Trainers: Do Not Ban Anti-Bleeder Medications | BloodHorse.com

[andymays]

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/62444/trainers-do-not-ban-anti-bleeder-medications

Excerpt:

“Knowing that horses bleed when they run, why put a horse through that?” Amoss, a leading conditioner in the Midwest, asked of the proposal to ban Salix, which was previously marketed under the trade name Lasix.

Amoss said when he was working in New York in the 1980s, Lasix was not permitted and trainers went to great lengths to simulate the beneficial effect of the anti-bleeder medication. “It had everybody up there looking for the Holy Grail,” Amoss said. “In an effort to simulate what Lasix does, they were spending $200 where it would cost $15 for a shot of Lasix. If we got to where there was no race-day Lasix, the only ones who benefit are the vets.”

“We could get away with not having Lasix, but it’s much better with it,” said Hess, whose stable is based in Southern California.

Excerpt:

“The gambler is most important,” Hess said. “The owners and trainers come second.”


Read more: http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/62444/trainers-do-not-ban-anti-bleeder-medications#ixzz1JP6ojszU

[cj]

Amazingly enough, the rest of the world seems to do ok without it.

[5k-claim]

Amazingly enough, the rest of the world seems to do ok without it.So what?

Lasix is either beneficial or it isn't. What does the "rest of the world" have to do with it? How often do you use that shortcut in forming your own opinions on matters?

These guys have it right, for anyone who reads the quotes willing to listen. Concentrate on the anti-inflammatory measures and pain maskers. Those are the dangers that plenty of people can't stand in the sport.

If someone isn't wild about Lasix we can go without it or use a minimum dosage like 2cc.

But I am glad that it is available for the horses that do need it. There is no way Lasix is on the "evil drugs" list.

[toussaud]

you knew they weren't going to go down without a fight

[lamboguy]

Amazingly enough, the rest of the world seems to do ok without it.this is the POST OF THE CENTURY

[Robert Goren]

So what?

Lasix is either beneficial or it isn't. What does the "rest of the world" have to do with it? How often do you use that shortcut in forming your own opinions on matters?

These guys have it right, for anyone who reads the quotes willing to listen. Concentrate on the anti-inflammatory measures and pain maskers. Those are the dangers that plenty of people can't stand in the sport.

If someone isn't wild about Lasix we can go without it or use a minimum dosage like 2cc.

But I am glad that it is available for the horses that do need it. There is no way Lasix is on the "evil drugs" list.Horses that need it shouldn't be running anyway.

[GameTheory]

Horses that need it shouldn't be running anyway.Yes, if we didn't use the need for it would be bred out of them. And the rest of the world is in fact relevant because they've proved it.

[Dave Schwartz]

Yes, if we didn't use the need for it would be bred out of them. And the rest of the world is in fact relevant because they've proved it.

It should never have been bred into them in the first place.

Breeding it out of them demands that bleeders not be permitted to breed (either by rule or through custom). That immediately puts 75% of all horses on the shelf.

It is very difficult to get the manure back into the horse.

[castaway01]

It should never have been bred into them in the first place.

Breeding it out of them demands that bleeders not be permitted to breed (either by rule or through custom). That immediately puts 75% of all horses on the shelf.

It is very difficult to get the manure back into the horse.

That's definitely the major problem. Bleeders have bred, and bred, and bred, so removing all of them from the sport would cripple it. I don't have an idea how you would do so over a period of time, but that would be the optimal solution.

[Linny]

Amazingly enough, the rest of the world seems to do ok without it.


Yes they do, and they send their bleeders to us.

Before Lasix the cry was that if it became legal horses would be able to run more often. We can see how well that has worked out.

[lamboguy]

Yes they do, and they send their bleeders to us.

Before Lasix the cry was that if it became legal horses would be able to run more often. We can see how well that has worked out.wouldn't we be better with fewer horses that run more often. in baseball they play 5 times a week, why can't horses run once a week?

[macguy]

Horses that need it shouldn't be running anyway.


That's been my thought for a while now. If a horse needs Bute and Lasix to make it to race day, maybe the horse just shouldn't be running.

[RXB]

So what?

Lasix is either beneficial or it isn't. What does the "rest of the world" have to do with it? How often do you use that shortcut in forming your own opinions on matters?

These guys have it right, for anyone who reads the quotes willing to listen. Concentrate on the anti-inflammatory measures and pain maskers. Those are the dangers that plenty of people can't stand in the sport.

If someone isn't wild about Lasix we can go without it or use a minimum dosage like 2cc.

But I am glad that it is available for the horses that do need it. There is no way Lasix is on the "evil drugs" list.

Lasix is popular with horse trainers not just because it is an anti-bleeding medication; it's also a masking agent for other substances. So it is an "evil drug" in the hands of some people. WADA banned it.

[5k-claim]

Just in case anyone cares for some actual reading (http://www.news.colostate.edu/content/documents/4363_1.pdf) on the subject.

The study was done in South Africa.

Internal bleeding (less severe EIPH than bleeding from the nostrils) is not uncommon, even internationally. This may come as a surprise to anyone who thinks the "rest of the world" has managed to breed a horse with a basic body structure that is immune to generating episodes of EIPH. (Do you guys seriously think that to the "rest of the world" EIPH is some long forgotten disease like polio?)

