Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board

Go Back   Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board > Thoroughbred Horse Racing Discussion > General Racing Discussion


Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 5 votes, 5.00 average.
Old 05-20-2015, 07:18 PM   #16
chadk66
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 5,414
I don't have time to read the article right now but I will. Here is ex-trainer opinion on lasix. First off I'm a bute/lasix only guy. Nothing else should be used. And I believe bute should be used sparingly if not only just prior to racing and maybe a day or so after. It's simply an anti-inflamatory and I can tell you my life would be hell without it. As far as lasix goes here is my belief. I had several horses that were lasix horses that weren't allowed lasix in certain states. they ran just as good with or without lasix. I do not buy lasix being a performance enhancer. It is a drug that allows a horse to run only to his god given ability. It does nothing more. Using lasix on horses that bleed is far more humane than letting them run without it considering they will bleed on occasion. this bleeding is very tough on the horses both physically and mentally. So here where it is very hypocritical to me. The anti-lasix crowd are generally peta type people. in my opinion it is more damaging to a horse that bleeds to run them without it than it is to run them with it. These horses are going to run whether lasix is allowed or not. why on earth would anybody want to put these horses through the process of bleeding when they don't have to. using lasix on race day only now days, considering these horses rarely see the races in three weeks, is really of very little detriment to them as far as recovering from a race. running horses two weeks out in the heart of the summer heat can take a toll. they tend to dehydrate and it's harder to get the fluids back in them. In the fall,winter and spring I don't there there are enough adverse effects from it from race use only to even discuss. but remember one thing, unless this horse pours blood out it's nostrils when it races, it's going to keep racing whether lasix is legal or not. makes no sense to me to put these horses through this when you don't need to.

Aside from these two medications there shouldn't be any other drugs used on race day. I'm totally opposed to banamine. I never could figure out the cavalier attitude on that medication
chadk66 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-20-2015, 11:38 PM   #17
cj
@TimeformUSfigs
 
cj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadk66
I don't have time to read the article right now but I will. Here is ex-trainer opinion on lasix. First off I'm a bute/lasix only guy. Nothing else should be used. And I believe bute should be used sparingly if not only just prior to racing and maybe a day or so after. It's simply an anti-inflamatory and I can tell you my life would be hell without it. As far as lasix goes here is my belief. I had several horses that were lasix horses that weren't allowed lasix in certain states. they ran just as good with or without lasix. I do not buy lasix being a performance enhancer. It is a drug that allows a horse to run only to his god given ability. It does nothing more. Using lasix on horses that bleed is far more humane than letting them run without it considering they will bleed on occasion. this bleeding is very tough on the horses both physically and mentally. So here where it is very hypocritical to me. The anti-lasix crowd are generally peta type people. in my opinion it is more damaging to a horse that bleeds to run them without it than it is to run them with it. These horses are going to run whether lasix is allowed or not. why on earth would anybody want to put these horses through the process of bleeding when they don't have to. using lasix on race day only now days, considering these horses rarely see the races in three weeks, is really of very little detriment to them as far as recovering from a race. running horses two weeks out in the heart of the summer heat can take a toll. they tend to dehydrate and it's harder to get the fluids back in them. In the fall,winter and spring I don't there there are enough adverse effects from it from race use only to even discuss. but remember one thing, unless this horse pours blood out it's nostrils when it races, it's going to keep racing whether lasix is legal or not. makes no sense to me to put these horses through this when you don't need to.

Aside from these two medications there shouldn't be any other drugs used on race day. I'm totally opposed to banamine. I never could figure out the cavalier attitude on that medication
Here is the history of Lasix...

People used it illegally not just to stop bleeding, but to get an edge.

Lasix was legalized to help bleeders. Horses actually had to bleed to get it.

More and more states allowed Lasix. As they did, horses that had it were winning a disproportionate share of the races. So, trainers started finding loopholes to get horses certified as bleeders. It came to a head in the BC Classic one year, all the top finishers (5 or 6?) had the L, the others didn't, no exceptions.

More and more horses were being certified as bleeders. It has finally reached the point where nearly every horse begins its career on drugs. Coincidentally, or not, horses are starting less and less.

