring Lasix as stated above. You're right. There is less gray for me. But I've tried very hard to do extensive research and interviews. I think racing and handicapping is better with it than without it and I don't believe mine is not an anecdotal, emotional (or self-serving) position. I actually believe that with good reason.

[Stillriledup]

they aren't full bore on FTS because 90% of them have zero chance. it's just the way it is.

But they have zero chance because the trainer has a style of not having his horses ready to win first time out.

[cj]

I didn't realize I could scroll over on the charts you posted. I couldn't see the far right column. So let me see if I understand this right looking at the bottom chart (medication code). Is the percentage column the win percentage of the horses running under what you have stated on the far right? IE-No medication at all winning and 9%? If that is correct your trying to make a case that Lasix is a performance enhancer because Lasix only horses win at 13% verses 9% for no medication. That is an enormously trivial amount of difference lol. And Lasix/bute combination wins at 14%. That's comical. Hell first time Lasix only wins at 11%. Your argument holds no water whatsoever to me now. I thought you were going to post some staggering figures. These figures basically mirror the figures Halvy posted on the Turf Paradise study. :sleeping:


If you think these numbers are trivial you really don't understand statistics. And no offense to Rich, but you then cite his study from 1990 which is both woefully small and 25 years outdated?

This is why people like me get frustrated with horsemen. They see what they want to see and believe old wive's tales that are passed on from generation to generation.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

If you think these numbers are trivial you really don't understand statistics. And no offense to Rich, but you then cite his study from 1990 which is both woefully small and 25 years outdated?

This is why people like me get frustrated with horsemen. They see what they want to see and believe old wive's tales that are passed on from generation to generation.
No offense taken. I only threw in the study for historical context. Sometimes when I used to do talks, I'd say, how many of you in 1990 thought you'd have a computer in your pocket orders of magitude more powerful that the big desktop PC you hoped to one day buy?

[cj]

No offense taken. I only threw in the study for historical context. Sometimes when I used to do talks, I'd say, how many of you in 1990 thought you'd have a computer in your pocket orders of magitude more powerful that the big desktop PC you hoped to one day buy?

I hadn't read your post yet, I see you said as much since. Sorry about that.

Somehow this keeps getting lost, so let me try to explain one last time to others. I think you get it Rich.

Lasix gives an edge to those that use it. The data Jeff posted couldn't be much clearer and is what I said I've found all along. I am not against medicating horses that need Lasix. We don't have enough horses already as it is to support the race cards being drawn. So I don't want horses excluded that can race with a drug like Lasix.

But what we do need is a way to even the playing field, because what I am against is medicating horses that don't need medication. To me, that is DRUGGING. It gives the sport a terrible image that will almost assuredly stunt possible growth and has led to a decline. Sure, long term horseplayers are used to it so it isn't a big deal to us, but that isn't how the public at large sees it.

I don't know the answer. I know the wrong answer is to just "drug em all" whether they need it or not. I've suggested weight penalties. I think that might work though I'm not sure we could add enough weight to totally overcome the advantage of Lasix. We could subtract weight for non users but most jockeys couldn't make the weight that would be assigned for a level playing field. We could also do things like have non-Lasix users run for more money or higher claiming prices. These things could all be tried, and couldn't be any worse than what we are doing now.

[chadk66]

But they have zero chance because the trainer has a style of not having his horses ready to win first time out.ding ding ding we have a winner

[chadk66]

If you think these numbers are trivial you really don't understand statistics. And no offense to Rich, but you then cite his study from 1990 which is both woefully small and 25 years outdated?

This is why people like me get frustrated with horsemen. They see what they want to see and believe old wive's tales that are passed on from generation to generation.no it's because we've actually lived the day to day life of taking care of, conditioning and nurturing these horses. So to me it's rather comical when people that have never done this try to tell me what is and isn't. You act like your all righteous and knowing. I went to the Univ. of MN for equine studies so don't think my only knowledge is barn based. It's also based on chemistry and biology classes I had to take along with equine nutrition, etc.