What is more uncommon is going to the trouble and expense of having a horse scoped after intense exercise (like a race) to check for internal bleeding in the first place. That is how you find it.

If all anyone (including a racing jurisdiction somewhere out in the "rest of the world") cares about in regards to EIPH is identifying the most severe episodes, bleeding through the nostrils, then proceed as you are. Ban whatever medications you want. It will not result in the decimation of racing in the U.S., as the vast majority of our runners will not actually bleed through the nostrils, either. (Which is the only severity of EIPH that some are referring to when using the term "bleeder".)

Personally, I am interested in trying to prevent or lessen the severity of even the internal bleeding episodes that are indicated by scoping. Those episodes can add up over time and cause scarring, as well. Who wants that for their horse? If Lasix can have a positive effect on all severities of EIPH, then what is the problem? It actually benefits the horses.

Some of you guys are really barking up the wrong tree on this one.

As the study says: Results of the present study provide strong evidence that furosemide can help prevent the development of EIPH in Thoroughbred racehorses. As such, its use in racehorses might be justifiable, assuming that other regulatory and policy issues important to the integrity of the sport are adequately addressed. If Lasix is eventually banned in the U.S. then life will certainly go on. And maybe handicappers/bettors will think the sport is better for it. Good for them.

I am less convinced that it will necessarily be to the benefit of the horses.

.

[RXB]

And if you're interested in some reading, 5k-claim, I can provide some to you that's a lot less wordy that your link:

"Furosemide is listed as a diuretic and masking agent on the WADA Prohibited List - used to hide the use of speed and endurance producing substances such as EPO."

You can do your own reading on the dangers of EPO and other performance-enhancing substances, then reconsider the statement that Lasix "actually benefits the horses."

[5k-claim]

And if you're interested in some reading, 5k-claim, I can provide some to you that's a lot less wordy that your link:I don't think the report I linked was any more "wordy" than necessary, RXB. Especially considering that it was... you know... an actual study and all.

"Furosemide is listed as a diuretic and masking agent on the WADA Prohibited List - used to hide the use of speed and endurance producing substances such as EPO."And a white Ford Bronco is listed as an escape vehicle used on a LA freeway to hide OJ Simpson. Did they ban Ford Broncos because of it?

You can do your own reading on the dangers of EPO and other performance-enhancing substances, then reconsider the statement that Lasix "actually benefits the horses." Come on, RXB. I even quoted some of the summary for you so you wouldn't have to read the whole thing. The whole point of the study was to test its efficacy.

[RXB]

I wasn't really criticizing you for providing the link to the full study; I just wanted to get the point across with as few words as possible.

The analogy of OJ's white Ford Bronco is a false one and has no logical use in this discussion.

I don't think that most people doubt that Lasix reduces bleeding symptoms. The problem is that it encourages the perpetuation of this undesirable recessive trait; that its use, like many other drugs, sometimes produces negative side effects; and that it is an effective masking agent for other performance-enhancing substances that can have harmful effects on the physical well-being of horses, that affect the results of races and harm the integrity of the sport.

[5k-claim]

I don't think that most people doubt that Lasix reduces bleeding symptoms. The problem is that it encourages the perpetuation of this undesirable recessive trait; that its use, like many other drugs, sometimes produces negative side effects; and that it is an effective masking agent for other performance-enhancing substances that can have harmful effects on the physical well-being of horses, that affect the results of races and harm the integrity of the sport.Alright, I understand. To my understanding it is those things "around" Lasix, especially the masking agent for other substances that are the reasons for it not being allowed in other jurisdictions. This frustrates me because the drug itself can potentially be beneficial to the horse's health. Here is an article link (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/155841.php) about the study that is easier to digest.

To be honest, in "real life" I am not exactly the biggest fan of using it. This is mostly because I have never fallen in love with giving a diuretic. But I can live with a diuretic if it really does mean preventing or lessening some potential long term damage to my horse's health. It is a decision to make, with trade-offs in either direction. But I want options available to help my horse, if need be- and it pisses me off if those options are taken away in a flippant, "throw out the baby with the bathwater" kind of way. Sorry to say, but the whole "testing" aspect of it is a secondary concern to me. I think they should just improve the tests. Maybe they are already doing that?

As I said, if it ends up being banned then so be it. Life will go on. But it just isn't in the same league with the pain maskers... as far as the horse goes.

.

[RXB]

I understand your point. But as far as testing goes, it defeats the purpose of having testing programs if the regulators are going to allow a relatively inexpensive, widely available and reasonably effective masking agent to be used without recourse.

[5k-claim]

I understand your point. But as far as testing goes, it defeats the purpose of having testing programs if the regulators are going to allow a relatively inexpensive, widely available and reasonably effective masking agent to be used without recourse.I would assume they are already working on more sophisticated tests, as Lasix is currently legal. Or are they just waiting on Lasix to be banned someday to provide a testing shortcut?

Keep in mind that while you call it a "reasonably effective masking agent", I call it an "anti-bleeder medication" that can help horses. I can understand how certain groups (especially handicappers) would concentrate on your description instead of mine, but we all have to decide what is best from our own perspective.

I am guessing that is what Amoss and Hess were doing in the original article. As when Amoss says, "Knowing that horses bleed when they run, why put a horse through that?"