I have heard the "allow them to run to their best" argument. I disagree. I've got databases full of data that say otherwise. Horses on Lasix have a distinct advantage over those that do not, and a large percentage of them are not bleeding.
cj is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-21-2015, 12:37 AM   #18
Robert Fischer
clean money
 
Robert Fischer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Maryland
Posts: 23,512
Yes, It's clear that lasix is either a PED or is believed to be a PED and is a PED for all intents and purposes.

Does it help bleeding - that much I don't know, but the consensus seems to be that it helps some of the bleeding.

It also seems to have negative effects as a diuretic.

Beyond these sparse comments, I really don't have accurate insight into lasix, and I shouldn't make definitive comments on lasix, even on a message board.
__________________
Preparation. Discipline. Patience. Decisiveness.
Robert Fischer is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-21-2015, 02:07 AM   #19
Sysonby
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 292
lasix

I think there are a lot of people who have real concerns about the effect of lasix both as a performance enhancer and a drug that causes long-term problems for the horse. There are people who are concerned about the fact that horses at elite levels are running fewer races than they ever did in the past and can't help but look at the fact that the incidence of using lasix is inversely proportional to the number of starts horses make. There is medical and scientific research on the effect of lasix on the horse's system which has been discussed in another thread.

None of these people are members of PETA, which doesn't want horse racing to occur at all. All of these people want to ensure horses aren't being fed something that is not in their long-term interests at the same time as it appears to be implicated in reducing the number of races per year these athletes can run.
Sysonby is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-21-2015, 09:01 AM   #20
chadk66
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 5,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj
Here is the history of Lasix...

People used it illegally not just to stop bleeding, but to get an edge.

Lasix was legalized to help bleeders. Horses actually had to bleed to get it.

More and more states allowed Lasix. As they did, horses that had it were winning a disproportionate share of the races. So, trainers started finding loopholes to get horses certified as bleeders. It came to a head in the BC Classic one year, all the top finishers (5 or 6?) had the L, the others didn't, no exceptions.

More and more horses were being certified as bleeders. It has finally reached the point where nearly every horse begins its career on drugs. Coincidentally, or not, horses are starting less and less.

I have heard the "allow them to run to their best" argument. I disagree. I've got databases full of data that say otherwise. Horses on Lasix have a distinct advantage over those that do not, and a large percentage of them are not bleeding.
you honestly can't understand why horses put on lasix were winning a disproportionate share of races? It's because they were bleeding and the lasix stopped it. It's not that hard to understand. As handicappers you guys should actually applaud the use of lasix because everybody is on the level using it. Especially those that consider or believe it's a PED. You guys complain all the time that handicappers aren't playing on a level field. Now you have one in this regard and your still not happy.
chadk66 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-21-2015, 09:06 AM   #21
chadk66
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 5,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sysonby
I think there are a lot of people who have real concerns about the effect of lasix both as a performance enhancer and a drug that causes long-term problems for the horse. There are people who are concerned about the fact that horses at elite levels are running fewer races than they ever did in the past and can't help but look at the fact that the incidence of using lasix is inversely proportional to the number of starts horses make. There is medical and scientific research on the effect of lasix on the horse's system which has been discussed in another thread.

None of these people are members of PETA, which doesn't want horse racing to occur at all. All of these people want to ensure horses aren't being fed something that is not in their long-term interests at the same time as it appears to be implicated in reducing the number of races per year these athletes can run.
Lasix use on race day only will not harm the horse or cause long-term problems. Nobody uses it on a daily basis. That would be stupid and cost prohibitive. And of no benefit. Horses training in the morning have absolutely no use for it. The fact horses are racing less has little to do with lasix. More to do with a general change in philosophy by owners and trainers. And because it's harder and harder to get horses in races. Most people couldn't get a horse in a race every fourteen days anymore. How many short fields are you seeing now days? Lasix certainly isn't causing that. I claimed a ten year old mare that ran on lasix her whole life. She is as sound as any horse I've seen and gets pregnant when the wind blows.
chadk66 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-21-2015, 09:08 AM   #22
chadk66
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 5,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Fischer
Yes, It's clear that lasix is either a PED or is believed to be a PED and is a PED for all intents and purposes.

Does it help bleeding - that much I don't know, but the consensus seems to be that it helps some of the bleeding.

It also seems to have negative effects as a diuretic.