[cj]

no it's because we've actually lived the day to day life of taking care of, conditioning and nurturing these horses. So to me it's rather comical when people that have never done this try to tell me what is and isn't. You act like your all righteous and knowing. I went to the Univ. of MN for equine studies so don't think my only knowledge is barn based. It's also based on chemistry and biology classes I had to take along with equine nutrition, etc.

Good, I'm happy for you. But the game is a lot different now than when you left. If you can't see that Lasix helps horses run faster I'm not sure what else there is to say.

[chadk66]

I hadn't read your post yet, I see you said as much since. Sorry about that.

Somehow this keeps getting lost, so let me try to explain one last time to others. I think you get it Rich.

Lasix gives an edge to those that use it. The data Jeff posted couldn't be much clearer and is what I said I've found all along. I am not against medicating horses that need Lasix. We don't have enough horses already as it is to support the race cards being drawn. So I don't want horses excluded that can race with a drug like Lasix.

But what we do need is a way to even the playing field, because what I am against is medicating horses that don't need medication. To me, that is DRUGGING. It gives the sport a terrible image that will almost assuredly stunt possible growth and has led to a decline. Sure, long term horseplayers are used to it so it isn't a big deal to us, but that isn't how the public at large sees it.

I don't know the answer. I know the wrong answer is to just "drug em all" whether they need it or not. I've suggested weight penalties. I think that might work though I'm not sure we could add enough weight to totally overcome the advantage of Lasix. We could subtract weight for non users but most jockeys couldn't make the weight that would be assigned for a level playing field. We could also do things like have non-Lasix users run for more money or higher claiming prices. These things could all be tried, and couldn't be any worse than what we are doing now.but it was the betting public that wanted all horses to use it so it was an even playing field. I don't think you and I are far off on our beliefs regarding it's use.

[chadk66]

Good, I'm happy for you. But the game is a lot different now than when you left.the only difference is all horses can use it now. which I'm really not for if you read back to what I said. When I ran on lasix my horses had to go to a detention barn four hours prior to post time. And they had to be a confirmed bleeder. I had no problem with that and felt that was how it should be. But the betting public didn't like that. They wanted them all to be on the stuff so it was equal.

[cj]

but it was the betting public that wanted all horses to use it so it was an even playing field. I don't think you and I are far off on our beliefs regarding it's use.

This is simply not true. When did the betting public ever clamor for Lasix use? We can't have a reasonable debate if you are just going to make stuff up. Lasix is 100% horsemen driven. Bettors weren't out there scoping horses for tiny amounts of EIPH to get horses on Lasix, trainers were.

[chadk66]

This is simply not true. When did the betting public ever clamor for Lasix use? We can't have a reasonable debate if you are just going to make stuff up. Lasix is 100% horsemen driven. Bettors weren't out there scoping horses for tiny amounts of EIPH to get horses on Lasix, trainers were.that was the big issue in the 80's and early 90's. bettors wanting an even playing field. don't shoot the messenger. in regard to stats, no I'm not a statistics major. But I do know enough about them to know they can be looked at by so many different angles it'll make your head hurt. What one person gets out of them ten more will get ten more different takes on them.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I hadn't read your post yet, I see you said as much since. Sorry about that.

Somehow this keeps getting lost, so let me try to explain one last time to others. I think you get it Rich.

Lasix gives an edge to those that use it. The data Jeff posted couldn't be much clearer and is what I said I've found all along. I am not against medicating horses that need Lasix. We don't have enough horses already as it is to support the race cards being drawn. So I don't want horses excluded that can race with a drug like Lasix.

But what we do need is a way to even the playing field, because what I am against is medicating horses that don't need medication. To me, that is DRUGGING. It gives the sport a terrible image that will almost assuredly stunt possible growth and has led to a decline. Sure, long term horseplayers are used to it so it isn't a big deal to us, but that isn't how the public at large sees it.