.

[Marlin]

I understand your point. But as far as testing goes, it defeats the purpose of having testing programs if the regulators are going to allow a relatively inexpensive, widely available and reasonably effective masking agent to be used without recourse.Testing programs are too far behind. There is more money in beating a test than making one. If you want to ban Lasix because it is a mask, well there will be another mask or drug right down the road. I don't think the white Bronco comparison is too far off. Sample saving, enforcement, and stiffer penalties is a better way to attack this issue, not banning Lasix. As far as WADA is concerned, humans don't suffer from EIPH, at least I don't think. If they do, I'm sure WADA would consider an exemption which they do for many other drugs for many different conditions for many atheletes. (see asthma meds)

[pandy]

The trainers ruined it for themselves. Lasix was supposed to be for bleeders, but they use it on EVERY HORSE in EVERY RACE. What a crock. There were twice as many horses in the races before lasix.

[sandpit]

The trainers ruined it for themselves. Lasix was supposed to be for bleeders, but they use it on EVERY HORSE in EVERY RACE. What a crock. There were twice as many horses in the races before lasix.

I was taking an entry for a 2-year-old race from Brian Mayberry many years ago, and I asked him the standard "Lasix?" question. He said, "son, if I ever enter a first time starter on lasix, they should take my license away from me permanently."

[cj]

I am guessing that is what Amoss and Hess were doing in the original article. As when Amoss says, "Knowing that horses bleed when they run, why put a horse through that?"

.

Do horses bleed when they run in the wild?

[cj]

I was taking an entry for a 2-year-old race from Brian Mayberry many years ago, and I asked him the standard "Lasix?" question. He said, "son, if I ever enter a first time starter on lasix, they should take my license away from me permanently."

Now, those that don't get it first out are pretty much instant tosses.

[5k-claim]

Do horses bleed when they run in the wild?Good question. I don't know. My guess is that it would probably depend on what is chasing them. And for how fast, and how long.

I don't remember exactly, but I think I read something one time about some mustangs out west being scoped after a helicopter roundup. I don't remember what the results were.

.

[macguy]

I was taking an entry for a 2-year-old race from Brian Mayberry many years ago, and I asked him the standard "Lasix?" question. He said, "son, if I ever enter a first time starter on lasix, they should take my license away from me permanently."


It drives me nuts to see a field of first time starter two year olds going 4f (or less) and every single one is first start with Lasix.

At Hastings Park, the rule used to be your horse had to have proof of bleeding before the horse could run on Lasix. This meant the horse pretty much had to be scoped by a vet after a work or race and there had to be bleeding. The horse was then eligible for the Lasix program. You would often see many horses make multiple starts with no Lasix, and would almost never see 2 year olds racing on Lasix for their first few starts, if at all in their 2 year old year.

A few years ago they changed the rule to "Lasix at trainers discretion." It was no longer necessary to have proof of bleeding to go on the bleeders list.

Sure enough, what do we see now? A field of first time 2 year old starters, and the vast majority are running on Lasix right from the get-go.


One of the few tracks where you can still find horses running in Canada without Lasix is Northlands Park in Edmonton. Horses don't run on Lasix in Saskatoon or the B circuit in Alberta because there is no Lasix program offered.

I don't know what makes Edmonton different than the rest of North America, but it seems trainers are much more comfortable running their horses without Lasix than any other track.

[magwell]

What if the government wanted to ban seat belts in all cars, but after you have a accident then you can use it ??

[GameTheory]

What if the government wanted to ban seat belts in all cars, but after you have a accident then you can use it ??Great logic! Case closed!

[Stillriledup]

The trainers ruined it for themselves. Lasix was supposed to be for bleeders, but they use it on EVERY HORSE in EVERY RACE. What a crock. There were twice as many horses in the races before lasix.

Many use it so they could get away using other stuff that lasix masks.

[therussmeister]

Do horses bleed when they run in the wild?
In the wild horses rarely run six furlongs in 1:10.2, mostly just gallops, so I'm guessing severe bleeding is rare.

[cj]

In the wild horses rarely run six furlongs in 1:10.2, mostly just gallops, so I'm guessing severe bleeding is rare.

I really don't know, that is why I asked. I'm not sure they would just gallop if being chased by a predator.

[cj]

What if the government wanted to ban seat belts in all cars, but after you have a accident then you can use it ??

So you want a drug to be legal "just in case"?

[fmolf]

not only is it a masking agent for substances more sinister it is also a diuretic,horses shed a large percentage of their water weight after using this "anti bleeding" medication.Tell me which trainer you know that ever minded a few pounds off?

[magwell]

So you want a drug to be legal "just in case"? Yes I want the "LEGAL" drug to try to keep the horses from bleeding. Why is that so hard to understand ? Have a vet explain the damage that happens when a horse bleeds profusely in a race.......

[Stillriledup]

Yes I want the "LEGAL" drug to try to keep the horses from bleeding. Why is that so hard to understand ? Have a vet explain the damage that happens when a horse bleeds profusely in a race.......

Too many trainers are taking advantage of this lasix and using it to mask other stuff. if they would just give lasix, i think racing would be ok with that.

