Is the Drug Bill about the destroy the business of Horse Racing?

[comet52]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

A side component of this whole debate which nobody has mentioned is the pharmaceutical industry. Is Lasix along with all the other race day medications a big enough revenue source for them that they will lobby hard against this bill.

If so, that could be a game changer. They have one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington D.C.

Winner winner chicken dinner...

[the little guy]

Originally Posted by Cannon shell

LOL! three words...Juan Carlos Guerrero...

Think KY red was his big secret?

No, silly, he rubs his cheek on their legs.

[Cannon shell]

Originally Posted by saratoga guy

Why do you think a ban on race-day medication will prove to be such a panacea that it will somehow increase field size???

It's certainly not going to change the economy. It won't change the decrease in the foal population.

Are you hypothesizing that trainers and owners will flock to a "clean" jurisdiction? That's forgetting history. New York allowed Lasix because - as the last holdout - neighboring states were taking horses away.

And when NYRA took a pro-active anti-cheat stance with their detention barn - it certainly didn't have horsemen flocking there.

And pro-ban people keep pointing to Europe and Asia as the model -- and they seem to imply that racing is much healthier elsewhere. In fact, many of the global racing jurisdictions are fighting the same problems we are vis-a-vis declining popularity of the sport -- regardless of their drug policies.

Stop making sense, some of the wild theories are funny.

[Cannon shell]

Originally Posted by the little guy

No, silly, he rubs his cheek on their legs.

I've tried this with strippers and never saw similar results

[classhandicapper]

The only thing that's going to satisfy me is:

1. No race day medication at all and no training/racing while a previously administered and approved drug/procedure could still be having a positive impact or pain masking impact on the horse

2. Approved veterinary procedures/drugs permissible to treat injured, sick, etc... horses while being removed from training

IMO that's the only way to keep the integrity of the sport, ensure that only sound horses that can withstand the rigors of racing win the most prestigious events and go on to breeding careers, and to treat the animals with dignity and respect.

[5k-claim]

Originally Posted by cj

This is my biggest problem with lasix. Nearly every horse these days debuts with lasix. So, while it may have a purpose, it is being abused by trainers. Either that, or it does in fact enhance performance.

One impact on the "debut" figure is the fact that in my home state, Kentucky, entering on Lasix in your first race is the logistically (paperwork) easiest thing to do. There is no paperwork whatsoever, from anyone. You just say "yes" over the phone when the racing office asks you about Lasix when you enter the horse for that first start. It is the the path of least (paperwork) resistance in the horse's entire career.

I have had many conversations with vets about Lasix. It isn't the no-brainer that people may think it is. There are side effects, obviously. Ultimately I look at the numbers (from all over the world) about the high percentage of runners who will develop some form of EIPH during their career and note the 2009 international study that showed the efficacy of Lasix in trying to deal with it. Those are weighed against the side effects.

I don't know that I would personally consider that "abusing" Lasix.

It is a thought process not unlike the one that leads me to giving things to try and soothe or prevent ulcers. There is such a very high number likely to develop them, it is just something that is always on my mind and default list to try and alleviate.

I think that something that was able to target EIPH more precisely than a general diuretic (and its side effects) would be a WONDERFUL thing... and I think more trainers would switch to it than what you might think. Heck, I will go one further: give me that and I wouldn't even care if it was widely known as an unmasking agent for other drugs, making them easier to detect.

Illegal drugs are not even on my radar.

.

[cj]

Originally Posted by 5k-claim

One impact on the "debut" figure is the fact that in my home state, Kentucky, entering on Lasix in your first race is the logistically (paperwork) easiest thing to do. There is no paperwork whatsoever, from anyone. You just say "yes" over the phone when the racing office asks you about Lasix when you enter the horse for that first start. It is the the path of least (paperwork) resistance in the horse's entire career.

I have had many conversations with vets about Lasix. It isn't the no-brainer that people may think it is. There are side effects, obviously. Ultimately I look at the numbers (from all over the world) about the high percentage of runners who will develop some form of EIPH during their career and note the 2009 international study that showed the efficacy of Lasix in trying to deal with it. Those are weighed against the side effects.

I don't know that I would personally consider that "abusing" Lasix.

It is a thought process not unlike the one that leads me to giving things to try and soothe or prevent ulcers. There is such a very high number likely to develop them, it is just something that is always on my mind and default list to try and alleviate.

I think that something that was able to target EIPH more precisely than a general diuretic (and its side effects) would be a WONDERFUL thing... and I think more trainers would switch to it than what you might think. Heck, I will go one further: give me that and I wouldn't even care if it was widely known as an unmasking agent for other drugs, making them easier to detect.

Illegal drugs are not even on my radar.

.

To me, giving drugs to an animal when we don't even know if it needs them is abuse, especially when there are side effects. The "preventive" argument makes no sense until the horse has shown it needs preventing. I personally feel it does enhance performance. It is really impossible to prove/disprove given all the variables involved, but why does everyone pay for something they might not need if they don't think it gives the horse an edge?

