Kentucky's ongoing attempt to end racing in state proceeds..

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Riot

Yes. Research shows a decrease in red blood cells and hemosiderophages via transtracheal washes post lasix vs. without lasix.

Is decreasing the severity of bleeding the same as stopping bleeding?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

Is decreasing the severity of bleeding the same as stopping bleeding?

Not necessarily - sometimes lasix makes it less, sometimes it makes it stop completely, sometimes it doesn't do anything. Overall yes, lasix vastly reduces the incidence of detection of bleeding due to EIPH in horses, including stopping it in some horses.

Here's a cross section of lung (viewing it from the horses left side, the front of the horse is on the left) showing where bleeding occurs, the top (dorsal) back (caudal) part of the lung. We only detect blood when it comes out of the lungs up into the trachea. The trachea isn't shown here, it would be to the left of the lungs:





Here's a horse bleeding so bad blood is bubbling out of the lungs, up the trachea, and out the nose. Only 1 out of 20 will bleed so badly this is seen:



Here's a horse with a little blood in the trachea via bronchoscopy:

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Riot

Overall yes, lasix vastly reduces the incidence of detection of bleeding due to EIPH in horses, including stopping it in some horses.

So the majority of horses treated with lasix do not bleed?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

This is true now, but it hasn't always been the case. There were plenty of numbers to go around back in the 80s and 90s. Of course back then, horses actually bled in a race before getting lasix, so they usually ran poorly, but they improved a lot given first lasix.

However, I've seen the "Champions" book advertised here. Check out the performance of some really good horses and the Beyers they earn before and after lasix. Many of these did not come after poor races. There is an obvious improvement time and time again of at least a few lengths.

In the last 5 years or so, 1st timers with Lasix return 77 cents on the dollar. Those without return 47. The sample size is huge. Euro shippers with Lasix return 66 cents on the dollar, those without 38 cents. Obviously the sample size isn't as large, but it includes over 8000/2000 in those categories.

I personally don't care about banning Lasix. There are WAY bigger issues. But, anyone racing without it is racing at a disadvantage.

I dont think that 1st timers or euro imports are of particularly valid use. The fact that a first timer is on lasix or isnt on could be conceived as trainer intent and as such muddies the water there. And plenty of euros that bleed are sent here specifically to get lasix which would also signal intent. The problem in analyzing the numbers is it isnt clear what horses improve because they are being helped by eliminating or reducing bleeding and what horses are running better simply because they are on it. I have had plenty of horses not improve much if at all on lasix. When I worked for Jerkens he was one of the last guys who ran a lot of horses w/o lasix and we had quite a few not improve much at all when the owners insisted we put them on it.

And being that not using lasix is voluntary no one has to be at a disadvantage unless they choose to be.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

Do all professional athletes juice?

If not, how come? Roids definitely enhance performance.

don't know, ask them.
what's that got to do with lasix? and of course other legal substances are regulated for race days, that do affect performance. so, the fact that lasix is not regulated, or having a parts per millions rule for race days tells me it's not considered by racing groups as performance-enhancing.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I dont think that 1st timers or euro imports are of particularly valid use. The fact that a first timer is on lasix or isnt on could be conceived as trainer intent and as such muddies the water there. And plenty of euros that bleed are sent here specifically to get lasix which would also signal intent. The problem in analyzing the numbers is it isnt clear what horses improve because they are being helped by eliminating or reducing bleeding and what horses are running better simply because they are on it. I have had plenty of horses not improve much if at all on lasix. When I worked for Jerkens he was one of the last guys who ran a lot of horses w/o lasix and we had quite a few not improve much at all when the owners insisted we put them on it.

And being that not using lasix is voluntary no one has to be at a disadvantage unless they choose to be.

Of course it is their choice, I never said differently. I disagree about a sample including 100,000 horse not being relevant. That is a HUGE discrepancy in ROI among the maidens. I study this stuff all the time and you won't find one factor with that kind of difference very often.

I have no doubt Lasix enhances performance. Just because everyone uses it now making it difficult to test doesn't erase a few decades of evidence.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I think the logic of people who think we should use lasix is twisted. They race all over the world without lasix. How can you say that we need lasix here when they don't use it anywhere else?

Has anyone addressed this question other than with an "I don't care about the rest of the world" response? Someone said horses only average 3 or 4 starts a year in Ireland and France. What about Australia and Hong Kong? Are horses in those areas making fewer starts per year than here?