Beyond these sparse comments, I really don't have accurate insight into lasix, and I shouldn't make definitive comments on lasix, even on a message board.
Clear to who? Lasix isn't going to make any horse run faster than he/she was built to run. And yes it helps bleeding. I don't know how anybody could think it doesn't. A horse has to be an extremely bad bleeder to bleed through lasix. It happens but it's rare.
chadk66 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-21-2015, 09:13 AM   #23
cj
@TimeformUSfigs
 
cj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadk66
you honestly can't understand why horses put on lasix were winning a disproportionate share of races? It's because they were bleeding and the lasix stopped it. It's not that hard to understand. As handicappers you guys should actually applaud the use of lasix because everybody is on the level using it. Especially those that consider or believe it's a PED. You guys complain all the time that handicappers aren't playing on a level field. Now you have one in this regard and your still not happy.
I don't think you get what I mean by disproportionate. If 20% of horses were on Lasix, for example, they were winning 35% of all races. That makes no sense if it isn't helping the horses not only run to potential but faster.

How much weight does a horse lose when it uses Lasix? Pretty sure it is a substantial number. If I lose substantial weight before I run, I'll run faster, even if it is just water weight. But I'll also have a harder time recovering because I was dehydrated.
cj is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-21-2015, 09:15 AM   #24
cj
@TimeformUSfigs
 
cj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadk66
Lasix use on race day only will not harm the horse or cause long-term problems. Nobody uses it on a daily basis. That would be stupid and cost prohibitive. And of no benefit. Horses training in the morning have absolutely no use for it. The fact horses are racing less has little to do with lasix. More to do with a general change in philosophy by owners and trainers. And because it's harder and harder to get horses in races. Most people couldn't get a horse in a race every fourteen days anymore. How many short fields are you seeing now days? Lasix certainly isn't causing that. I claimed a ten year old mare that ran on lasix her whole life. She is as sound as any horse I've seen and gets pregnant when the wind blows.
Can't get in races? Are you following the same sport I am? Races are begging for more horses.
cj is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-21-2015, 09:53 AM   #25
forced89
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 600
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj
Can't get in races? Are you following the same sport I am? Races are begging for more horses.
I find this to be true. I think reason is that Racing Secretaries at many tracks in order to fill races post anywhere from 6 to 10 Extras. This reduces opportunities to plan and point for a specific race.
forced89 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-21-2015, 10:36 AM   #26
HalvOnHorseracing
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Denver
Posts: 4,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj
Can't get in races? Are you following the same sport I am? Races are begging for more horses.
You have to interpret the statistics, but only Australia shows the number of starts per horse per year the same as the U.S. In other jurisdictions that ban Lasix the number of annual starts is lower. Now you can cite other reasons for that, but banning raceday Lasix doesn't necessarily translate into an increased number of starts. Lasix functions as a diuretic and it reduces pulmonary hypertension. The reduction or elimination of bleeding has an obvious performance enhancing effect, much in the same way an anti-inflammatory might. The reduction in weight associated with water loss and the improvement in time is simple physics - you drag around few pounds less and it has a small positive effect on finish time. Same thing they do with cars to increase 0-60 time and gas mileage. As I've said EVERYTHING is performance enhancing. Aspirin. Prilosec. Mucinex. The line I've tried to draw is between a PED that acts like an amphetamine or a steroid and a substance that allows the horse to hit the peak of its actual physiology. So Banamine is performance enhancing because you can run without joint discomfort associated with inflammation, but it doesn't inherently alter the horse's physiology. Another question I ask has to do with humaneness. The studies have shown definitively that 50-70% of horses are bleeders. So it seems humane to treat them. I understand that because of the weight loss component, other horses may take Lasix to gain that edge, but I've not read anything that suggests there is long term deleterious effect on a horse, and it almost certainly doesn't have a genetic impace on the breed. The fact is that you can duplicate the diuretic effect of Lasix by denying food and water 24-48 hours before a race and you can decide if that is as humane as the injection. I've also suggested that banning Lasix can take a significant percentage of horses off the track, probably affecting smaller venues most significantly and definitely adding to the woes of starters per race. In the interest of fairness I've got calls in to two BIG time trainers to get a view from the other side. I think if you are pro or anti it has to be based mostly on the humaneness argument, because if 98% of horses are on Lasix, the performance enhancing argument is moot.
HalvOnHorseracing is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-21-2015, 10:58 AM   #27
cj
@TimeformUSfigs
 
cj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 46,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing
In the interest of fairness I've got calls in to two BIG time trainers to get a view from the other side. I think if you are pro or anti it has to be based mostly on the humaneness argument, because if 98% of horses are on Lasix, the performance enhancing argument is moot.
Horses that don't bleed are still put on it to be competitive with those that do, even if they don't need it. The horsemen have no choice if they want to be on a level playing field. In what world is that considered a good thing?