[turninforhome10]

You guys keep talking about a masking agent. I do drug testing for a living as I am a MLT. Basically all drug testing is done by threshold values, ie acceptable amounts. You have some drugs that the half life in the horse are cut down so much that they become undetectable because the controls are set up that way. Lets say you smoke a joint and later find out that you have a drug test. The cutoff for most drug test on pot is 500, so although you are positive the test is negative because you came in under the threshold. Now in horses, the cutoffs I believe is zero which renders the above explanation mute because i think the State lab of IA in Ames, where alot of testing goes uses liquid or gas chromatography for the testing which is best explained by putting the urine in a chromatogram and the urine is ran through a column that separates the particle out by chemical structure and each chemical structure has a pattern that goes with it. Match the pattern and you get the drug. Nothing hides from chromatography.
My point is this Lasix is a diuretic that causes the horse to shed water thereby decreasing the volume of blood (plasma) and putting less strain on the capillaries in the lungs. The strain of the load along with inherited EIPH causes the horse to bleed. The way it works as a mask is by diluting the urine sown to the point where it becomes undetectable. I don't think that it would cause a false negative(lasix) it is just so low.
In my research, I have traced bleeding back to a foundation stallion Hermit who was a bad bleeder despite winning the Epsom Deby. Early in his stallion career he was not fancied due to his bleeding problems. But one good horse and that all changed. In Northern Dancer there are something like 15 occurances of Hermit and Northern Dancer is tail female to a Hermit mare. There is no way to get that genie back into the bottle, so we must forge on.
I would like to see a day when feed, water and training are all horse needs, but we can't go back. I would like to see stallion owners have to post that the horse was a bleeder on the stallion ads but again this won't happen. We make such a big deal at sales in announcing that the horse is cribber so why not a bleeder?

[RXB]

Yes I want the "LEGAL" drug to try to keep the horses from bleeding. Why is that so hard to understand ? Have a vet explain the damage that happens when a horse bleeds profusely in a race.......

Perhaps that vet can explain to you the side effects that sometimes occur when diuretics are administered. Maybe the vet can also explain the potentially toxic effects of EPO and other PED's that can be masked by diuretics. (Would you like your blood to turn to sludge? The poor horse doesn't really have a say in the matter.)

And maybe trainers in other parts of the world can explain to you that it is quite possible to conduct quality horse racing without Lasix.

[RXB]

In my research, I have traced bleeding back to a foundation stallion Hermit who was a bad bleeder despite winning the Epsom Deby. Early in his stallion career he was not fancied due to his bleeding problems. But one good horse and that all changed. In Northern Dancer there are something like 15 occurances of Hermit and Northern Dancer is tail female to a Hermit mare. There is no way to get that genie back into the bottle, so we must forge on.


Thanks for the interesting post, even though I don't entirely agree.

Northern Dancer blood is more prominent in other parts of the world than in North America, since its most superior influence is in grass racing. The rest of the world is doing okay without unrestricted Lasix usage.

[RXB]

Perhaps that vet can explain to you the side effects that sometimes occur when diuretics are administered. Maybe the vet can also explain the potentially toxic effects of EPO and other PED's that can be masked by diuretics. (Would you like your blood to turn to sludge? The poor horse doesn't really have a say in the matter.)

And maybe trainers in other parts of the world can explain to you that it is quite possible to conduct quality horse racing without Lasix.

And just to be clear, I'm not 100% against medication. But when it becomes essentially unrestricted, as is the case with Lasix usage, then a whole giant can of worms is opened up. Since Lasix is a diuretic, and diuretics are frequently used to reduce detection of other substances, then in my view permitting it freely creates as many or more problems as prohibiting it.

I should've added a comma in one sentence so that it reads "... EPO, and other PED's that can be masked by diuretics" as the original writing didn't quite convey my thoughts properly. I think EPO is being used by trainers in many states and I'd like to see more jurisdictions test for it, but I don't think a diuretic would mask EPO as it can with other PED's, at least not from what I know as a fan of human running. I guess Lasix could conceivably increase the danger as the diuretic might worsen the sludginess of the blood that can result from EPO administration. (Turninforhome, with his lab tech background would probably have more knowledge about this than I would.)

Probably won't matter as I'm guessing Lasix will get a pass in any agreement regarding medication restrictions.

[5k-claim]

Maybe the vet can also explain the potentially toxic effects of EPO and other PED's that can be masked by diuretics. And maybe you can get over your fixation with "EPO and other PED's" and concentrate on Lasix itself, which the South Africa study concluded was indeed beneficial in the treatment of EIPH.

The poor horse doesn't really have a say in the matter. Glad to see you are concerned about the "poor horse", especially since it is reported that the majority of which will suffer episodes of EIPH, which can be treated with Lasix. Why you want to take this potentially beneficial treatment away from the horses is a little bit confusing, given your concern for them.

And maybe trainers in other parts of the world can explain to you that it is quite possible to conduct quality horse racing without Lasix. And maybe the next formal study that is done by an international team can be testing the various home remedies and techniques (withdrawing water) used to mimic the effects of Lasix versus an actual $15 shot of Lasix in the treatment of EIPH in racing thoroughbreds. I think I have an idea of how that study might go, do you?

Or are you one of those who believes EIPH doesn't exist in the rest of the world?