I don't know the answer. I know the wrong answer is to just "drug em all" whether they need it or not. I've suggested weight penalties. I think that might work though I'm not sure we could add enough weight to totally overcome the advantage of Lasix. We could subtract weight for non users but most jockeys couldn't make the weight that would be assigned for a level playing field. We could also do things like have non-Lasix users run for more money or higher claiming prices. These things could all be tried, and couldn't be any worse than what we are doing now.

One of the things that is opaque is that we really don't know the level of EIPH each horse has. A level 4 bleeder is certainly going to see big improvement if Lasix moves it to level 1 or 2. One of the great misunderstandings is that Lasix doesn't necessarily "cure" bleeding. A level 3 bleeder is more likely to move to level 1 than level 0 after the application of Lasix. But for that horse, it makes a big difference. The opacity of the horse's natural condition also doesn't make it obvious how much improvement is due to reduction in bleeding and how much is related to weight loss or some other factor. The problem with any data is going to be there are externalities the data doesn't account for.

You could weigh horses, but of course the information would be published long before the Lasix shot four hours prior to a race. So even if you try to even the playing field by adding weight, when do you decide how much handicap a horse gets and how do the handicappers get the information in a timely fashion? You're right. There are no easy answers.

I also agree about public perception. The irony is that current inferences of rampant HGH use in football seem to make no real impact on their popularity. The Denver post today did an editorial that essentially said maybe HGH isn't so bad as a therapeutic treatment, and cited Mark Cuban funding a study to determine if HGH will prevent deterioration of the knee. And the public outcry is...I don't know.

In my mind the answer is to do two things. Ardently argue that Lasix is a therapeutic treatment for a diagnosable condition and guarantee that the horses on Lasix do in fact have that condition. We don't carp about baseball or basketball players taking a cortisone shot because we are convinced it is a necessary therapeutic treatment. As long as Lasix is seen as equivalent to steroids or other PEDs, we have no chance to change public perception. And as long as the anti-Lasix crowd sees no middle ground, horseracing is condemned to the same fate as Sisyphus.

[Jeff P]

More stats...

Here's what I have in my calendar year 2015 database, thoroughbred only, Turf Paradise only:

query start: 1/10/2016 12:19:35 PM
query end: 1/10/2016 12:19:40 PM
elapsed time: 5 seconds

Data Window Settings:
Connected to: C:\JCapper\exe\JCapper2.mdb
999 Divisor Odds Cap: None

SQL: SELECT * FROM STARTERHISTORY
WHERE TRACK='TUP'
AND [DATE] >= #01-01-2015#
AND [DATE] <= #12-31-2015#
ORDER BY [DATE], TRACK, RACE


Data Summary Win Place Show
-----------------------------------------------------
Mutuel Totals 10142.80 10483.40 10564.70
Bet -14676.00 -14676.00 -14676.00
-----------------------------------------------------
P/L -4533.20 -4192.60 -4111.30

Wins 986 1962 2919
Plays 7338 7338 7338
PCT .1344 .2674 .3978

ROI 0.6911 0.7143 0.7199
Avg Mut 10.29 5.34 3.62

How to read:

The above table shows all thoroughbred starters at Turf Paradise during calendar year 2015. The data is broken out into three columns: One for WIN, one for PLACE, and one for SHOW. (Parimutuel totals are based on flat $2.00 bets to W-P-S.)

The table below shows the above data broken out by Medication Code as it exists in the Equibase data. The numeric code itself is displayed to the left of each row and a text description of the code is displayed to the far right of each row.

Each individual row contains stats for starters having a specific numeric code. For example, the second row in the table contains stats for horses with a Medication Code of 1 in the data (which means Lasix only.)

By: Medication Code

Value P/L Bet Roi Wins Plays Pct Impact Descr
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000 Medication None
1 -4297.80 13924.00 0.6913 959 6962 .1377 1.0251 Lasix Only
2 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000 Bute Only
3 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000 Lasix & Bute
4 40.80 300.00 1.1360 17 150 .1133 0.8434 1st Time Lasix
5 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000 Bute & 1st Time Lasix
6 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
7 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
8 0.00 0.00 0.0000 0 0 .0000 0.0000
9 -276.20 452.00 0.3889 10 226 .0442 0.3293 Unknown/Designation missing in the data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


My database shows 7,338 thoroughbred starters that raced Turf Paradise during calendar year 2015.

