Kentucky Committee votes to phase out Lasix

[Grits]

http://www.drf.com/news/kentucky-committee-votes-phase-out-lasix

[duncan04]

Did not pass as committee was deadlocked 7-7.

[Grits]

Report from later voting of afternoon meeting.

http://www.drf.com/news/lasix-ban-fails-kentucky-commission

EDIT to add: Well, this isn't going well or showing up right. The link, that is--instead of "fails-kentucky" its coming up....... f...ucky commission. :faint:

[Greyfox]

Banning lasix is going to be very tough on horses who are bleeders.
I can't see many trainers going along with that idea, especially on hot summer days.

[cj]

Banning lasix is going to be very tough on horses who are bleeders.
I can't see many trainers going along with that idea, especially on hot summer days.

The rule would have started with horses that haven't raced yet. Others would be grandfathered.

[PaceAdvantage]

EDIT to add: Well, this isn't going well or showing up right. The link, that is--instead of "fails-kentucky" its coming up....... f...ucky commission. :faint:It works just fine...the message board automatically shrinks long links to save space, but the link will work as advertised.

[duncan04]

The only way a lasix ban would work is if it were a national thing. An individual state or states would be the death of the sport in the state that banned it IMO.

[Robert Goren]

The only way a lasix ban would work is if it were a national thing. An individual state or states would be the death of the sport in the state that banned it IMO.As it stands right now, the higher class horses racing in Kentucky would go NY or CA and the cheap ones would end up in IN or OH. This Lasix cat is going to be very difficult to get back in the bag. Most trainers seem to be in love lasix and are simply going to move where they can use it.

[FenceBored]

I'm wondering if the AGSC didn't help push this. Their proposed phased in Lasix ban can't work if every major state doesn't go along with it, but if one major state goes along (or even gets ahead of them) they think they can arm-twist the others.

From the Feb. article on the suspension of implementation of the Graded Stakes race-day medication ban:
“Due to the nature of the various entities involved in implementation of rules governing racing, the policy has taken longer to implement than the committee hoped when the announcement regarding the ban was made in August 2011,” said Dr. J. David Richardson, chairman of the AGSC, in the statement. “Over the past six months, through the leadership of the American Graded Stakes Committee and others in the industry, a great deal of valuable discussion has occurred regarding the important issue of medication administered to racehorses.
Read more: http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/67648/agsc-postpones-race-day-medication-ban#ixzz1sInLtAqR

[Grits]

http://www.thoroughbredracingradionetwork.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=25&Itemid=41&mosmsg=Item+successfully+saved

Dale Romans addresses lasix debate and his involvement in yesterday's meeting, on air with Steve Byk.

[FenceBored]

Just spotted this gem:

Travis said that if the rule were to be adopted, he wouldn’t buy yearlings this September at Keeneland because they couldn’t race in Kentucky on furosemide.
-- http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20120416/BUSINESS/304160038/Anti-bleeding-drug-ban-thoroughbred-racing-fails
I hope he was saying that he wouldn't be buying more horses, period.

If he was really saying that he just wouldn't buy yearlings in Kentucky (because he thinks that all the yearlings at Keeneland Sept. are KY bred, and/or can only be raced in Kentucky) then ...

[Grits]

http://www.drf.com/news/lasix-opponents-will-continue-efforts

Matt Hegarty writes further on proceedings.

[tholl]

Comment from someone on the DRF site: Not a bad idea.

Quote:

lasix is a performance enhancing drug, so why arent the horses without lasix being treated fairly. the racing secretary should make every race a level playing field. horses not using lasix should carry less weight, anywhere from 5 to 8 pounds less. does anyone bet maiden horses without lasix as much as they do lasix users ? no. the racing secretary is suppose to be a good handicapper. so why do performance enhancing drug users get an advantage ?

[Robert Goren]

A lot of people suspect that lasix is being used as masking agent for other drugs. That is the real problem with the drug. It may be being used used by cheaters to cover their tracks. I have no real proof one way or the other, but that is the way some people feel. This sport has a problem with its image and Lasix is part of that problem. It should deal with the lasix perception one way or the other for the good of the sport, but it probably won't or can't.

[tholl]

Think that the vote would have gone for phasing out Lasix if Kentucky was in a more stable situation racing wise.

http://blogs.courier-journal.com/racing/2012/04/15/want-to-see-a-bloody-corpse-kentucky-racing-without-race-day-lasix/

[DerbyTrail]

Dale Romans addresses lasix debate and his involvement in yesterday's meeting, on air with Steve Byk.

This link takes you more directly to Romans' segment and people should hear it if they are interested in why the majority of horsemen feel the way they do about the situation. He was succinct and passionate regarding what transpired Monday and what the anti-raceday med crowd is all about.

http://www.thoroughbredracingradionetwork.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=25&Itemid=41

[Jeff P]

http://www.drf.com/news/lasix-opponents-will-continue-efforts

Matt Hegarty writes further on proceedings.

Quote from the linked to DRF article posted by Grits:
As a result, the failure in Kentucky has cast doubt on whether supporters can effect changes in medication policy at the state level, and it has generated renewed calls from supporters of medication reform for a push to get federal legislation passed. Two federal legislators, Sen. Tom Udall of New Mexico and Rep. Ed Whitfield of Kentucky, have called for support for a bill that would ban raceday medications, but that bill also would put all regulation of racing under the federal government, a prospect that many supporters of reform find unwieldy.

I've read the text of the bill. Here's a link to the US House of Representatives version of it for those who are interested:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1_3Fv7jLDXtNDdhZDQwMDEtZWM1Ny00ZTAzLWJjYTMtZDI1O DM1OGIwNmYz/edit?hl=en&pli=1

Here are my comments for what they are worth:

The bill amends the Interstate Horse Racing Act to eliminate use of all race day meds. (No phase out period.) Use of race day meds is classified as use of performance enhancing drugs. The bill establishes penalties using a three strikes and you're out system.

Rightly or wrongly, racing likely may not even have a say in the matter.

I see this bill as a potential slam dunk. No, not based on support from the racing industry (which is largely opposed to the idea) - but rather from the perceptions of a public at large who sees drugs in racing in a way that runs in the exact opposite direction of what North American racing currently allows.

The public at large no longer tolerates performance enhancing drugs in human athletes in any sport at any level. For my money, no one in racing will ever be able to convince the public at large to tolerate (or support with their betting dollars) drugs in horse racing.

Player surveys that we've conducted at HANA suggest that just over 70% of all horseplayers are in favor of eliminating race day meds in North America while 30% are in favor of continuing current policy. Those numbers are based on surveys of bettors who enjoy an active and healthy interest in horses, horse racing, and horse race betting.

The problem I see here is this:

As you move further and further away from people who are actively interested in racing, what are the numbers then? I am talking about the public at large, the hundreds of millions of people in the US (and Canada) who have little to no interest in horse racing at all.