And yeah, we can conduct Lasix-free racing in the U.S. if need be. That was talked about in the original article. The question is whether or not we want to.Amoss pointed out that some statistics show as many as 90% of horses are bleeders. He said when he was working in New York in the 1980s, Lasix was not permitted, and trainers went to great lengths to simulate the beneficial effect of the anti-bleeder medication. “It had everybody up there looking for the Holy Grail,” Amoss said. “In an effort to simulate what Lasix does, they were spending $200 where it would cost $15 for a shot of Lasix. If we got to where there was no race-day Lasix, the only ones who benefit are the vets.” “We could get away with not having Lasix, but it’s much better with it,” said Hess, whose stable is based in Southern California.Hopefully people will begin to understand that banning Lasix is not going to solve any EIPH problem in the thoroughbred breed. All it would do is take away one beneficial option in the treatment of it.

.

[pandy]

Let's not forget that only Canada and US have lasix. Harness racing and thoroughbred racing does fine, better in many cases, without lasix in Europe, South Africa, Australia, etc.

[Steve R]

Just wondering if Man o' War, Citation, Kelso, Secretariat, Forego, Seattle Slew, Affirmed, Spectacular Bid, etc, etc ever ran on Lasix.

[pandy]

Many of us remember the days when we had 8 to 12 horse fields in almost every race and no lasix. I have to think that the bleeding problem is over stated.

[RXB]

And maybe you can get over your fixation with "EPO and other PED's" and concentrate on Lasix itself, which the South Africa study concluded was indeed beneficial in the treatment of EIPH.

Glad to see you are concerned about the "poor horse", especially since it is reported that the majority of which will suffer episodes of EIPH, which can be treated with Lasix. Why you want to take this potentially beneficial treatment away from the horses is a little bit confusing, given your concern for them.

And maybe the next formal study that is done by an international team can be testing the various home remedies and techniques (withdrawing water) used to mimic the effects of Lasix versus an actual $15 shot of Lasix in the treatment of EIPH in racing thoroughbreds. I think I have an idea of how that study might go, do you?

Or are you one of those who believes EIPH doesn't exist in the rest of the world?

And yeah, we can conduct Lasix-free racing in the U.S. if need be. That was talked about in the original article. The question is whether or not we want to.Hopefully people will begin to understand that banning Lasix is not going to solve any EIPH problem in the thoroughbred breed. All it would do is take away one beneficial option in the treatment of it.


Believe what you will. I'm not going to agree with you on this subject.

[PaceAdvantage]

Just wondering if Man o' War, Citation, Kelso, Secretariat, Forego, Seattle Slew, Affirmed, Spectacular Bid, etc, etc ever ran on Lasix.Are you that naive to believe all those champions you list ran on nothing but oats, hay and water? That would shock me, especially among horses who raced in the 1970s, when steroids in competitive sports were starting to hit their stride (check out the history of synthetic steroids and what year they were banned by the International Olympic Committee).

[turninforhome10]

EPO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erythropoietin) is a link to Wiki. Basically EPO tricks the bone marrow into thinking that the patient is anemic threeby creating a greater red cell volume. In humans it is great for cancer patients and anemia of chronic disease but our red cells are alot different than horses. Theirs are smaller and more numerous and while we use our entire red cell volume all the time a horse only uses 30% at rest with the rest being stored in the spleen. When a horse is pushed into a stress or that requires more oxygen it pushes more red cells out of the spleen. So it makes sense that if you have a normal healthy animal and give them EPO and then at race time give Lasix you get sludge. Another problem is testing for EPO. It is a hormone so it takes a different methodology than a drug and these test are expensive. A way around this would be to do post race hematocrits (spin down blood and measure red cell volume) and create acceptable limits just like CO2
I watched in New York in the late 90s and early 00 a trainer who seemed to using EPO, the horse would be claimed, given 30 to 45 days (EPO works over time not immediate as the bone marrow must make the red cells). Then the horse would run back and run Beyers 20-30 points higher than before, mostly because they would not stop because of the extra oxygen. This would work for 2-3 races untill the horse suffered kidney damage from pushing the sluudge. Watched one drop at the wire after probably dying at the 1/16th pole its Beyers were in the 60s before claim and 90s after ward. Roughly 60% of those horse that showed such great form reversal ran 2-5 times and then never ran again.
I feel that anyone caught using EPO should automatically be banned forever. Using a drug to enhance performance is different than using the horses own body. The physiological changes from EPO are very drastic and could ruin or kill the horse completely.
The way I was trained is that a horse is born with all the attributes for racing that they need and it is up to the trainer to bring those qualities out.

[pandy]

I agree that anyone who gets caught using EPO should be banned for life.

[Gallop58]

Some comments:

That SA study has always bugged me. It was a very weak study. I emailed the authors and never got an answer to the most interesting thing, which would have been to publish the horses performance (by placings, time, whatever) I suspect they are sitting on data that says, lasix is more performance enhancing than just bleeding prevention. Any of the commentary you can dig up will have you find authors dancing around many of the real practical issues involved.

Regarding bloodlines, the globe is virtually saturated with Northern Dancer. The Euros known that NA horses can run anywhere in the world. I don't think there is a problem that wouldn't get fixed quickly with a few stallions dropping out if we went Lasix free.