Of those: NOT ONE SINGLE HORSE was listed in the data as racing at Turf Paradise without medication.

My database shows 6,962 thoroughbreds listed in the data as having raced on lasix at Turf Paradise during calendar year 2015.

Of those: 959 won their races for a 13.77 win pct.

My database shows 226 thoroughbred starters listed in the data without a Medication Code.

Of those: just 10 won their races for a 4.42 win pct.

I'm curious about the 226 starters listed in the data without a Medication Code.

Did these 226 race without medication? Were they simply reported to Equibase by the racing office at Turf Paradise without a Medication Code instead of the correct code to indicate Medication None? (I'm going to ask Equibase for clarification but I suspect that's what might have happened.)



-jp

.

[cj]

that was the big issue in the 80's and early 90's. bettors wanting an even playing field. don't shoot the messenger. in regard to stats, no I'm not a statistics major. But I do know enough about them to know they can be looked at by so many different angles it'll make your head hurt. What one person gets out of them ten more will get ten more different takes on them.

I was around and betting during the 80s and 90s, and I stand by my assertion that bettors weren't asking for anything. Bettors never agree on anything, even today with social media being an easy way to bring people together. In the 80s and 90s, it was impossible. And certainly bettors had no possible way to demand anything back then even if they were unified.

[cj]

One of the things that is opaque is that we really don't know the level of EIPH each horse has. A level 4 bleeder is certainly going to see big improvement if Lasix moves it to level 1 or 2. One of the great misunderstandings is that Lasix doesn't necessarily "cure" bleeding. A level 3 bleeder is more likely to move to level 1 than level 0 after the application of Lasix. But for that horse, it makes a big difference. The opacity of the horse's natural condition also doesn't make it obvious how much improvement is due to reduction in bleeding and how much is related to weight loss or some other factor. The problem with any data is going to be there are externalities the data doesn't account for.

You could weigh horses, but of course the information would be published long before the Lasix shot four hours prior to a race. So even if you try to even the playing field by adding weight, when do you decide how much handicap a horse gets and how do the handicappers get the information in a timely fashion? You're right. There are no easy answers.

I also agree about public perception. The irony is that current inferences of rampant HGH use in football seem to make no real impact on their popularity. The Denver post today did an editorial that essentially said maybe HGH isn't so bad as a therapeutic treatment, and cited Mark Cuban funding a study to determine if HGH will prevent deterioration of the knee. And the public outcry is...I don't know.

In my mind the answer is to do two things. Ardently argue that Lasix is a therapeutic treatment for a diagnosable condition and guarantee that the horses on Lasix do in fact have that condition. We don't carp about baseball or basketball players taking a cortisone shot because we are convinced it is a necessary therapeutic treatment. As long as Lasix is seen as equivalent to steroids or other PEDs, we have no chance to change public perception. And as long as the anti-Lasix crowd sees no middle ground, horseracing is condemned to the same fate as Sisyphus.

You can't really compare human athletes to thoroughbreds. Humans have a choice, thoroughbreds don't. That is where the public perception comes in.

[johnhannibalsmith]

But they have zero chance because the trainer has a style of not having his horses ready to win first time out.

To play a bit of devil's advocate I think what you say here explains at least some (maybe so little as to be insignificant, don't really know) of jeff's stats on lasix horses winning more often. Anymore, the people that don't use lasix just don't win much anyway. No statistics here and more of that relying on observation, but seems like most of the people I see not running on lasix are those that are just there to fill races anyway.

[dilanesp]

You can't really compare human athletes to thoroughbreds. Humans have a choice, thoroughbreds don't. That is where the public perception comes in.

Correct. And the other issue about public perception is self-interest. Basically, there's a whole bunch of reasons to not trust anything horsemen or vets employed by the horse racing industry say on these sorts of issues.