Allow me to make an educated guess:

If I were a betting man... - Wait, I am a betting man... - I would put support for continued use of race day meds in horse racing from the public at large at close to 0%.

In my opinion, any member of Congress or the Senate who votes against this bill is taking a very big risk... I liken it to purposely stepping in front of an oncoming freight train and hoping it will somehow stop in time.

A vote against this bill is very likely a vote for an idea that 99% of your constituents are horrified by: Performance enhancing drugging of equine athletes who lack the simple ability to say no.



-jp

.

[5k-claim]

This link takes you more directly to Romans' segment and people should hear it if they are interested in why the majority of horsemen feel the way they do about the situation. He was succinct and passionate regarding what transpired Monday and what the anti-raceday med crowd is all about.

http://www.thoroughbredracingradionetwork.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=25&Itemid=41Thanks so much for this link to the Romans interview. Although he will tell you that he was only representing himself in that interview, the fact is that he represented so many others in the trainer community as well, and did a marvelous job of it.

.

[PaceAdvantage]

A lot of people suspect that lasix is being used as masking agent for other drugs. That is the real problem with the drug. It may be being used used by cheaters to cover their tracks. I have no real proof one way or the other, but that is the way some people feel.Who are these people exactly? Anyone with any credentials on the subject? Vets? Enforcement agents? Test lab clinicians?

Who are these experts who are saying Lasix is being used as a masking agent? Maybe that was the case years and years ago...but I find it very hard to believe that with today's testing labs, and with the fact that Lasix is administered a few hours before post time, that it can be used to "mask" anything.

But I defer to you to show me who exactly is saying this and what is their background and expertise that allows them to say so with authority...the floor is yours...

[turninforhome10]

I understand the need for cleaning up the drug problem in the industry.
My question is that you have a whole population of thoroughbreds who have a strong possiblity of carrying EIPH genetically. Instead of outlawing Lasix why don't they just outlaw bleeders. We have found a drug that has shown a propensity for reducing EIPH, used for it for years and now we are going to eliminate it because of "masking".
Throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Think we have short fields now.

We have done this to ourselves by breeding inferior animals and now we are gonna punish them by taking away a drug that reduces a problem that we have bred into them.

And if I read section 10 of the bill right, can we sue for civil damages if we are wronged by a doped horse 2 months later after the test came back bad and the ticket is long since thrown away?

[Robert Goren]

Who are these people exactly? Anyone with any credentials on the subject? Vets? Enforcement agents? Test lab clinicians?

Who are these experts who are saying Lasix is being used as a masking agent? Maybe that was the case years and years ago...but I find it very hard to believe that with today's testing labs, and with the fact that Lasix is administered a few hours before post time, that it can be used to "mask" anything.

But I defer to you to show me who exactly is saying this and what is their background and expertise that allows them to say so with authority...the floor is yours... Bettors like myself. I never said we are right. That doesn't matter. It is up to the industry to convince us that it is not being used in that way. Do you work in the industry? If you do, you going to have to do better job of convincing us. In this era of super trainers, most bettors are really skeptical that today's testing labs can find performance enhancing drugs. If the industry wants people like me to bet our money then they have stop asking us what are credentials are and start trying to convince us that we are wrong. I guess since the industry is getting slot money, the industry which use to be indifferent and condescending to us bettors has turn to being down right hostile toward us. Your post reflects that hostility. If we don't tow the industry line on things like drugs, you just calls us fools and buffoons and hope we will change our minds. Some industry lap dog in the next few posts will try insinuate that I don't even bet the horses which isn't true. I am very small bettor and never claimed to anything else. If you go to a simulcast center, you find the place is full of bettors just like me. A lot of them of the concerns that I have. But since we don't send a million dollars each through the windows, the industry will not address our concerns or if they do, they gives us flack about them and ask us "What makes us such experts?"

[stuball]

Racing has done this to themselves by acting like they are an elite society
that has their own set of rules. The powers in racing are famous for inactivity
when it comes to facing the problems..infighting weakens the whole industry..
One possible solution as I see it is to run separate bleeders and non bleeders
by race conditions...if your horse needs lasix he can only run in races with the
conditions that allow lasix or no lasix...non lasix users could run in races for no lasix condition races for better purses...I know some are going to say IMPOSSIBLE.
a lasix horse could move back into non lasix conditions by running say 2 races
without lasix...they would then qualify for non lasix races...simple
Just a thought cause I heard the interview by Romans about leveling the playing field...everyone is afraid someone else has an edge on them...I invite response
to this idea as I am no expert but sometimes you don't have to be to see
common sense solutions..am I the only one to see this..???

Stuball ;)

[PaceAdvantage]

Why do people around here have such a hard time admitting they are posting just to see themselves type?

What the hell does any of what you wrote have to do with me? Once again,I asked a very simple question that has gone unanswered and deflected.

And instead of sticking to the topic of lasix as a masking agent, you go off into super trainer land and the ability of labs to find PE drugs...

Please, please just address the question asked...life would be so much simpler...

Or make it very simple and say "I have absolutely nothing with which to back up my words..."

Bettors like myself. I never said we are right. That doesn't matter. It is up to the industry to convince us that it is not being used in that way. Do you work in the industry? If you do, you going to have to do better job of convincing us. In this era of super trainers, most bettors are really skeptical that today's testing labs can find performance enhancing drugs. If the industry wants people like me to bet our money then they have stop asking us what are credentials are and start trying to convince us that we are wrong. I guess since the industry is getting slot money, the industry which use to be indifferent and condescending to us bettors has turn to being down right hostile toward us. Your post reflects that hostility. If we don't tow the industry line on things like drugs, you just calls us fools and buffoons and hope we will change our minds. Some industry lap dog in the next few posts will try insinuate that I don't even bet the horses which isn't true. I am very small bettor and never claimed to anything else. If you go to a simulcast center, you find the place is full of bettors just like me. A lot of them of the concerns that I have. But since we don't send a million dollars each through the windows, the industry will not address our concerns or if they do, they gives us flack about them and ask us "What makes us such experts?"

[cj]

Who are these people exactly? Anyone with any credentials on the subject? Vets? Enforcement agents? Test lab clinicians?

Who are these experts who are saying Lasix is being used as a masking agent? Maybe that was the case years and years ago...but I find it very hard to believe that with today's testing labs, and with the fact that Lasix is administered a few hours before post time, that it can be used to "mask" anything.

But I defer to you to show me who exactly is saying this and what is their background and expertise that allows them to say so with authority...the floor is yours...

The World Anti-Doping Agency, for one.

[turninforhome10]

If we use the same logic that eliminating drugs ie threraputic drugs such as lasix to improve the industries bottom line and make us a better product. Then if we eliminate Insulin for humans we could get more reasonable health care rates and the health care industry would make more money by decreasing the number of diabetics. It just makes no sense. Everyone in the industry should listen to what Romans has to say. Romans said it perfectly.