The preventative argument is a bunch of BS in my opinion. If we have to drug every horse to keep it from EIPH episodes, then we probably shouldn't have horse racing. But since I watch plenty of overseas racing, I know that isn't really the case. Sure, occasionally some bleed. Maybe they shouldn't be racing. But most horses do not need lasix.
cj is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-21-2015, 11:04 AM   #28
chadk66
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 5,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj
I don't think you get what I mean by disproportionate. If 20% of horses were on Lasix, for example, they were winning 35% of all races. That makes no sense if it isn't helping the horses not only run to potential but faster.

How much weight does a horse lose when it uses Lasix? Pretty sure it is a substantial number. If I lose substantial weight before I run, I'll run faster, even if it is just water weight. But I'll also have a harder time recovering because I was dehydrated.
it doesn't make them run faster, that's the point. it just makes them run to their potential because they aren't bleeding. it's not hard to understand. if it was a performance enhancer every human athlete would be on it. horses don't loose substantial weight before racing from lasix. where do you come up with this stuff. A horse might piss three to four gallons from lasix. at even 8lbs that's a trivial amount. I just chuckle at some of the insanity surrounding this.
chadk66 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-21-2015, 11:05 AM   #29
chadk66
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 5,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj
Can't get in races? Are you following the same sport I am? Races are begging for more horses.
do you follow the condition books and extras at race tracks? do you realize they hang from six to ten extras a day at a lot of tracks just trying to fill a card? you guys complain about short fields all the time on here. it's because they can't fill races. I know guys that have to enter five or six times before they get a race to fill.
chadk66 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-21-2015, 11:08 AM   #30
chadk66
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 5,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing
You have to interpret the statistics, but only Australia shows the number of starts per horse per year the same as the U.S. In other jurisdictions that ban Lasix the number of annual starts is lower. Now you can cite other reasons for that, but banning raceday Lasix doesn't necessarily translate into an increased number of starts. Lasix functions as a diuretic and it reduces pulmonary hypertension. The reduction or elimination of bleeding has an obvious performance enhancing effect, much in the same way an anti-inflammatory might. The reduction in weight associated with water loss and the improvement in time is simple physics - you drag around few pounds less and it has a small positive effect on finish time. Same thing they do with cars to increase 0-60 time and gas mileage. As I've said EVERYTHING is performance enhancing. Aspirin. Prilosec. Mucinex. The line I've tried to draw is between a PED that acts like an amphetamine or a steroid and a substance that allows the horse to hit the peak of its actual physiology. So Banamine is performance enhancing because you can run without joint discomfort associated with inflammation, but it doesn't inherently alter the horse's physiology. Another question I ask has to do with humaneness. The studies have shown definitively that 50-70% of horses are bleeders. So it seems humane to treat them. I understand that because of the weight loss component, other horses may take Lasix to gain that edge, but I've not read anything that suggests there is long term deleterious effect on a horse, and it almost certainly doesn't have a genetic impace on the breed. The fact is that you can duplicate the diuretic effect of Lasix by denying food and water 24-48 hours before a race and you can decide if that is as humane as the injection. I've also suggested that banning Lasix can take a significant percentage of horses off the track, probably affecting smaller venues most significantly and definitely adding to the woes of starters per race. In the interest of fairness I've got calls in to two BIG time trainers to get a view from the other side. I think if you are pro or anti it has to be based mostly on the humaneness argument, because if 98% of horses are on Lasix, the performance enhancing argument is moot.
see we can agree on things . Here's the flip side of any benefit from the trivial amount of weight loss. A horse can suffer any gains from it by not having adequate fluids in the tissue. So it equals out.
chadk66 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Reply




Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

» Advertisement
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2023 -- PaceAdvantage.Com -- All Rights Reserved
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program
designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.