To read this thread, one would think we are currently in a Golden Age of horseracing, and that to go back to the pre-1995 situation in New York is absolutely unthinkable. Were New York horses making fewer starts per year before 1995 than now?

Rupert's point, I think, is that "the sky is falling, the end is near" may be an over-reaction in the face of the experience of the rest of the world. That seems like a reasonable point to me, especially considering our own long experience pre-Lasix.

--Dunbar

[Calzone Lord]

Banning lasix probably isn't going to do any good for the horse player.

It's also extremely unpopular with a strong majority of trainers and vets...who are both far more powerful groups in the industry than betting customers.

A lasix ban is basically a bid for more worthless PR from industry do-gooders. It would make the New York Times feel like it did some good.

It's unfortunate that it's an issue at all right now.

Meanwhile, poker is still on TV ... and everytime I go to the track I see the poker tables, slot machines, craps tables, blackjack tables, and Roulette tables all kicking the sh!t out of the horse racing simulcast section.

At-least horse racing is still holding its own with Pai-Gow when both are being offered in the same place...as the Asian population in Erie isn't so large.

However, I have no doubt Pai-Gow is handling far more than 30-track full card simulcasting here...and that's not because the local horse bettors are going the Internet and rebate shop route. It should be a wildly superior game to all -- and it's laughably uncompetitive when people have the option.

[rpncaine]

Being totally honest..as much as I love Horseracing, if I had access to REAL craps dice, I'd be there every second that I could! It is just so much fun and fast action.

[Powderfinger]

Great thread with some interesting viewpoints.
I have seen several horses die after crossing the finish line from a heart attack. Why would this happen to a perfectly healthy young animal? I'm not an equine expert, but if lasix is a diuretic that stops bleeding doesn't that mean it's a blood "thickener"? and if the blood is thicker, wouldn't that make it harder for the heart to pump it through the system causing more heart attacks? Something unnatural about a animal losing so much fluid from the body; there has to be some drawbacks.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

Has anyone addressed this question other than with an "I don't care about the rest of the world" response? Someone said horses only average 3 or 4 starts a year in Ireland and France. What about Australia and Hong Kong? Are horses in those areas making fewer starts per year than here?

What the international aspect of the argument boils down to in general is: year-round racing (NA) vs. seasonal racing (elsewhere).

Do racehorses, as athletes, need a signficant period of rest from competition annually?

A lot of comparisons are made between racehorses and human athletes to make points about medication. But what human athletes are asked to train and compete indefinitely during the length of their careers?

Which of these schedules would tend to favor the health of the horse?

Year-round racing is necessary for a lot of people in the industry to stay in business. Furthermore, it does not appear to be economically viable to voluntarily give horses time off. This was one of the arguments used to oppose the ban on anabolic steroids. If horses couldn't be helped artificially to recover from their races, how could they continue to race year-round? A similar argument was used by Dale Romans recently about lasix. The wealthy owners can afford to give horses time off after a significant bleeding episode, the average horseman cannot.

This issue will underly every future medication debate beyond the lasix one. Therapeutic medications are used in racing to promote the well-being of the racehorse, but are they also being relied upon to avoid the cost of resting the horse? If so, will be banning medications make it impossible to race horses in the current year-round fashion?

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

It should be a wildly superior game to all -- and it's laughably uncompetitive when people have the option.

And that's the problem, right there. It isn't how the public perceives the use of drugs; it's that now that there is plenty of competition for gambling dollars, the average American prefers to spend his or her gambling dollars elsewhere.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

Banning lasix probably isn't going to do any good for the horse player.

Not only that, it will make it tougher.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Of course it is their choice, I never said differently. I disagree about a sample including 100,000 horse not being relevant. That is a HUGE discrepancy in ROI among the maidens. I study this stuff all the time and you won't find one factor with that kind of difference very often.

I have no doubt Lasix enhances performance. Just because everyone uses it now making it difficult to test doesn't erase a few decades of evidence.

If you are talking about horses with established form being enhanced it would be a much clearer picture. How exactly can you show an enhanced performance with horses who have no baseline performance? Comparing those with and without simply on the basis of one factor and drawing an absolute conclusion? Who is good with first time starters that starts them without lasix nowdays? Anybody? You may be correct in your assessment but the data used is not really pertinent except in a roundabout fashion.