[cj]

Here is the problem I have with Lasix. It opened the flood gates for drug use. It was never intended to be a preventative medicine for non-bleeders. It was legalized to help KNOWN bleeders. Trainers bitched and moaned about the rules until they were changed to the point that about 99% of all horses running in this country get it. I find that abusive.

I also happen to think it is a performance enhancer. It gives those on it an edge. They run faster than they do without it, even non-bleeders. Euro shippers that don't get it perform horribly in comparison to those Euro shippers that do get it. First time starters that don't get Lasix are also dreadful bets in relation to first time starters that do get Lasix.

It has been some time since we were able to really see horses with a baseline of performances get Lasix because Lasix use is so prevalent now. However, I still have the book "Champions" floating around here and you can find many examples of horses that added Lasix off of wins or very good races, and the Beyer numbers, almost without fail, improve 3 lengths or more with the addition of the drug.

[cj]

If we use the same logic that eliminating drugs ie threraputic drugs such as lasix to improve the industries bottom line and make us a better product. Then if we eliminate Insulin for humans we could get more reasonable health care rates and the health care industry would make more money by decreasing the number of diabetics. It just makes no sense. Everyone in the industry should listen to what Romans has to say. Romans said it perfectly.

Just as not all humans need insulin, not all horses need Lasix...but they get it anyway. I wonder why.

[FenceBored]

If we use the same logic that eliminating drugs ie threraputic drugs such as lasix to improve the industries bottom line and make us a better product. Then if we eliminate Insulin for humans we could get more reasonable health care rates and the health care industry would make more money by decreasing the number of diabetics. It just makes no sense. Everyone in the industry should listen to what Romans has to say. Romans said it perfectly.

There are horses who would benefit from 'a little something' to prevent them from getting too nervous and washing out in the paddock. There was a time when it was considered unremarkable that they were given that something. Just a little preventative to help them run to their potential and reduce the risk of them injuring themselves or others (sound familiar?). That's not allowed anymore. Now, these horses are expected to either struggle with the problem or aren't raced because it's too much of an issue.

All in all, is the banning of raceday stimulants/sedatives a good thing or bad thing?

[Jeff P]

Who are these people exactly? Anyone with any credentials on the subject? Vets? Enforcement agents? Test lab clinicians?

Who are these experts who are saying Lasix is being used as a masking agent? Maybe that was the case years and years ago...but I find it very hard to believe that with today's testing labs, and with the fact that Lasix is administered a few hours before post time, that it can be used to "mask" anything.

But I defer to you to show me who exactly is saying this and what is their background and expertise that allows them to say so with authority...the floor is yours...

If I may...

Last June HANA was asked by the Jockey Club to support their initiative to phase out race day meds.

We didn't want to just jump on the bandwagon without due diligence. One of the people we spoke with was the Director of Sports Medicine at St. Johns University. Their Department has an impeccable reputation and has been actively sought out for their expertise by the NCAA and the US Olympic Committee to help develop testing protocols for banned substances in human athletes.

Some the things I learned from speaking with him:

• Lasix is a diuretic. It has the unique side effect of flushing large amounts of fluid (water) from the bodies of mammals.

• When testing labs test for banned substances introduced into a body, they do not test for traces of the banned substance itself. Instead they test threshold levels for metabolites which are created by the body in reaction to the banned substance that is being tested for.

We had the following conversation:

Me: "Does lasix behave as a masking agent?"

Him: "Yes. Because lasix is a diuretic, when water is flushed from the body, metabolites in the body that we test for are carried away by the flushed water. This effect can and does cause metabolite levels being tested for in an athlete to come in at levels far lower than what would otherwise be the case had lasix not been introduced.

Lasix absolutely behaves as a masking agent."


-jp

.

[turninforhome10]

If I may...

Last June HANA was asked by the Jockey Club to support their initiative to phase out race day meds.

We didn't want to just jump on the bandwagon without due diligence. One of the people we spoke with was the Director of Sports Medicine at St. Johns University. Their Department has an impeccable reputation and has been actively sought out for their expertise by the NCAA and the US Olympic Committee to help develop testing protocols for banned substances in human athletes.

Some the things I learned from speaking with him:

• Lasix is a diuretic. It has the unique side effect of flushing large amounts of fluid (water) from the bodies of mammals.

• When testing labs test for banned substances introduced into a body, they do not test for traces of the banned substance itself. Instead they test threshold levels for metabolites which are created by the body in reaction to the banned substance that is being tested for.

We had the following conversation:

Me: "Does lasix behave as a masking agent?"

Him: "Yes. Because lasix is a diuretic, when water is flushed from the body, metabolites in the body that we test for are carried away by the flushed water. This effect can and does cause metabolite levels being tested for in an athlete to come in at levels far lower than what would otherwise be the case had lasix not been introduced.

Lasix absolutely behaves as a masking agent."
-jp

.


So does large amounts of water and any diuretic. When testing we first look at PH to look for adulterants, then Specific Gravity, the amount of solute in solvent. how many solids in the solution. Water is 1.000. In human testing we reject specimens that have a ph out of range 5.0-8.0 and specific gravity less than 1.005 as being suspect to adulterant. Been doing drug testing for 15 years as a Med Tech. Why not reject specimens as suspect if they fall in these catergories.
A reject as supect is the same as positive in humans.

About the cutoffs.
In humans we have a 500 ng\ml cutoff by using EIA or Enzyme Immuno Assay. If that is positive we send out for confirmation by Gas Spec. Nothing hides from gas spec but it is expensive.

My point is this, it is not the racing that is needing change it is the folks making the policies.

[Wiley]

A big point I get out of Roman's comment is economics, $20 shot to keep a horse running as opposed to time off and $500 clean up vet bill from bleeders.

Don't horses still bleed through Lasix though? I thought that used to be the case but maybe with virtually every horse in training and racing getting Lasix from the time they are babies they never find out who the bleeders are. Wasn't there also a bleeders list? I cannot say I have seen a note in the PP's about a horse bleeding in many years. Off the top of my head, I remember Demons Begone bleeding in the Derby years ago and am guessing he was on Lasix at the time.

I like the idea of conditioning the races for Lasix and non Lasix types then how about only allowing the non Lasix horses to breed, might help eliminate what we have now in the US.

[Charli125]

So does large amounts of water and any diuretic.
True, but the fact remains that Lasix is a powerful diuretic, and does mask drug use by clearing the body of the metabolites that process drugs.