Lung is like any other tissue, it strengthens and improves with proper stress and recovery. It does however not heal well. Once you bust alveoli they don't repair or at least not very well. So short to long training used here in NA will always have a higher risk of "wastage" if you throw 1/8ths at top speed at them. I think the trainers would have to earn their pay. Smog, heat, particulate, etc. may be an issue, but I don't think the answer is to allow drug use.

I don't think most horsepeople are smart enough to use lasix as an effective masker. Everyone talks about it's use as a mask agent, but until I read something by someone who's purposely had a horse pass a test with lasix and fail without, I'll assume the use for this is limited. That's giving marginally employable people (were they in almost any other walk of life) too much credit.

For those that say "It's for the horses welfare, don't you get it?" I say, the world has changed. The argument that worked in the 70's doesn't fly anymore. It's like smoking. If it weren't legal already, you'd never be able to start doing it now. The state to state control of drug "laws" in racing is what started the race to the bottom, and until you address this, Lasix can't be gotten rid of. If they can hold things together like they did for steroids, maybe there's a chance.

I will again call for my practical solution: Mandate disproportionate purses to non-lasix condition races. Let people follow the money. Skew the market and let the market decide.

It seems to me that a jurisdiction should get brave and create a state bred condition for Lasix free, and create a "premium" product.

[RXB]

Gallop58, I agree with much of your post except the bit about horsepeople not being smart enough to use lasix as a masking agent. Vets are well schooled in biochemistry and pharmacology. Most are reasonably ethical, but some aren't.

Trainers don't have to work out the protocols; they just have to follow them, as human athletes do.

[Gallop58]

Fair enough. To be honest I guess I was/am naiive on this point, because I was surprised to learn that non-comission vets did the lasix shots in New York (I think that just changed?). Here in Ont, the Lasix tream comes around which seems a reasonable and cheap control. If people are intent on cheating, I suppose the only answer is a low/no threshhold test. (Issues related to threshholds are a good problem to have compared to throwing up your hands and not checking for anything) IMO.

[RXB]

Yes, in NY they changed the rules-- last year, I think?-- so that only the commission vets can administer pre-race Lasix.

[Gallop58]

When testing, they can and do look for whether lasix was used to dilute urine. Again, I would still like some proof or explanation how one could say get away with drug use by diluting urine (via Lasix) if the various tests that specifically look for this are used. See link . (Of course if someone has figured it out they won't post it here, but using lasix to mask has got to be one of the lowest hanging fruits in the biz and the drug testing guys surely have figured out 99% of the ways around it) Again, maybe I'm naiive.


https://secure.vlsstore.com/Media/PublicationsArticle/VTX_04_04_350.pdf

[5k-claim]

That SA study has always bugged me. It was a very weak study. I emailed the authors and never got an answer to the most interesting thing, which would have been to publish the horses performance (by placings, time, whatever) So you feel the study was "weak" because the authors would not email you performance results? Really? That was not even the point of the study.

For those that say "It's for the horses welfare, don't you get it?" I say, the world has changed. The argument that worked in the 70's doesn't fly anymore.And yet, that was the reason for the study in the first place. Carried out in 2009. The conclusions are what they are.

I will again call for my practical solution: Mandate disproportionate purses to non-lasix condition races. Let people follow the money. Skew the market and let the market decide. Now this, I like. I actually like this idea of letting people follow the money for other things, as well. If the money got slanted towards longer races, for older horses, who run drug-free then I do think things could change for the better over time.

But for right now, we currently have an effective medication for a common ailment in the form of Lasix. It is the horse standing in the barn (and running on the track) right now that needs as many options available to it as possible to keep it healthy.

Put the purse money on the kinds of races you want the breed to represent, and give the market time to move in that direction. It makes sense to me.

.

[cj]

Many of us remember the days when we had 8 to 12 horse fields in almost every race and no lasix. I have to think that the bleeding problem is over stated.

We have a winner. Of course it is not only overstated, it is being abused.

[Gallop58]

So you feel the study was "weak" because the authors would not email you performance results? Really? That was not even the point of the study.... .....But for right now, we currently have an effective medication for a common ailment in the form of Lasix. It is the horse standing in the barn (and running on the track) right now that needs as many options available to it as possible to keep it healthy..

No I do not think it was weak because they don't like me. As an aside they did answer my questions, just not the one about performance correlation (Why do you think that was?). I think it was weak in terms of usefulness to the racing community. (Which is how it is being trumpetted) For a study like this where a whole racing community got on board, one would have thought you'd collect alot of other data and just look for interesting stuff, not just select your particular angle. I mean really, what's the problem, publish the time and position of each horse. How hard is that?

I think you have touched on one of the issues with lasix and drugs, where people on the 'net have the luxury (or dellusion) of looking at things in the big picture, whereas horsemen are looking at the inmates in their stalls in real time and say "What the hell are you talking about, 80% of the backstretch would have to be retired, this is nonsense". So yes, I recognize there would be a transition issue so you don't just cut people and horses off at the knees.

Personally, I believe trainers should have zero, no, nada say in the drug rules. They should train within the rules provided. I would reframe your statement to reflect what I think most horsepeople are really worried about: "It is the horse standing in the barn (and running on the track) right now that needs as many options available SO I CAN KEEP IT RUNNING " (Not putting words in your mouth, but I hope you see my point). If the horse's welfare is foremost, then surely he should be retired to munch hay?