I have no doubt that horses treated aggressively with gastrogard for stomach ulcers perform far greater than those who arent treated but because those horses are not designated no one talks about that. Using the logic that some do, Gastrogard would be considered a performance enhancer as well.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

Has anyone addressed this question other than with an "I don't care about the rest of the world" response? Someone said horses only average 3 or 4 starts a year in Ireland and France. What about Australia and Hong Kong? Are horses in those areas making fewer starts per year than here?

To read this thread, one would think we are currently in a Golden Age of horseracing, and that to go back to the pre-1995 situation in New York is absolutely unthinkable. Were New York horses making fewer starts per year before 1995 than now?

Rupert's point, I think, is that "the sky is falling, the end is near" may be an over-reaction in the face of the experience of the rest of the world. That seems like a reasonable point to me, especially considering our own long experience pre-Lasix.

--Dunbar

If you cant see that racing in different jurisdictions in this country let alone other countries is different than you just arent trying very hard.

At the medication summit at Belmont last Summer we were given materials that showed US horses were making more starts per year than England, Ireland and France. I dont think any other countries were included. Of course when asked the foreign participants said that because their racing schedules and systems were different than ours hence the fewer starts. Naturally they unwittingly made the point that so many of us have been making, that racing is different in different places and as such simply comparing them is a bit of an apples and oranges argument.

There was a reason that lasix was legalized, it isnt just some nationwide plot by vets and trainers. To act like we can simply ignore the issue and turnback the clock is myopic. Perhaps we can revive Oscar and have him perform some of his pre-1995 magic?

[Bigsmc]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

If you are talking about horses with established form being enhanced it would be a much clearer picture. How exactly can you show an enhanced performance with horses who have no baseline performance? Comparing those with and without simply on the basis of one factor and drawing an absolute conclusion? Who is good with first time starters that starts them without lasix nowdays? Anybody? You may be correct in your assessment but the data used is not really pertinent except in a roundabout fashion.

I have no doubt that horses treated aggressively with gastrogard for stomach ulcers perform far greater than those who arent treated but because those horses are not designated no one talks about that. Using the logic that some do, Gastrogard would be considered a performance enhancer as well.

Exactly, seems logical to me that horses have bled during a race would "move up" when they aren't bleeding. Is their performance enhanced or are you eliminating a barrier that was not allowing him to perform? Semantics.

Going after Lasix is like deciding to trim a dog's nails when he is covered with fleas.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

What the international aspect of the argument boils down to in general is: year-round racing (NA) vs. seasonal racing (elsewhere).

Do racehorses, as athletes, need a signficant period of rest from competition annually?

A lot of comparisons are made between racehorses and human athletes to make points about medication. But what human athletes are asked to train and compete indefinitely during the length of their careers?

Which of these schedules would tend to favor the health of the horse?

Year-round racing is necessary for a lot of people in the industry to stay in business. Furthermore, it does not appear to be economically viable to voluntarily give horses time off. This was one of the arguments used to oppose the ban on anabolic steroids. If horses couldn't be helped artificially to recover from their races, how could they continue to race year-round? A similar argument was used by Dale Romans recently about lasix. The wealthy owners can afford to give horses time off after a significant bleeding episode, the average horseman cannot.

This issue will underly every future medication debate beyond the lasix one. Therapeutic medications are used in racing to promote the well-being of the racehorse, but are they also being relied upon to avoid the cost of resting the horse? If so, will be banning medications make it impossible to race horses in the current year-round fashion?

Racehorses get hurt alot. The vast majority of these injuries are minor and are easily treated. When people talk about banning medications and they talk about giving horses rest as opposed to "drugs" I wonder what world they live in. I would love for someone to give me the parameters of a medication ban. So no meds from what point? 3 days? 5 days? A week? A month? Are we going to going to modernize and standardize our system of testing so that those who follow the rules arent unjustly persecuted because the current system is frighteningly vague.

Most people don't know that we have no steadfast rules concerning withdrawl times in most jurisdictions. The Pletcher incident in the BC a few years ago where he and the vet asked the state vet if they would be ok giving a medication 18 days before the race and were told they would be and yet the horse still got a positive test should be a great indicator of where we stand. The RMTC has made some progress in this area but is still a longway from being complete. People also don't realize that a positive test does not necessarily mean that the drug in question had any effect on the performance of the horse but rather is just the detection of a drug above a certain number which often arbitrarily assigned.