When testing we first look at PH to look for adulterants, then Specific Gravity, the amount of solute in solvent. how many solids in the solution. Water is 1.000. In human testing we reject specimens that have a ph out of range 5.0-8.0 and specific gravity less than 1.005 as being suspect to adulterant. Been doing drug testing for 15 years as a Med Tech. Why not reject specimens as suspect if they fall in these catergories.
I think that's a great point. I know that when I was drug tested by the NCAA, we had all sorts of rules about how hydrated we had to be, what we could/couldn't ingest in the time before testing, etc. This was 15 years ago and the sport was wrestling so it's not like it was some high-profile sport like Football.

My point is this, it is not the racing that is needing change it is the folks making the policies.
I think you're exactly right that the people making the policy's aren't doing a good job. Unfortunately, since they haven't done their jobs for so long, it's eventually going to be taken out of their hands and the policies are going to be made by congressmen.

[turninforhome10]

Just as not all humans need insulin, not all horses need Lasix...but they get it anyway. I wonder why.

Cj of all the points that have ever been made in this forum, this is one of the best.
I agree in spades. Don't know how many times, I have seen trainers use Lasix without any hint of bleeding. Lasix does one thing in alot of horses, it calms them down and takes the edge off. Qualifying for Lasix varies greatly in the venues I have raced in. In Iowa you actually had to report to the detention barn and be scoped by a state vet when the incident occured. At Penn, your vet signs off. I would imagine if you look hard enough you would find jurisdictions that would be used to get bleeder certicates easier than others.

I claimed a filly one time, cheap type at Penn. Gave her 60 days at my farm to get all the crap out of her and work on some vices that she had.
Everything was going great and on the day of the race, we gave her 5 of lasix and within 15 mins, she probably lost 5-7 lbs of water weight within 30 mins she was visually cramping and biting at her sides within the hour she turned into an idiot, cramps and just not a happy girl. Ran like crap as I would have scratched but my partner (who I dropped shortly thereafter) wanted to run. She was really shitty in the gates. Well my thought was that she sucked up like a prune first problem and she was shitty in the gate second problem. Gave her thirty days off, ponied the shit out of her and ran her without Lasix.
My theory was that the Lasix was dehydrating her as she was barely 15.3 and weighed 900 lbs soaking wet. She was bad at the gate because she hated being touched around her backend anyway and with the cramps she was at bitch thirty for attitude.
Won 2 out of five without the Lasix, and found her a good home after her ankle got too bad. She makes polo ponies now.
Getting a horse on Lasix has become part of the training regimen much as a gate card. If a horse is a bleeder than their should be physical proof by a state vet. Can't even get a vet to scope a horse at Penn after Lasix time.
Will this create Bleeder and no bleeder jurisdictions?

[5k-claim]

Last June HANA was asked by the Jockey Club to support their initiative to phase out race day meds. Interesting.

We didn't want to just jump on the bandwagon without due diligence. One of the people we spoke with was the Director of Sports Medicine at St. Johns University....So who exactly were the active trainers and vets (of actual racehorses) that you spoke with? What were their responses?

And in this particular question I am just asking about the trainers and vets that HANA interviewed in depth- there can be another question featuring sportswriters, bloggers, fans, handicappers, politicians, internet poll takers, etc.

.

[cj]

Interesting.

So who exactly were the active trainers and vets (of actual racehorses) that you spoke with? What were their responses?

And in this particular question I am just asking about the trainers and vets that HANA interviewed in depth- there can be another question featuring sportswriters, bloggers, fans, handicappers, politicians, internet poll takers, etc.

.

Why ask people that you know are biased and what the answer will be? I don't recall trainers being experts in the field of drug testing, do you?

[5k-claim]

Why ask people that you know are biased and what the answer will be? I don't recall trainers being experts in the field of drug testing, do you?I would assume that falling somewhere under the banner of "due diligence" would be interviews with those who have the experience and expertise to actually be hired to care for the health and well-being of these animals every single day of their lives. Wouldn't you?

And you are right about trainers not being experts about drug testing. Heck, I didn't even know that Lasix was that effective of a masking agent in the blood samples- which is what we give more of.

.

[cj]

I would assume that falling somewhere under the banner of "due diligence" would be interviews with those who have the experience and expertise to actually be hired to care for the health and well-being of these animals every single day of their lives. Wouldn't you?

And you are right about trainers not being experts about drug testing. Heck, I didn't even know that Lasix was that effective of a masking agent in the blood samples- which is what we give more of.

.

I can't speak for HANA, maybe they did interview trainers. I personally wouldn't because the view of that collective as a whole is widely known. Even it wasn't, it can be deduced by the fact the virtually every horse that runs in North America gets it these days.

[Charli125]

So who exactly were the active trainers and vets (of actual racehorses) that you spoke with? What were their responses?

I'm not going to name names because that's not appropriate without their permission, but I can tell you that we had 2 conversations with a well known and well respected vet.

A vet of "actual race horses" by the way.

You can paint our various thoughts on the issue as biased if you wish, but we've spoken with both sides, listened, asked questions, and made our individual opinions on the matter(we don't all agree by the way). Those individual opinions don't have any bearing on what Jeff posted. What he posted were facts.

[riskman]

How common is EIPH in thoroughbred racehorses ?Does anyone have any figures on the % of racehorses that bleed reducing their performance ? Do most racehorses bleed and what is the cause? As you can see, I am confused here if it is common that racehorses bleed.

[PaceAdvantage]

If I may...

Last June HANA was asked by the Jockey Club to support their initiative to phase out race day meds.

We didn't want to just jump on the bandwagon without due diligence. One of the people we spoke with was the Director of Sports Medicine at St. Johns University. Their Department has an impeccable reputation and has been actively sought out for their expertise by the NCAA and the US Olympic Committee to help develop testing protocols for banned substances in human athletes.

Some the things I learned from speaking with him:

• Lasix is a diuretic. It has the unique side effect of flushing large amounts of fluid (water) from the bodies of mammals.

• When testing labs test for banned substances introduced into a body, they do not test for traces of the banned substance itself. Instead they test threshold levels for metabolites which are created by the body in reaction to the banned substance that is being tested for.

We had the following conversation:

Me: "Does lasix behave as a masking agent?"

Him: "Yes. Because lasix is a diuretic, when water is flushed from the body, metabolites in the body that we test for are carried away by the flushed water. This effect can and does cause metabolite levels being tested for in an athlete to come in at levels far lower than what would otherwise be the case had lasix not been introduced.

Lasix absolutely behaves as a masking agent."


-jp

.Ahhhh....a reply with some meat on the bones...how refreshing.

Goren...take note of how it's done.

[Robert Goren]

Ahhhh....a reply with some meat on the bones...how refreshing.

Goren...take note of how it's done.Please take note too that sometimes when us dumb bettors smell something rotten, we are right. Even if we are wrong, the industry needs to listen to us because we keep them in business. Maybe you think the industry can do away with bettors like me and just run on slot money alone and a few whales. I am nothing more than a small bettor and never claimed to be anything else. If I for some reason start thinking Lasix is a masking agent then up to the industry to prove otherwise if they value my business. That what successful business do, alleviate the concerns of their customers whether they are founded or not. Nobody ever kept a customer by telling them that they are fools for expressing their concerns. But seems like that is what the racing industry is trying to do these days.