Of course they are going to say that Lasix is not a masking agent. They will say it if it isn't one, and they will also say it if it is one. Of course they are going to say that it is a necessary medication and a performance enhancer. They will say it if that's true, and they will also say it if that is false. This is like studies about the dangers of smoking from the tobacco industry, or global warming studies from the petrochemical industry.

I'm inclined to basically say that horse racing should be regulated top down with close to zero tolerance on drugs, and if horsemen and vets don't like it, they can find another profession. Because if we do that, the sport has a lot better chance of surviving attacks from animal rights activists than if we don't do that. That's basically what has happened in a lot of other professional and amateur sports. There are track and field athletes who can't take their cold medicine. Too bad. It keeps the sport cleaner to impose rules like that.

[chadk66]

Correct. And the other issue about public perception is self-interest. Basically, there's a whole bunch of reasons to not trust anything horsemen or vets employed by the horse racing industry say on these sorts of issues.

Of course they are going to say that Lasix is not a masking agent. They will say it if it isn't one, and they will also say it if it is one. Of course they are going to say that it is a necessary medication and a performance enhancer. They will say it if that's true, and they will also say it if that is false. This is like studies about the dangers of smoking from the tobacco industry, or global warming studies from the petrochemical industry.

I'm inclined to basically say that horse racing should be regulated top down with close to zero tolerance on drugs, and if horsemen and vets don't like it, they can find another profession. Because if we do that, the sport has a lot better chance of surviving attacks from animal rights activists than if we don't do that. That's basically what has happened in a lot of other professional and amateur sports. There are track and field athletes who can't take their cold medicine. Too bad. It keeps the sport cleaner to impose rules like that.
PETA took the best shot they could/have with Asmussen and barely rippled the water. That amazed me to say the least.

[Donttellmeshowme]

And lots of others have no idea what it actually takes to get horses to the races and ready to perform. Here's a newsflash for you guys: Thoroughbreds aren't designed to carry slashing, screaming humans at high speeds for relatively long distances over hard surfaces-or ANY surface, for that matter. It's EXTREMELY damaging and stressful, and rarely ends well.

In a perfect world, no drugging would be necessary. But contrary to feel-good mythology, race horses are FAR from perfect running machines. They hurt, they breakdown, they wear down, and they bleed. Lasix helps considerably with the latter.

How many of you chronic "theorists" have ever even worked around thoroughbreds? Or seen one exit the track clean, but drop its head and gush back at the barn? And how many of you can name, without consulting the internet, 5 alternative measures to stop or curtail bleeding?

Most participants in this thread have NO idea what they are talking about.




Couldnt of said it any better myself. Too many people trying to be vets in this thread. Some people have no clue what it takes to get a horse ready for a race. They just think its led out the stall, put the bridle on, and is brought to the paddock to run.

[Stillriledup]

Couldnt of said it any better myself. Too many people trying to be vets in this thread. Some people have no clue what it takes to get a horse ready for a race. They just think its led out the stall, put the bridle on, and is brought to the paddock to run.

"Some people have no clue"

I think it's pretty lucky for those 'clueless folk' that you and Mark are here, you know, with all that vital backstretch experience you guys have I'm sure the clueless folk could all learn a thing or three.

[rastajenk]

There are track and field athletes who can't take their cold medicine. Too bad. It keeps the sport cleaner to impose rules like that.
Because every one participating on this board and out there in the real world of racing wants it to become as popular as track and field. Or cycling. Or PETA.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Correct. And the other issue about public perception is self-interest. Basically, there's a whole bunch of reasons to not trust anything horsemen or vets employed by the horse racing industry say on these sorts of issues.

Of course they are going to say that Lasix is not a masking agent. They will say it if it isn't one, and they will also say it if it is one. Of course they are going to say that it is a necessary medication and a performance enhancer. They will say it if that's true, and they will also say it if that is false. This is like studies about the dangers of smoking from the tobacco industry, or global warming studies from the petrochemical industry.

