Lasix:Fact and Myth

[chadk66]

Originally Posted by cj

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.

they do it because their owners think it's an advantage. it's not. it's just "keeping up with the jones's". I don't think every horse needs or should run on lasix. the old rules where you had to be a proven bleeder was an excellent rule. but too many people pissed and moaned because they felt they were being cheated so they changed the rules. In reality it doesn't hurt the horses to run on race day lasix and it helps the handicappers to know everyone is on an even playing field.

[chadk66]

Originally Posted by cj

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.

I might note that I would bet many of those horses overseas that bleed and can't run on lasix end up over here. that's just a guess.

[cj]

Originally Posted by chadk66

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.

http://www.thoroughbreddailynews.com...oped130308.pdf

From the above article:

I wanted to know how much weight horses actually
lose in a race with and without Lasix. We started
weighing all the horses the morning of their race and
morning after. The results were eye-opening. Horses
had lost as much as 100 pounds the morning after,
with the average around 35 pounds, and this was after
hydrating all night. The hotter the day, the more they
would lose.
It would sometimes take horses three to four weeks
to regain the weight. Horses running without Lasix
have negligible weight loss the following
morning--generally 5 to 10 pounds"

You may be an expert at training horses, but I'm an expert at measuring how fast they run. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this point.

[cj]

Originally Posted by chadk66

I might note that I would bet many of those horses overseas that bleed and can't run on lasix end up over here. that's just a guess.

Only the ones with real talent, otherwise it isn't cost effective to bring them over.

[magwell]

Originally Posted by chadk66

I might note that I would bet many of those horses overseas that bleed and can't run on lasix end up over here. that's just a guess.

100 % right and if we outlawed it here the game would head a lot faster down the toilet then it's going now......

[cj]

Originally Posted by magwell

100 % right and if we outlawed it here the game would head a lot faster down the toilet then it's going now......

Releasing every prisoner in jail wouldn't be a great idea either, but it doesn't mean the prison system isn't a mess.

[magwell]

Originally Posted by cj

Releasing every prisoner in jail wouldn't be a great idea either, but it doesn't mean the prison system isn't a mess.

Wow, we agree on that one........

[Robert Fischer]

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.

Originally Posted by chadk66

Clear to who?

Clear to trainers. Clear to anyone who observes the fact that trainers clearly prefer to use Lasix, regardless of whether or not the horse has an actual bleeding issue.

Originally Posted by chadk66

Lasix isn't going to make any horse run faster than he/she was built to run.

That may or may not be true, but the fact that trainers prefer to use lasix on nearly every horse, makes it clear that it is believed to enhance performance.



As far as addressing that point as a separate issue - I don't know. I haven't experimented on horses or read a quality satisfactory study of the kind. My best guess from the phenomenon of lasix use preference would be that all horses (non-bleeders included) run better because lasix seems to do something like reducing the fluid in the lungs and reducing the pressure. This would benefit almost every horse, because it is natural to get some fluid buildup and the resulting pressure in the lung.
If that is true, then it would be a performance enhancer.
Just as a good milkshake will reduce the lactic acid that is natural to build up, lasix will reduce the fluid that is natural to build up.

If it's not true - then it is merely

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.

believed to be a PED and it's only a PED for 'bleeders', and non bleeders aren't getting performance enhancing lung effects, it's just something that trainers do out of superstition towards a false belief.


I don't know for sure, and it would be wrong of me to claim to have factual certainty towards either stance, hence the relatively balanced statement that you initially replied to.

[chadk66]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

Clear to trainers. Clear to anyone who observes the fact that trainers clearly prefer to use Lasix, regardless of whether or not the horse has an actual bleeding issue.


That may or may not be true, but the fact that trainers prefer to use lasix on nearly every horse, makes it clear that it is believed to enhance performance.



As far as addressing that point as a separate issue - I don't know. I haven't experimented on horses or read a quality satisfactory study of the kind. My best guess from the phenomenon of lasix use preference would be that all horses (non-bleeders included) run better because lasix seems to do something like reducing the fluid in the lungs and reducing the pressure. This would benefit almost every horse, because it is natural to get some fluid buildup and the resulting pressure in the lung.
If that is true, then it would be a performance enhancer.
Just as a good milkshake will reduce the lactic acid that is natural to build up, lasix will reduce the fluid that is natural to build up.

If it's not true - then it is merely

believed to be a PED and it's only a PED for 'bleeders', and non bleeders aren't getting performance enhancing lung effects, it's just something that trainers do out of superstition towards a false belief.


I don't know for sure, and it would be wrong of me to claim to have factual certainty towards either stance, hence the relatively balanced statement that you initially replied to.