[FenceBored]

CJ, aren't you a present or former runner? Maybe you should have been using Lasix.

We report on a healthy 26-year-old male who had an exercise-induced pulmonary hemorrhage (EIPH) within 24 hours of running a marathon. .... EIPH in humans may occur without any evidence on clinical presentation; its incidence may be far greater than currently suspected.
-- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17086462
Of course, it's not just runners, it's sax players, too.
Playing saxophone induced diffuse alveolar hemorrhage: a case report (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19565318)
Yeah, that's just one case, but how often do they scope the entire woodwind section after band practice?

[turninforhome10]

How common is EIPH in thoroughbred racehorses ?Does anyone have any figures on the % of racehorses that bleed reducing their performance ? Do most racehorses bleed and what is the cause? As you can see, I am confused here if it is common that racehorses bleed.

See links
http://www.equinehospital.net/EIPH.htm
http://www.harnesstracks.com/pdf_documents/RDMS%20Robinson%20EIPH.pdf

[PaceAdvantage]

Please take note that I have never, and that means not one time have I ever berated you for how little you bet or if you even bet at all...in fact,I have never done this to anyone here...so I don't know where you got that chip on your shoulder with me.

Please take note too that sometimes when us dumb bettors smell something rotten, we are right. Even if we are wrong, the industry needs to listen to us because we keep them in business. Maybe you think the industry can do away with bettors like me and just run on slot money alone and a few whales. I am nothing more than a small bettor and never claimed to be anything else. If I for some reason start thinking Lasix is a masking agent then up to the industry to prove otherwise if they value my business. That what successful business do, alleviate the concerns of their customers whether they are founded or not. Nobody ever kept a customer by telling them that they are fools for expressing their concerns. But seems like that is what the racing industry is trying to do these days.

[foregoforever]

CJ, aren't you a present or former runner? Maybe you should have been using Lasix.

I'm an avid bicycler, and I think it's pretty safe to say that no doctor has ever recommended taking a diuretic prior to exercise. On the contrary, you need to hydrate yourself beforehand and drink plenty of water during the exercise.

I experienced some mild dehydration just this past weekend. I underestimated my talent for sweating and didn't take enough water. Johnny V's description of Life at Ten applied pretty well to me, and I was still feeling fatigued the next day.

A study I read found that horses given Lasix lose, on average, about 25 pounds of water (about 3 gallons!) shortly after getting the shot. Then we send them out on very warm days to run. Does this make sense? Would we even consider doing this for a human?

I don't doubt that Lasix helps to prevent EIPH, but that amount of fluid loss prior to a race has to have side effects. It's also clear that other jurisdictions around the world have figured out how to manage EIPH without resorting to Lasix. We need to do the same.

[riskman]

See links
http://www.equinehospital.net/EIPH.htm
http://www.harnesstracks.com/pdf_documents/RDMS%20Robinson%20EIPH.pdf

Thanks for the links tfh10. It was very informative and certainly cleared up some misconceptions I may have had.

[5k-claim]

I'm not going to name names because that's not appropriate without their permission, but I can tell you that we had 2 conversations with a well known and well respected vet.

A vet of "actual race horses" by the way. What did the well known and well respected vet say in the interview?

You can paint our various thoughts on the issue as biased if you wish, but we've spoken with both sides, listened, asked questions, and made our individual opinions on the matter(we don't all agree by the way). Those individual opinions don't have any bearing on what Jeff posted. What he posted were facts. I do not doubt that they are general facts.

* Did he have any opinions on the effectiveness of Lasix in the treatment of EIPH in racehorses?

* Or how good Lasix is at masking drugs in the blood samples that we are giving?

.

[Charli125]

What did the well known and well respected vet say in the interview?

* Did he have any opinions on the effectiveness of Lasix in the treatment of EIPH in racehorses?

* Or how good Lasix is at masking drugs in the blood samples that we are giving?

Easy answers to both of those.

He thought that Lasix was the best legal way to treat EIPH in racehorses.

He didn't think Lasix masked drug use.

Personally, I choose to accept the opinion of a world renowned drug tester over that of a very experienced, and long time, vet. Vet's are experts at treating horses. Drug testers are experts at testing for drugs. While I certainly wouldn't hire the drug testers to take care of my horse, I trust them in their area of expertise.

I don't accept that in the other jurisdictions where they run Lasix free they are using alternative methods(more harmful to the horses methods) to treat EIPH. If it turns out that the trainers in those jurisdictions aren't giving their horses water for the day or two before they race, and other things to dehydrate them, then it'll turn out that I'm very very wrong.

By the way, I don't doubt the integrity of the vet we spoke with. I trust that he believes what he says as he's a very stand-up guy who is very anti drugs and cheating. I just think he isn't an expert when it comes to these types of things.

[5k-claim]

See links
http://www.equinehospital.net/EIPH.htm
http://www.harnesstracks.com/pdf_documents/RDMS%20Robinson%20EIPH.pdfThanks for these links. The first link sums up my own use of Lasix in a few quotes:

EIPH occurs world-wide in more than 80% of Thoroughbred and Standardbred racehorses...

...studies have shown that blood in the airways sets off an inflammatory reaction which leads to the formation of scar tissue.... EIPH can therefore be seen as a progressive disease that gradually affects more and more lung tissue, hence the condition worsens with training and age.

There is no treatment for EIPH; the disease can only be managed.... Presently only one drug is routinely used – Frusemide is a diuretic; it acts to increase water loss in urine and so decrease the blood volume and blood pressure. There is reasonable evidence that Frusemide treatment before training decreases the severity of haemorrhage, and as such limits the progressive damage. I worry about plenty of things on my horses in addition to EIPH, such as ulcer issues and joint deterioration to name two big ones. And hoof problems.

I do what I can for all of those things. And more. One horse at a time.

.

[5k-claim]

Easy answers to both of those.

He thought that Lasix was the best legal way to treat EIPH in racehorses.

He didn't think Lasix masked drug use.

Personally, I choose to accept the opinion of a world renowned drug tester over that of a very experienced, and long time, vet. Vet's are experts at treating horses. OK, let me stop you right there.... do you see what you just wrote?

Drug testers are experts at testing for drugs. I guess I will ask again, and mostly since I do not know the answer. Is there a difference between Lasix's ability to mask drugs in blood samples versus urine samples? I ask because we give more blood samples than urine.

I don't accept that in the other jurisdictions where they run Lasix free... Other jurisdictions have withdrawal times published for Lasix use, showing that they can train on it. The BHA site lists the withdrawal time as 2 days, meaning that to be safe you should probably stop training on it at 3 days out. "Running Lasix free" means on raceday... three days after being able to use it in training.

