Kentucky Committee votes to phase out Lasix

[DerbyTrail]

Originally Posted by Grits

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.thoroughbredracingradione...d=25&Itemid=41

[Jeff P]

Originally Posted by Grits

http://www.drf.com/news/lasix-oppone...ntinue-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_3...it?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]

Originally Posted by DerbyTrail

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.thoroughbredracingradione...d=25&Itemid=41

Thanks 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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

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..."

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

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]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[FenceBored]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

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]

Originally Posted by Jeff P

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.