I'm inclined to basically say that horse racing should be regulated top down with close to zero tolerance on drugs, and if horsemen and vets don't like it, they can find another profession. Because if we do that, the sport has a lot better chance of surviving attacks from animal rights activists than if we don't do that. That's basically what has happened in a lot of other professional and amateur sports. There are track and field athletes who can't take their cold medicine. Too bad. It keeps the sport cleaner to impose rules like that.
I mentioned three people who believe modern testing equipment keeps Lasix from being used as a masking agent IN HORSERACING. Rick Arthur is the medical director for CHRB and works closely with Scott Stanley who runs the University of California at Davis testing laboratory. Steve Barker recently retired from running the testing lab at LSU. His lab is used quite often to test referee samples in addition to testing all the samples in Louisiana. Rick Sams is head of HFL Sports Testing, the lab that does testing for Kentucky. All those labs do work for multiple jurisdictions and are highly respected for their testing integrity. I'll let them know they are untrustworthy and part of your conspiracy to hide excess Lasix use.

There are 26 approved ARCI therapeutic medications. One, Lasix, is approved for raceday use. The other medications cannot be administered less than 24 hours before a race and they have specific residual levels that cannot be exceeded. Every other medication/drug is essentially zero tolerance. Any level is a violation.

What exactly does your top down, zero tolerance regime look like that is different than the existing regime, other than banning the one medication that is allowed on raceday?

I believe it is naive to think that animal rights activists will ever go away since most of them believe horseracing is inherently cruel.

For someone who doesn't think humans and equines have any comparison, you sure did a lot of comparing. I've done some articles on residual levels of PEDs allowed by other major sports. You might want to look into that, because the allowable levels are orders of magnitude higher than for horseracing. Football players can use powerful painkillers and numbing agents during games. The medication/drug standards for horseracing are as tight as for any sport. And horses get tested after finishing in the money in every race they run. Check the frequency of testing for professional athletes. There are a lot of professional athletes who couldn't pass a drug test using the standards of horseracing. I'm more inclined to think the "drug" issue is a convenient excuse for the downslide of racing and provides an easy distraction from fixing the real issues that keep fans away, like a high take, small fields and non-competitive races.

There are certainly multiple facets to this issue. If we are to reach resolution, both sides have to talk to each other not past each other and find reasonable compromise.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

PETA took the best shot they could/have with Asmussen and barely rippled the water. That amazed me to say the least.
The Asmussen decision was interesting for a few reasons, not the least of which is that the PETA allegations were determined to be "unfounded." The "drug" Asmussen was accused of giving his horses was thyroxine which is used for low thyroid levels. The whole story is available here. http://halveyonhorseracing.com/?p=2644

[Saratoga_Mike]

The Asmussen decision was interesting for a few reasons, not the least of which is that the PETA allegations were determined to be "unfounded." The "drug" Asmussen was accused of giving his horses was thyroxine which is used for low thyroid levels. The whole story is available here. http://halveyonhorseracing.com/?p=2644

Baffert had his entire barn (page 13 of attached document) on Thyro-L at one point. What bad luck to end up with an entire barn full of horses with low thyroid levels.

http://www.chrb.ca.gov/veterinary_reports/baffert_sudden_death_report_final_1121.pdf

[Stillriledup]

Baffert had his entire barn (page 13 of attached document) on Thyro-L at one point. What bad luck to end up with an entire barn full of horses with low thyroid levels.

http://www.chrb.ca.gov/veterinary_reports/baffert_sudden_death_report_final_1121.pdf

But it turned out to be good luck because nobody cared to pursue it.

[Saratoga_Mike]

But it turned out to be good luck because nobody cared to pursue it.

It was pursued, but he didn't violate any rules by using Thryo-L on his entire barn. Like I said, talk about bad luck, an entire stable afflicted by hypothyroidism.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

It was pursued, but he didn't violate any rules by using Thryo-L on his entire barn. Like I said, talk about bad luck, an entire stable afflicted by hypothyroidism.
As I said in the article, the occurrence of hypothyroidism in thoroughbreds is pretty low, but depending on when you test a horse it can look low. I can tell you a lot of people were not happy BB skated.