By the way, I don't doubt the integrity of the vet we spoke with. I trust that he believes what he says as he's a very stand-up guy who is very anti drugs and cheating. I just think he isn't an expert when it comes to these types of things. What things, again?

.

[Charli125]

OK, let me stop you right there.... do you see what you just wrote?

I guess I will ask again, and mostly since I do not know the answer. Is there a difference between Lasix's ability to mask drugs in blood samples versus urine samples? I ask because we give more blood samples than urine.

Other jurisdictions have withdrawal times published for Lasix use, showing that they can train on it. The BHA site lists the withdrawal time as 2 days, meaning that to be safe you should probably stop training on it at 3 days out. "Running Lasix free" means on raceday... three days after being able to use it in training.

What things, again?

.

I don't get your confusion. Yes, I read what I wrote. I explained why I chose the opinion of a drug tester over that of a vet quite clearly and I think my logic is sound. I'm not trying to be argumentative here, I'm simply explaining my position.

Yes, there is a difference between blood and urine testing. Yes, Lasix helps mask drugs for both tests. Getting rid of the liquids in your body also gets rid of the liquids in your blood. When you hydrate and then flush the liquids from your body, you cleans your body(blood and urine) of pollutants.


Other jurisdictions have withdrawal times published for Lasix use, showing that they can train on it. The BHA site lists the withdrawal time as 2 days, meaning that to be safe you should probably stop training on it at 3 days out. "Running Lasix free" means on raceday... three days after being able to use it in training.

I'm aware of this. What does it have to do with Lasix being a masking agent?

[Charli125]

What things, again?


And to respond to this sarcastic question. DRUG TESTING.

[5k-claim]

And to respond to this sarcastic question. DRUG TESTING.Fair enough.

I guess I don't really care very much about the "human" aspects of this issue, such as: humans cheating and successfully masking other drugs with Lasix despite our testing, humans liking the phrase "drug free" in advertisements, humans perceiving Lasix as something evil for some reason, etc.

I simply have horses standing in front of me that I am responsible for. I do what I can to help them, largely on the advice of vets. (Imagine that.)

I will just have to live with whatever human politics come down the pike on this one.

.

[Charli125]

Fair enough.
I guess I don't really care very much about the "human" aspects of this issue, such as: humans cheating and successfully masking other drugs with Lasix despite our testing, humans liking the phrase "drug free" in advertisements, humans perceiving Lasix as something evil for some reason, etc.

I simply have horses standing in front of me that I am responsible for. I do what I can to help them, largely on the advice of vets. (Imagine that.

It's not that I don't care about the horses and I apologize if that's how I came across. The simple fact is that if people aren't betting, then there aren't any purses, and the 5K claimers have no value to most owners. If it's possible in other jurisdictions, then I believe, it's possible in ours. If our athletes need drugs to compete then they shouldn't be competing.

I view Lasix as a crutch, much like slot subsidized purses, that shouldn't be needed.

I will just have to live with whatever human politics come down the pike on this one.
We all will. I just wish we as an industry would've made the changes needed to breed horses that don't need drugs to race. We didn't though, and now the decision is going to be taken out of our hands.

[5k-claim]

It's not that I don't care about the horses and I apologize if that's how I came across. You did not come across that way at all. You seem like a good guy, and I have no problem believing that you care about the horses.

As a matter of fact, I think lots of people have their hearts in the right place on this issue. (Not all of them, there is most definitely a political component at work here, as well...)

But from my vantage point people, even with their hearts in the right place, have identified the wrong 'suspect' here. It's like an episode of 20/20 or something like that where eyewitnesses at the scene of a crime identify some guy who then gets sent to prison and it is not until years later that surveillance video surfaces showing that the guy sent to prison was just an innocent bystander all along. And then everyone says, "Wow... how did that happen."

The current drug policy in Kentucky, for one example, that allows the use of Lasix is that guy. It is not the problem.

But the tide is pretty strong on this one.

.

[PaceAdvantage]

Yes, there is a difference between blood and urine testing. Yes, Lasix helps mask drugs for both tests. Getting rid of the liquids in your body also gets rid of the liquids in your blood. When you hydrate and then flush the liquids from your body, you cleans your body(blood and urine) of pollutants.
Doesn't this then also have the effect of diluting or possibly also eliminating whatever "illegal" medication has been given along side the "masking agent" Lasix?

So how much of the "illegal" medication is left in the horse's system such that his performance benefits from the illegal meds while at the SAME TIME, these illegal meds are GONE from the system by the time blood and urine is drawn post-race?

[nijinski]

Easy answers to both of those.

He thought that Lasix was the best legal way to treat EIPH in racehorses.

He didn't think Lasix masked drug use.

Personally, I choose to accept the opinion of a world renowned drug tester over that of a very experienced, and long time, vet. Vet's are experts at treating horses. Drug testers are experts at testing for drugs. While I certainly wouldn't hire the drug testers to take care of my horse, I trust them in their area of expertise.

I don't accept that in the other jurisdictions where they run Lasix free they are using alternative methods(more harmful to the horses methods) to treat EIPH. If it turns out that the trainers in those jurisdictions aren't giving their horses water for the day or two before they race, and other things to dehydrate them, then it'll turn out that I'm very very wrong.

By the way, I don't doubt the integrity of the vet we spoke with. I trust that he believes what he says as he's a very stand-up guy who is very anti drugs and cheating. I just think he isn't an expert when it comes to these types of things.

I wasn't aware that a drug tester (Lab Tech) knows more about a result than a Vet. It is the Vet that interprets and makes decisions about the results. Not the technician who does the actual testing of blood and urine.

[turninforhome10]

I wasn't aware that a drug tester (Lab Tech) knows more about a result than a Vet. It is the Vet that interprets and makes decisions about the results. Not the technician who does the actual testing of blood and urine.
Vets as well as Docs just care about results. Ask the Vet if he prefers EIA vs Elisa. When they stare blank at ya. You have your answer. Vets don't interpret positives. We, in the lab give them the results after following protocol to get a positive proven by secondary means. A positive is only positive when it is proven by two different methods. What vet are you referring to who will interpret the positive? The Dr in charge of the lab makes the call and gives the results back to the racing commission. The Dr in charge of the lab is probably a pathologist or a phd in chemistry, most likely not a vet. Docs for most part just look at results, most don't care about methodologies unless you are talking about endocrinologists.
These links might help understand how the testing works.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equine_drug_testing
http://www.hbpa.org/HorsemensJournalDisplay.asp?section=3&key1=13586

[turninforhome10]

Doesn't this then also have the effect of diluting or possibly also eliminating whatever "illegal" medication has been given along side the "masking agent" Lasix?
In response to Charli
So how much of the "illegal" medication is left in the horse's system such that his performance benefits from the illegal meds while at the SAME TIME, these illegal meds are GONE from the system by the time blood and urine is drawn post-race?