I explained to you that trainers use it because they are allowed to. they will use anything that's legal whether or not it is beneficial to every horse. there are so many false assumptions on lasix it's ridiculous. So let me ask you straight up. From a handicapping point of view don't you feel that either all horses should use it or none?

[biggestal99]

Originally Posted by cj

. But most horses do not need lasix.

Yep, all you do is follow the wesley ward example.

Runs in the us, lasix on,

Runs in europe, lasix off.

Do you see a difference when his horses go off lasix and run at Ascot.

How many bleeders does he have?

You are 100% correct, the vast majority of horses who run in the us do not need a raceday lasix shot.


Allan

[HalvOnHorseracing]

The question I have asked is, is it inhumane to run horses on Lasix? Clearly with some percentage of horses its use is justified. We know we can expect 50-70% of the horses to bleed, although not all of them would be level 2 and above. We know that we can duplicate the water weight loss by denying food and water 24-48 hours ahead of the race. If trainers are running level 1 bleeders on Lasix to get the advantage of the water weight loss, and there is no long term physical issue associated with it, the playing field is level. We know it does function like Class 1 PEDs. Steroids artificially build muscle mass. Amphetamines increase heart lung efficiency. Those are obviously PEDs that should be highly regulated. At what point does the use of a legitimate therapeutic medication cross over into creating long term harm for a horse?

"Lasix is not natural" is not a solid foundation on which to build a case for banning it. Blood pressure medication is "not natural" yet a very large number of people are on it because it has a useful therapeutic effect without having a significant long term risk. I don't think you can argue it is a PED because you won't stroke out under stress. All I've argued is that if you want to ban Lasix you should focus on the humane argument, because the PED argument seems to be irrelevant if 98% of horses are running on it. Bleeders get to run and they don't gain an unreasonable competitive advantage.

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by chadk66

I explained to you that trainers use it because they are allowed to. they will use anything that's legal whether or not it is beneficial to every horse. there are so many false assumptions on lasix it's ridiculous. So let me ask you straight up. From a handicapping point of view don't you feel that either all horses should use it or none?

But you're wrong. It is a performance enhancer due to the weight loss. Everyone understands this principal. It's why a motorcycle out-accelerates a porsche.

The top vets in the sport acknowledge that it's a performance enhancer.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by biggestal99

Yep, all you do is follow the wesley ward example.

Runs in the us, lasix on,

Runs in europe, lasix off.

Do you see a difference when his horses go off lasix and run at Ascot.

How many bleeders does he have?

You are 100% correct, the vast majority of horses who run in the us do not need a raceday lasix shot.


Allan

Ken Hinchcliff's original 2005 study showed 55% of horses suffered some level of EIPH. Hinchcliffe also documented that bleeding will result in reduced performance. I'm not sure how many horses were Level 0 vs Level 4 bleeders, but it is probably the case that horses at Level 0 or 1 could perform well without Lasix. Subsequent studies have shown that the percentage suffering from EIPH may be higher, perhaps 70%. Studies have also shown that the likelihood of EIPH showing up increases with age. It is also the case that strenuous workouts spaced closely together can up the likelihood of EIPH. If the point is that the greatest percentage of horses are not Level 3 or 4 bleeders, that is correct. It is also the case that even Level 3 or 4 bleeders can be reduced to Level 2 or lower with Lasix. You can't confuse the number of serious bleeders (Level 3 or 4) which may be 5% with the number of total bleeders, 50-70%. Level 2 and above are performance retarding and Lasix will correct that condition. It's a knotty argument for lots of reasons, but the studies and statistics are in and available.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

But you're wrong. It is a performance enhancer due to the weight loss. Everyone understands this principal. It's why a motorcycle out-accelerates a porsche.

The top vets in the sport acknowledge that it's a performance enhancer.

It enables a horse to run to his level of condition and ability. And yes, the physics argument is applicable. The same amount of thrust applied to two objects, one of which weighs less than the other will result in the lighter object overcoming inertia faster. But it will not make a horse that is a $5,000 claimer outrun stakes horses. The question is really about PED. If a drug builds muscle (steroid) or improves heart lung function (amphetamine) it is clearly performance enhancing and should be regulated very closely. But a drug that only allows you to run to the level of performance related to your physiology and overall conditioning, does that fall into the same category as testosterone? I would argue lowering pulmonary hypertension and edema so the horse can run TO its ability is a reasonable thing as long as the drug used did not lead to long term physical issues.

[chadk66]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

But you're wrong. It is a performance enhancer due to the weight loss. Everyone understands this principal. It's why a motorcycle out-accelerates a porsche.

The top vets in the sport acknowledge that it's a performance enhancer.

the weight loss is such a minimal thing it's a joke. and any gain from that slight weight loss is lost by a horse not having the water it's tissues demand so it's net neutral in that respect. So what's your take on it from a handicapping perspective. All on it or none?