[5k-claim]

I mean really, what's the problem, publish the time and position of each horse. How hard is that?I think they felt as if a larger study would be necessary to narrow down Lasix as the single factor in increased racing performance versus all potential other factors. So instead of providing just enough data (which they collected) to have everyone run off with it, they just focussed on the study at hand. And yes, I think the effect of Lasix on EIPH was the actual focus. That said, I think you and I would probably make the exact same guess as to what the performance data they did collect would lead one to conclude if made available.

So yes, I recognize there would be a transition issue so you don't just cut people and horses off at the knees. Again, I agree entirely. I don't mind a transition period. As a matter of fact, if we woke up tomorrow and there was no such thing as EIPH in the breed, and therefore no need for Lasix then I would be perfectly happy... on two fronts. One, it would save $15 on race day, and also it would mean one less physical thing to worry about going wrong with the horse. Not that there still wouldn't be 1,000 other ways for it to go haywire. I am one of those guys you mentioned (don't worry, I didn't take offense) that is not really smart enough to try and cheat the drugs on my own- and certainly don't have the pull to talk any vet into sticking his neck out for me.... I would much prefer no EIPH and no Lasix. But for now, those two things are connected in my mind. That is just the way it is.

I would reframe your statement to reflect what I think most horsepeople are really worried about: "It is the horse standing in the barn (and running on the track) right now that needs as many options available SO I CAN KEEP IT RUNNING " (Not putting words in your mouth, but I hope you see my point). If the horse's welfare is foremost, then surely he should be retired to munch hay? That's not unfair. Yes, "so I can keep it running" is a goal. Of course. And having options available to make that as healthy as possible is part of that. Otherwise, people would have even fewer starts per horse to complain about. Part of my involvement in this thread is that I feel there is a big difference between Lasix use and the pain masking drugs and repeated joint injections. But that's just my opinion.

Also keep in mind that apparently lots of people are taking a decidedly "out of sight, out of mind" approach to EIPH. Meaning that if they don't see any blood actually dripping from the nostril, then they don't think there is any problem. So yeah, you can "keep it running" for a while and not see outward signs of bleeding. But that doesn't mean the horse isn't suffering from EIPH, or that Lasix could not help alleviate it. It just means that we can raise the flag of "Drug Free Racing!" and all salute ourselves as long as there is no blood dripping on the ground. Those are the people who are sort of pissing me off at the moment.

.

[FenceBored]

The Breeders’ Cup endorsed in principle the recently announced suggestion by two Association of Racing Commissioners International officials to eliminate the use of race-day medications in North American racing.

...

Ludt said that implementing the change this year is possible, but may be too difficult to accomplish by then.
-- http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20110414/SPORTS/304140078/1008/NEWS01/Breeders-cup-moves-closer-banning-race-day-meds

[RXB]

Also keep in mind that apparently lots of people are taking a decidedly "out of sight, out of mind" approach to EIPH. Meaning that if they don't see any blood actually dripping from the nostril, then they don't think there is any problem. So yeah, you can "keep it running" for a while and not see outward signs of bleeding. But that doesn't mean the horse isn't suffering from EIPH, or that Lasix could not help alleviate it. It just means that we can raise the flag of "Drug Free Racing!" and all salute ourselves as long as there is no blood dripping on the ground. Those are the people who are sort of pissing me off at the moment.


You seem to be waving your own flag, "Blood Free Racing!" while taking an out-of-sight, out-of-mind approach to the negative aspects of Lasix use. So yeah, you can "keep it running" for a while and not see outward signs of renal impairment, dehydration, electrolyte imbalance, etc. But that doesn't mean that the horse isn't suffering from these, or that the removal of Lasix could not help alleviate them.

You'll also find that life passes much more pleasantly if you don't get pissed off at other people for merely holding an opinion that is contrary to yours.

[Gallop58]

Geez, it seems everyone all of a sudden wants Lasix to go away!

So by my count, AAEP, HBPA and about 80% of horsepeople are opposed to killing Lasix.

I like this statement in one of the AAEP web documents:

"The equine veterinary profession needs to lead the way in resolving this conflict if it is to avoid being put on the defensive when it advocates furosemide’s continued use."

[5k-claim]

You seem to be waving your own flag, "Blood Free Racing!" while taking an out-of-sight, out-of-mind approach to the negative aspects of Lasix use. So yeah, you can "keep it running" for a while and not see outward signs of renal impairment, dehydration, electrolyte imbalance, etc. But that doesn't mean that the horse isn't suffering from these, or that the removal of Lasix could not help alleviate them.

You'll also find that life passes much more pleasantly if you don't get pissed off at other people for merely holding an opinion that is contrary to yours.You're right, RXB, I have never once weighed the side effects of a race-day diuretic versus the potential benefits of race-day Lasix for individual horses.... except maybe back in post #18. If you think this is a decision made lightly, you are flat wrong.

I am not pissed that people have contrary opinions to mine. Unless they all add up to enough "conventional wisdom" floating around space that real life options end up getting taken away from me in regards to treating my own living, breathing horses. So yeah, that does piss me off.

If all of your horses are EIPH-free then good for you. Seriously. I hope that we can all be there one day. The healthier the breed, the better.

.