In response to Charli
Putting a blanket statement over this like saying liquids are cleared is very dangerous and misleading. Some drugs will be retained such as Aspirin which competes at the kidney level for transport with NA++. Have seen people get toxic on certain drugs when the lasix dehydrated them to the point of drug toxicity. It all depends on the mechanism of the drug for clearance.

[cj]

I'm no genius, but this whole proliferation of every horse getting Lasix began because horsemen figured out pretty quickly it was a performance enhancer, even for horses that don't bleed. So, they started doing anything they could to get horses on it so known bleeders wouldn't have an advantage. The rules have been changed so much over the last 20 years that there may as well be no rules now. Just give it to every horse, or give it to none.

[turninforhome10]

Here is my question that seems to be completely ignored by most. Where are the illegal drugs coming from? Most positives are prescription drugs. Where do prescription drugs come from.Vets. So a trainer gets a positive and pays the fine and does his days or whatever. Where did the drugs come from? Is this irrelevant? If the trainers cannot show a prescription from a licensed Vet then should this not be illegal not just on a racing level but on a state or federal level. And what about the Vet that gave the drug?
Vets sell drugs. I can see if a trainer gets his horse a procedure and is not forthright with his Vet about entering in a race and a bad test happens. But, IMHO more needs to be done about weeding out those vets that are selling drugs retail for discretionary use. Trainers are only part of the problem. It is a big game of cat and mouse between the Vets and the Drug Testing agencies to find the next hot drug that goes undetected. How will it end. More expensive testing vs harsher penalties. Pissing up a rope. Until you stop the ease of dispensing it won't stop. If a Vet is moving a large amount of a particular drug that has been flagged as Performance Enhancing and said Vet is working on a Racetrack should this not raise a red flag somewhere?

[nijinski]

Vets as well as Docs just care about results. Ask the Vet if he prefers EIA vs Elisa. When they stare blank at ya. You have your answer. Vets don't interpret positives. We, in the lab give them the results after following protocol to get a positive proven by secondary means. A positive is only positive when it is proven by two different methods. What vet are you referring to who will interpret the positive? The Dr in charge of the lab makes the call and gives the results back to the racing commission. The Dr in charge of the lab is probably a pathologist or a phd in chemistry, most likely not a vet. Docs for most part just look at results, most don't care about methodologies unless you are talking about endocrinologists.
These links might help understand how the testing works.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equine_drug_testing
http://www.hbpa.org/HorsemensJournalDisplay.asp?section=3&key1=13586
I am well aware of secondary means to prove a positive . If a physician or Vet doesn't , that's just wrong. I haven't met any that did not understand testing methods as well as protocols. Sure , they couldn't run the lab or even tell what reagents you use . But they certainly interpret the test for each individual case. Labs , whether chemistry , biology or cytology would not be recieving the specimens in the proper mediums without the doctors proper knowledge and orders. OK now back to Lasix.

[turninforhome10]

I am well aware of secondary means to prove a positive . If a physician or Vet doesn't , that's just wrong. I haven't met any that did not understand testing methods as well as protocols. Sure , they couldn't run the lab or even tell what reagents you use . But they certainly interpret the test for each individual case. Labs , whether chemistry , biology or cytology would not be recieving the specimens in the proper mediums without the doctors proper knowledge and orders. OK now back to Lasix.

It is a pointless argument. Was not trying to knock Docs, just 20 years of being in Lab Medicine as well as racing gives me a little different opinion but that's ok .
Back to Lasix.

[Charli125]

Doesn't this then also have the effect of diluting or possibly also eliminating whatever "illegal" medication has been given along side the "masking agent" Lasix?

So how much of the "illegal" medication is left in the horse's system such that his performance benefits from the illegal meds while at the SAME TIME, these illegal meds are GONE from the system by the time blood and urine is drawn post-race?

That's getting far past my knowledge on the subject.

I have no idea of which illegal meds are being used, how long the effects last after the system is flushed, etc. I'd guess you're probably right to some level.

But, as Jeff pointed out, what is tested for, and flushed, are the metabolites that are a reaction to the drug. If timed right, I would hypothesize that you could give your horse illegal drugs, flush the system of the metabolites, and still have some impact from the drugs. Again, that's purely a hypothesis on my side and I have no facts to back it up.

In response to Charli
Putting a blanket statement over this like saying liquids are cleared is very dangerous and misleading. Some drugs will be retained such as Aspirin which competes at the kidney level for transport with NA++. Have seen people get toxic on certain drugs when the lasix dehydrated them to the point of drug toxicity. It all depends on the mechanism of the drug for clearance.

I'm far from an expert, and I definitely don't know how specific drugs interact with the body. I'm not saying that hydrating and then using lasix cleanses the body of ALL impurities. If that was the case, every athlete using an illegal substance would use it. I just know from our interview with the drug testing expert that it has an end result of lowering the metabolites in the system. Wikipedia says that over 55% of blood is plasma, and 92% of plasma is water. This means that by flushing the water from your system, you are cleansing the blood as well as the urine.

[Charli125]

I wasn't aware that a drug tester (Lab Tech) knows more about a result than a Vet. It is the Vet that interprets and makes decisions about the results. Not the technician who does the actual testing of blood and urine.
I wasn't talking about a lab tech. We spoke with the head of the lab that is recognized as the best in the field. The person in the lab might not even know what they're testing for. They're simply following a procedure. In that case, the vet would likely know just as much. When it comes to the intricacies of masking, interactions between drugs and lasix, etc., I definitely think that most vets aren't as knowledgeable as a drug testing lab.

Just like a drug testing lab wouldn't know the difference between a cannon and a hock, I don't think vets can or should be expected to know the details of drug interactions.

[classhandicapper]

Steve Crist on the issue. (I disagree with practically everything he says here)

http://www.drf.com/news/crist-lasix-practice-what-you-preach

[nijinski]

I wasn't talking about a lab tech. We spoke with the head of the lab that is recognized as the best in the field. The person in the lab might not even know what they're testing for. They're simply following a procedure. In that case, the vet would likely know just as much. When it comes to the intricacies of masking, interactions between drugs and lasix, etc., I definitely think that most vets aren't as knowledgeable as a drug testing lab.

Just like a drug testing lab wouldn't know the difference between a cannon and a hock, I don't think vets can or should be expected to know the details of drug interactions.
I disagree .Vets do not need to know the details of performing the tests in the lab. Vets definately need to know and are expected to know details of drug interactions .

[Charli125]

I disagree .Vets do not need to know the details of performing the tests in the lab. Vets definately need to know and are expected to know details of drug interactions .