[Stillriledup]

As I said in the article, the occurrence of hypothyroidism in thoroughbreds is pretty low, but depending on when you test a horse it can look low. I can tell you a lot of people were not happy BB skated.
The baffert effect

https://tuesdayshorse.wordpress.com/2014/01/07/deadly-to-horses-the-baffert-effect-part-1/

[chadk66]

Baffert had his entire barn (page 13 of attached document) on Thyro-L at one point. What bad luck to end up with an entire barn full of horses with low thyroid levels.

http://www.chrb.ca.gov/veterinary_reports/baffert_sudden_death_report_final_1121.pdfI can't speak for Baffert or his barn. But I can tell you that having a whole barn come up thyroid deficient isn't impossible. I spent the winter in Birmingham in 97' when they opened that track. By the time I left in late April my horses looked bad and were training horribly. I got to MN and they weren't shedding, weren't eating, etc. Pulled blood on half of them and found nothing. Vet dewormed them and a month later most were the same way but a few were coming around a little. Talked at length with the vet again and he said it was highly rare but maybe they are thyroid deficient. Pulled blood to test for that and all the horses that were in Alabama were deficient. Put them all on thyroxin and within a week they were already making serious head way. Kept them on it for a month and stopped using it and they were all doing great by then. Vet figured there was something seriously deficient in the feed I had been using in Alabama. Never had that happen again. It was very bizarre. They had a very cold wet winter down there so it wasn't surprising to me that they weren't shedding out yet by late April. They actually had more official inches of snow in Birmingham that winter than Minneapolis did. It was crazy. But that was my one lesson on thyroid deficiency. And man those horses were knocked for a loop.

[cj]

I can't speak for Baffert or his barn. But I can tell you that having a whole barn come up thyroid deficient isn't impossible. I spent the winter in Birmingham in 97' when they opened that track. By the time I left in late April my horses looked bad and were training horribly. I got to MN and they weren't shedding, weren't eating, etc. Pulled blood on half of them and found nothing. Vet dewormed them and a month later most were the same way but a few were coming around a little. Talked at length with the vet again and he said it was highly rare but maybe they are thyroid deficient. Pulled blood to test for that and all the horses that were in Alabama were deficient. Put them all on thyroxin and within a week they were already making serious head way. Kept them on it for a month and stopped using it and they were all doing great by then. Vet figured there was something seriously deficient in the feed I had been using in Alabama. Never had that happen again. It was very bizarre. They had a very cold wet winter down there so it wasn't surprising to me that they weren't shedding out yet by late April. They actually had more official inches of snow in Birmingham that winter than Minneapolis did. It was crazy. But that was my one lesson on thyroid deficiency. And man those horses were knocked for a loop.

People were using this drug to try to enhance performance. That is why all the horses were getting it, plain and simple.

Oh, and Birmingham was 1987, not 1997...I spent a few weeks there and still have a badge from the trip. Saw Lost Code win the Alabama Derby. Pretty sure it was long gone by 1997 as a horse facility.

[Saratoga_Mike]

But I can tell you that having a whole barn come up thyroid deficient isn't impossible. .

You had a smaller stable. Therefore, that would be less of a statistical oddity.

Dr. Rick Arthur, a very well regarded and learned vet, found it odd in the case of Baffert - please see link I posted earlier.

[Donttellmeshowme]

So does everyone think Thyroid L is good or bad for a horse in the long term?

[cj]

So does everyone think Thyroid L is good or bad for a horse in the long term?

Horses that need it for a medical condition or horses that are given it as an experiment to see if it helps them run faster?

[Donttellmeshowme]

Horses that need it for a medical condition or horses that are given it as an experiment to see if it helps them run faster?




Both

[cj]

Both

a) Good
b) Bad

[Donttellmeshowme]

a) Good
b) Bad




And you have clinical studies or data to back that statement up?