[Gallop58]

5K- Regarding the ability of purse distribution to rejig the use of Lasix, what would be the practical issues or what would make a trainer want to try to stay off Lasix?

For one thing, I can imagine all maiden specials being no-lasix. You need Lasix, you must run maiden claim. What effect would that really have in the real world?

I thought about creating a purse tax wherein a non-lasix horse gets 125% of the normal purse allotment for their finish position and all the non-lasix horses get taxed that amount. ie. if a non-lasix horse finished first you'd get 75% of the purse vs the normal 60% had you been the only runner off Lasix. 25% of the total goes to the rest vs the normal 40%. (change the % to any optimal number)

I asked the Woodbine racing sec one day if he could write a race for non-lasix. I think coffee came out his nose when he laughed....

[5k-claim]

I thought about creating a purse tax wherein a non-lasix horse gets 125% of the normal purse allotment....

I don't know, Gallop58. I haven't thought too much about it beyond just, "Hey that sounds like a pretty good idea." :-)

Maybe it won't matter if Fencepost's link (#58) means the entire "transition period" towards drug-free is going to be a really accelerated one...

I guess I wouldn't have thought for all maiden special races to initially be drug-free, just enough of them to make such runners (and their stallions) a little more valuable moving forward with the breed because they would have more options. Same with stakes races. I was thinking an entire drug-free race with simply a higher purse and normal distribution- not sure I am wild about that 75% to the winner and 25% divided up for everyone else (people gotta eat!).

Even if they flip a switch and just go drug-free altogether sometime in the coming years, racing will go on. It is just that while right now around the world people are either administering Lasix (like here) or trying to mimic it (elsewhere), we will just join the rest of the world in trying to simulate it. It's not like EIPH is also flipping a switch. I need to think fast and develop a special "5k's Anti-bleeding powder!" before the switch-over.

As for the real world effect- maybe not as much as we might suppose. Clearly more horses are on Lasix than truly "need it" because the rate of use is too high. But on the other hand, given the high percentage of horses who are expected to suffer episodes of EIPH (of whatever severity) at some point in their careers- I think there are horses currently benefiting from the Lasix even though it is being given "just in case" or just to not run at a disadvantage to the other horses. I would guess that those horses will now have undiagnosed cases of EIPH- or misjudged as some other kind of breathing problem. Or their performances will suffer and just be chalked up to a bad day, or bad ride, or didn't like the surface, or whatever. Not many people go to the trouble and expense of a post-race scope unless something really inexplicable happens. So a percentage of EIPH cases that don't actually make their way to the unmistakable bleeding from the nostrils will kind of get diluted into that gray, mushy area of "didn't run well for some reason".

This will be a brave new world for handicappers as well as horsemen, I would think.

.

[Steve R]

Are you that naive to believe all those champions you list ran on nothing but oats, hay and water? That would shock me, especially among horses who raced in the 1970s, when steroids in competitive sports were starting to hit their stride (check out the history of synthetic steroids and what year they were banned by the International Olympic Committee).
My comment was only about Lasix, not steroids or any other medication, so your question to me is rather bizarre. But since you mentioned the banning of steroids, let's ban the other drugs that enable horses which are unfit to race. Drugging horses is for the amusement and profit of human beings only, not for the welfare of the horse.

[turninforhome10]

I am having problems with this thread. Are we trying to ban lasix to make it better for horseplayers or better for the horse. I agree that Lasix is overused. I have taken horses of lasix after a claim and shown pretty good results. I believe that the steps to qualify a horse for lasix is the problem. I feel that unless a state commision vet scopes the horse and sees blood the horse should not be on lasix. But I have also seen vets draw blood from the horse and inject it into the trachea so the horse would scope bloody. I am sorry to say here that you guys are pissing up a rope. Would you give a huiman insulin on the suspected premise that they are diabetic or would try and diagnose the diabetes. Unless a horse is diagnosed with EIPH than they should not get lasix. And if they are diagnosed by proper means than they should carry that label just as a sale horse carries the cribber label. Are we to assume that 90% of those horse running suffer from EIPH. It is just to bad that the new iron horse TACKLEBERRY is a gelding. No drugs at all and hope he kicks their butts at CT today.

[5k-claim]

And if they are diagnosed by proper means than they should carry that label just as a sale horse carries the cribber label.I think that is fine. Give the percentage of horses that never needed it an advantage in the breeding industry, moving forward. Sounds great.

I am not a breeder, and never have been. So the healthier the breed the better as far as I am concerned. Makes for less troubles to have to deal with during their racing careers.

Banning Lasix in a sweeping "completely drug-free" policy makes a ton of sense from a Public Relations standpoint. And as perception is reality, it makes a ton of sense from an economic standpoint as well if sales are being affected by it. It is not hard to understand the reality of that.

And certainly horsemen shot themselves in the foot with this one with overuse (definitely more formal and regulated procedures on identifying at least one EIPH episode- please hope that it was moderate or minor- before being allowed to take it would have been alright) and also abuse (those who used it to cheat with- however many that was). Anyone who wants to say that horsemen "did it to themselves" will not get too vigorous a debate from me.

But in the end, we had an effective treatment (Lasix) for a known issue (EIPH). Putting my blinkers on, and only looking at my own horses and not everything else swirling around the issue, I will say that I was glad it was an available option.

Hopefully people can also understand that.

.