Well then, we disagree. If you really think that vets are as knowledgeable when it comes to drug testing as a world renowned drug testing lab, then I don't know what to say. If that's true, then this game is more crooked than I thought.

[nijinski]

Well then, we disagree. If you really think that vets are as knowledgeable when it comes to drug testing as a world renowned drug testing lab, then I don't know what to say. If that's true, then this game is more crooked than I thought.
That's not what you said earlier. You mentioned interactions and I replied that's something the Vet would know.
Basically , I don't believe Lasix masks other meds. Will it change a level
from norm on routine testing. That's a possible concern . But to totally mask a medication would be a major problem for people on therapeutic meds .

[Charli125]

That's not what you said earlier. You mentioned interactions and I replied that's something the Vet would know.
Basically , I don't believe Lasix masks other meds. Will it change a level
from norm on routine testing. That's a possible concern . But to totally mask a medication would be a major problem for people on therapeutic meds .

You're taking me out of context. I was responding to PA's idea that if Lasix cleanses the body of drugs, then do they still have an impact. Drug interactions being what effect Lasix has on illegal drugs in the system.

You believe what you want, but I believe what the drug testing lab has to say.

[classhandicapper]

It seems to me that animals are supposed to be able to run without bleeding. If such a high percentage of race horses are bleeding when they run, IMO that says something about the breed.

Perhaps if we weren't masking bleeding with drugs, the bleeders wouldn't be winning Graded Stakes races and then be given the opportunity to pass their genes on to their offspring. I'm far from a geneticist, but I'd guess we could selectively breed some of this problem out of the industry in a few decades by placing extra value on the ability to win demanding races while running cleanly without bleeding.

I seems to me the breeding industry suffers from the same disorder as many other industries and individuals in the US. It slowly commits suicide by valuing short term thinking over long term thinking.

[turninforhome10]

It seems to me that animals are supposed to be able to run without bleeding. If such a high percentage of race horses are bleeding when they run, IMO that says something about the breed.

Perhaps if we weren't masking bleeding with drugs, the bleeders wouldn't be winning Graded Stakes races and then be given the opportunity to pass their genes on to their offspring. I'm far from a geneticist, but I'd guess we could selectively breed some of this problem out of the industry in a few decades by placing extra value on the ability to win demanding races while running cleanly without bleeding.

I seems to me the breeding industry suffers from the same disorder as many other industries and individuals in the US. It slowly commits suicide by valuing short term thinking over long term thinking.

The fact of the matter towards breeding is that history and greed are the reason we are in this mess. Back in the day a horse named "Bleeding Childers" who was the original bleeder according to records became so sought after after his brother Flying Childers became a famous racehorse. Bleeding Childers never raced due to this condition. This horse is the founder of the Eclipse sire line and nearly all if not all horses go back in tail male to him. So you had a horse a horse who in no way should have ever been allowed to breed but yet the greed of his owners allowed this to happen. Sound familiar?

[Charli125]

The fact of the matter towards breeding is that history and greed are the reason we are in this mess. Back in the day a horse named "Bleeding Childers" who was the original bleeder according to records became so sought after after his brother Flying Childers became a famous racehorse. Bleeding Childers never raced due to this condition. This horse is the founder of the Eclipse sire line and nearly all if not all horses go back in tail male to him. So you had a horse a horse who in no way should have ever been allowed to breed but yet the greed of his owners allowed this to happen. Sound familiar?

I talked to a farm manager at a major breeding operation and he said(off the record) that within 2 generations, he though they could breed out the bleeders but that it would destroy the breeding industry as we know it. I don't know if this is true or not, but it rings true to me.

If it's not true, I would like to hear the breeders explain why it's not possible. I don't blame them because it's their livelihood on the line, but if they were incentivized to breed non-bleeders, I bet it would happen.

[classhandicapper]

I talked to a farm manager at a major breeding operation and he said(off the record) that within 2 generations, he though they could breed out the bleeders but that it would destroy the breeding industry as we know it. I don't know if this is true or not, but it rings true to me.

If it's not true, I would like to hear the breeders explain why it's not possible. I don't blame them because it's their livelihood on the line, but if they were incentivized to breed non-bleeders, I bet it would happen.

If breeders can already statistically identify the sires most likely to produce other bleeders and potentially alter the results with better selections (some big ifs there), the best approach would be to go cold turkey and stop breeding the bleeders.

Unfortunately, I agree, that would cause massive losses.

So instead, they could continue breeding the horses they are breeding now, but going forward all Graded races would have to be lasix free. That would limit the losses now but start weeding out the bleeders going forward. It might take a lot longer to accomplish the task, but it would be a step in the right direction.

Another thing that could be done is keeping stats on bleeders and make them available for horse buyers. Then buyers could see which sires were producing the highest percentage of bleeders, which in turn would reduce the probability of their offspring winning a Grade 1 race cleanly, which in turn would reduce their value as yearlings, which in turn would tend to weed out those sires.

[FenceBored]

If breeders can already statistically identify the sires most likely to produce other bleeders and potentially alter the results with better selections (some big ifs there), the best approach would be to go cold turkey and stop breeding the bleeders.

Unfortunately, I agree, that would cause massive losses.

So instead, they could continue breeding the horses they are breeding now, but going forward all Graded races would have to be lasix free. That would limit the losses now but start weeding out the bleeders going forward. It might take a lot longer to accomplish the task, but it would be a step in the right direction.

Another thing that could be done is keeping stats on bleeders and make them available for horse buyers. Then buyers could see which sires were producing the highest percentage of bleeders, which in turn would reduce the probability of their offspring winning a Grade 1 race cleanly, which in turn would reduce their value as yearlings, which in turn would tend to weed out those sires.

If a single genetic marker were identified and targeted (see HYPP in the QH Impressive line), yeah it could be done (painful but possible). A general multispecies condition where small weak blood vessel linings fail under high pressure, not going to be so easy.

[turninforhome10]

In this years Derby Contenders only one horse in the entire field has made any NA starts without Lasix. Reveron who has run without from the beginning.
Ironically he goes back to Bleeding Childers in tail female.

[Shankapotamus]

A point that I think must be made is in regards to the public's perception on this issue. The level of knowledge posted in the last 6 pages of replies is extremely high, and after reading it all I don't even know where I stand on the subject. How is the public going to view the game when really smart, well informed people can't come to a consensus? There are too many options competing for the gaming dollar to allow horse racing even the shadow of doubt in the public's eye.

In regards to why all horses are running on Lasix, I think it comes down to the same thing with any competitive endeavor. Supposedly, Barry Bonds starting using PED's because he didn't like all the attention Sosa and McGuire were getting in their home run chase. Tour De France competitors are all being outed because they think the other guy has an edge. I believe the vast majority of trainers / owners are good people who care about their horses. But when you're losing (and maybe not used to losing), and you think the other guy is doing something, the urge to level the playing field must be enormous.