So I want to know what am I supposed to do when a horse has an issue? If a horse acts colicky should I not give her medication and just hope that it is a little gas because if I give her banamine she wont be able to run the following week? If Bodemeister grabs a quarter working a week before the Derby should Baffert not treat him or go to the local church and pour some holy water on it? Or just scratch and turn him out? Because the evil Bute and Banamine would be among the meds called for in these situations.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Racehorses get hurt alot. The vast majority of these injuries are minor and are easily treated. When people talk about banning medications and they talk about giving horses rest as opposed to "drugs" I wonder what world they live in.

Is it that black-and-white with even minor injuries where the use of medication totally replaces any form of rest? Shouldn't the two be used in conjunction?

Anyways, the type of "rest" I was talking about was an "off season" of sorts. While horse racing can certainly be successful as a year-round venture, can it do so using the same group of horses the entire time? Can any individual racehorse stay in full race training and competition continuously? Is it feasible to stratify the horse population so that one group of horses (eg low-level claimers, stakes horses) get "down time" while another is actively running?

Why do racehorses get hurt alot? A huge factor is the number of miles they accumulate in a finite period of time.

Most people don't know that we have no steadfast rules concerning withdrawl times in most jurisdictions. The Pletcher incident in the BC a few years ago where he and the vet asked the state vet if they would be ok giving a medication 18 days before the race and were told they would be and yet the horse still got a positive test should be a great indicator of where we stand. The RMTC has made some progress in this area but is still a longway from being complete. People also don't realize that a positive test does not necessarily mean that the drug in question had any effect on the performance of the horse but rather is just the detection of a drug above a certain number which often arbitrarily assigned.

On the other hand, how many "therapeutic" positives are the result of indiscriminate "pre-racing"? Take the Tom Amoss case from this year. Five positives for the same medication in the span of a few weeks. Or Kiarin McLaughlin at a fall Keeneland meet a couple of years ago with multiple positives for an inhalant. Superficially, does this look like bad luck or mismanagement? Should the public reasonably be expected to accept that a significant number of horses in the same barn need to be on the same medication (never mind still be entered to race)?

Isn't more likely that trainers in these instances are being too aggressive with their "pre-race" regimens? In the event of a positive and subsequent punishment, are the regulators really unjustly persecuting the offendors? Who is making the sport (and medications) look bad in these instances?

So I want to know what am I supposed to do when a horse has an issue? If a horse acts colicky should I not give her medication and just hope that it is a little gas because if I give her banamine she wont be able to run the following week. If Bodemeister grabs a quarter working a week before the Derby should Baffert not treat him or go to the local church and pour some holy water on it? Or just scratch and turn him out? Because the evil Bute and Banamine would be among the meds called for in these situations.

If the plan is to adopt a zero-tolerance policy, then racing probably can't operate. Not sure if that's what's being called for. If threshold levels of therapeutic medications are still utilized, then the scenarios you suggest should be comfortably handled with the horse's health put foremost.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

So the majority of horses treated with lasix do not bleed?

The majority have their previously documented level of bleeding markedly decreased or gone, as evidenced by bronchoscopy clinically and BAL/TTW in research. Lasix does not work in all horses, some are unaffected.

The origins and causes of EIPH are thought to be multifactorial. In the 1990's I worked on the research that first measured actual cardiopulmonary intravascular pressures in horses while galloping at racing speed both on and off lasix. Lasix decreases the exercise-induced increase in cardiac and pulmonary pressures. High blood pressure rupturing fragile capillaries in the lung has always been one suspected cause of EIPH.

Chronic airway inflammation predisposing to capillary failure is another. I'd love to study the lungs of horses that live year-round at Churchill Downs, bordered by highways and under airport plane exhaust.

Another is the physical pounding, and physics: the sheer forces created within the lung tissue as a horse gallops a long time over firm ground carrying weight.

Another is the huge variance in intrapulmonary airway pressures, upper vs lower, during massive air intake of exercise - why the Flair nasal strips which hold the upper airway open decrease EIPH as much as lasix in some horses.

[Riot]

Cannon wrote: I have no doubt that horses treated aggressively with gastrogard for stomach ulcers perform far greater than those who arent treated but because those horses are not designated no one talks about that. Using the logic that some do, Gastrogard would be considered a performance enhancer as well.

That's a very good analogy, actually.

I cannot consider lasix a performance enhancer any more than preventative inhaler asthma meds are for a running athlete who happens to have asthma. Lasix enables a horse to run to their peak, by helping prevent the development of a medical condition that will inhibit running ability by suffocating the horse in it's own blood to a lesser or greater degree.