[5k-claim]

Originally Posted by cj

To me, giving drugs to an animal when we don't even know if it needs them is abuse, especially when there are side effects. The "preventive" argument makes no sense until the horse has shown it needs preventing.

Yep. I understand that. And that is an opinion that virtually everyone starts out with. After you have personally proceeded over a few full-blown bleeding episodes, however, things get a little "grayer" from then on with other horses. Especially after you look at the stats and weigh that against waiting for a full-blown episode. It still doesn't end up so black-and-white. Like I said, a great alternative in the treatment of EIPH will be very welcomed.

Originally Posted by cj

I personally feel it does enhance performance. It is really impossible to prove/disprove given all the variables involved, but why does everyone pay for something they might not need if they don't think it gives the horse an edge?

There are many well-respected (even on this board!) trainers and owners who run their horses on Lasix. See "Animal Kingdom" for an example. I guess you could ask each trainer individually what performance enhancement (beyond trying to stave off bleeding) they feel they are getting. Depending on the horse, I don't even think the weight loss is necessarily that fantastic. Some horses are light enough as it is.

The treatment of a potential episode of EIPH is the chief "performance enhancement" that I personally attribute to Lasix. Again, the numbers for such are high. Even worldwide.

.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by cj

To me, giving drugs to an animal when we don't even know if it needs them is abuse, especially when there are side effects. The "preventive" argument makes no sense until the horse has shown it needs preventing. I personally feel it does enhance performance. It is really impossible to prove/disprove given all the variables involved, but why does everyone pay for something they might not need if they don't think it gives the horse an edge?

That's a very valid question...IMO.

After all - in the "outside" world - it is rather uncommon to administer powerful drugs strictly for "preventive" purposes...to animals and humans alike.

[saratoga guy]

Originally Posted by cj

To me, giving drugs to an animal when we don't even know if it needs them is abuse, especially when there are side effects. The "preventive" argument makes no sense until the horse has shown it needs preventing.

Originally Posted by thaskalos

After all - in the "outside" world - it is rather uncommon to administer powerful drugs strictly for "preventive" purposes...to animals and humans alike.

OK - what about vaccines? They're given to virtually every kid. They have side effects that are potentially life-threatening. And they're purely preventative.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by saratoga guy

OK - what about vaccines? They're given to virtually every kid. They have side effects that are potentially life-threatening. And they're purely preventative.

I am not a horseman, and I certainly don't presume to know as much about the day-to-day care of these wonderful animals as some of the trainers here...

I therefore offer the following quote...made by someone who knows considerably more than I do about the subject at hand:


"Today, over 99 percent of thoroughbred racehorses and 70 percent of standardbred racehorses have a needle stuck in them four hours before a race.

This just does not pass the smell test with the public, or anyone else...except for the horse trainers who think it necessary to win a race."

-- William Koester, the new Chairman of the Association of Racing Commissioners International...which represents racing jurisdictions across the United States and Canada.


He made this comment about three months ago...

[saratoga guy]

"It is likely that racing jurisdictions will reconsider their [anti-Lasix] position ... The challenge will now be for countries such as Australia, England, Hong Kong and South Africa that do not currently permit race-day use of furosemide, to balance the animal-welfare aspect of being able to prevent or reduce the condition against the imperatives for drug-free racing."

-- Statement from the veterinarians and researchers who authored the 2009 study that deemed Lasix effective in reducing bleeding in to the lungs.

These guys thought their study made such a strong case for the effectiveness of Lasix in preventing bleeding that anti-Lasix countries might change their policies and allow it - for the welfare of the horse!

As I said in the first post I made in this thread - I tend towards wanting to go back to hay, oats and water, but I would like the decision to do so to be well-thought out. So we know it's the right thing to do and the decision is being made for the right reasons.

The racing industry has not proven itself to be particularly effective at countering negative PR - and, as Steve Crist implied in his article, the timing of some announcements from the racing community supporting a med ban came probably not so coincidentally shortly before the proposed federal legislation was announced. In other words - racing was making a preemptive gesture. Again, instead of effectively answering the negative perceptions.

The ARCI chair says, "This just does not pass the smell test with the public..." rather than taking the time to point that public to the comprehensive study that validates Lasix as being beneficial to the welfare of horses.

I'd just rather these decisions were made based on the science, as opposed to a knee-jerk reaction to the negative perceptions of people who simply might not know any better.

[pandy]

I haven't read all the posts but it seems as if there are people on here who think that lasix is a good thing. Let's not forget that lasix was initially approved to be used for bleeders but now it's used on virtually every horse in every race. Obviously this is abusive and not what was intended. The best thing would be a 100% ban because there is too much doping in the sport and you have to start somewhere. We got by without lasix for years and the sport flourished and they don't use lasix anywhere else except U.S. and Canada.

[Exacta Bob]

Originally Posted by Cannon shell

Sorry to make it so long. I've got to go down to the horse crack den we call stables and shoot 'em up now. See you later.

I took this as a tip and went to the windows. Thank you.

http://www.equibase.com/static/chart...060611USA2.pdf

[Exacta Bob]

Banning medications does not get rid of the cheaters. Ban all you want, the cheaters will still cheat.

I don't need, or want, any more government in my life.