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

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

From news reports, the regulators seem to claim that they make an effort to notify horsemen of changes in testing standards. I don't know how strong an effort is made or whether or not a horseman can reasonably be expected to juggle all the rules, changes, withdrawals, etc., especially if he's operating in more than one jurisdiction.

However, back to the pre-race regimens, how likely is it that these are typically "cookbooked", in the sense that every horse from the same barn gets the same treatment? Does this seem apporpriate form a "horsemanship" standpoint? Furthermore, what is the dominant thought process behind the administration of pre-race treamtents? What the horse actually needs? What the horse received when he (or a stablemate) was last successful? What the rules/withdrawal times allow? What "levels the playing field"?

They dont tell us squat for the most part. Racing labs/commissions for the most part treat horsemen as potential criminals that they are looking to get. Labs use positive tests as resume builders.

As for the other questions I'm too tired to answer properly but there is a pretty wide range of opinions (among vets and trainers) as to what should be given, when and even the effectiveness of any of it.

[cmorioles]

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.

You can believe what you want, but since I do this for a living, I can tell with certainty that the numbers I provided for maidens almost guarantee the maidens without lasix are at a disadvantage. The betting public isn't dumb. They know the good trainers, and which horses are working good, and which are bred to win early. In a sample as large as I'm talking, all those things even out between the Lasix and non-Lasix horses. The difference is return is staggering. Remember, I'm not talking win percentage, I'm talking how the horses perform in relation to how they were bet.

With the Euro horses, we do have a baseline, and the results are strikingly similar. I also mentioned the book "Champions" where you can find plenty of examples. I've looked it up in the past, and I'm not going to do it again to try to prove a point. It is there for anyone bothering to look. You just have to do it with the blinkers off.

I honestly don't care one way or the other about Lasix. There are way bigger problems in the game. However, in my opinion, denying it is a performance enhancer is about as silly as you make all the arguments for banning it appear to be, and probably rightfully so. Why is it banned for human competitors, by the way? I'm curious of your take on that.

I have to ask, do you still think Shane Battier is a better player than Rudy Gay? (You don't have to answer, we all know that was ridiculous, and it is off topic)

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

You can believe what you want, but since I do this for a living, I can tell with certainty that the numbers I provided for maidens almost guarantee the maidens without lasix are at a disadvantage. The betting public isn't dumb. They know the good trainers, and which horses are working good, and which are bred to win early. In a sample as large as I'm talking, all those things even out between the Lasix and non-Lasix horses. The difference is return is staggering. Remember, I'm not talking win percentage, I'm talking how the horses perform in relation to how they were bet.

With the Euro horses, we do have a baseline, and the results are strikingly similar. I also mentioned the book "Champions" where you can find plenty of examples. I've looked it up in the past, and I'm not going to do it again to try to prove a point. It is there for anyone bothering to look. You just have to do it with the blinkers off.

I honestly don't care one way or the other about Lasix. There are way bigger problems in the game. However, in my opinion, denying it is a performance enhancer is about as silly as you make all the arguments for banning it appear to be, and probably rightfully so. Why is it banned for human competitors, by the way? I'm curious of your take on that.

I have to ask, do you still think Shane Battier is a better player than Rudy Gay? (You don't have to answer, we all know that was ridiculous, and it is off topic)

Of course the term performance enhancer in terms of drugs in racing has always referred to illegal drugs that gave the horse using it an unfair edge over the other competitors, not something that is reported to the public and regulated but you knew that. Declaring lasix a performance enhancer is simply an attempt to attach a morality issue to its use.

I dont recall saying that Battier was better but that his loss might be bigger to the team than when they lost Gay last year and did better without him.

As for lasix being banned in human competition what sport are you referring to? It isnt banned in boxing.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Of course the term performance enhancer in terms of drugs in racing has always referred to illegal drugs that gave the horse using it an unfair edge over the other competitors, not something that is reported to the public and regulated but you knew that. Declaring lasix a performance enhancer is simply an attempt to attach a morality issue to its use.

I dont recall saying that Battier was better but that his loss might be bigger to the team than when they lost Gay last year and did better without him.

As for lasix being banned in human competition what sport are you referring to? It isnt banned in boxing.

I didn't mean performance enhancer in that respect. I'm not sure why you think I did, but apparently I do. To me a performance enhancer is something that helps a horse run faster than he would without it EVEN if they don't need it. I think it does this for horses. It is tough to prove these days since nearly all horses get it, but there was a time when this could be tested and I did plenty of studies on it. Every one pointed to it being exactly what I describe. The way we are going, horses will start getting Lasix right after they are weaned. The fact it is now legal doesn't change anything in my opinion. If milkshaking or cobra venom or batteries were suddenly made legal, I'd still consider them performance enhancers too.

It is most definitely banned in Olympic sports, and I'm pretty sure that includes boxing. I don't know about pro boxing, but is that even a sport any longer?

Again, I think banning it will make it a harder game for bettors so I'm not all that anxious to see it happen, but I am as certain as can be that it is a performance enhancer.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Riot

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.

I would buy that if it wasn't used so liberally. I'll just never believe that every horse in North America needs it, yet they get it anyway. Since it isn't free, it seems a lot of trainers feel they need it to level the playing field, i.e. it enhances performance.

Many of the European horses that don't need it ship for the BC and they get it anyway. Why is that? European trainers seem to think it is a performance enhancer. Are they just uneducated? The ones that don't get it rarely run to their odds. Just coincidence?

[Riot]

Anyone can poke around at www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Use EIPH and race horse as your search terms

I found these with EIPH furosemide speed as the search terms

J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1999 Sep 1;215(5):670-5.

Effect of furosemide on performance of Thoroughbreds racing in the United States and Canada.

Gross DK, Morley PS, Hinchcliff KW, Wittum TE.
Source

Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus 43210, USA.
Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of furosemide on performance of Thoroughbreds racing on dirt surfaces at tracks in the United States and Canada.

DESIGN: Cross-sectional study.

ANIMALS: All Thoroughbreds (n = 22,589) that finished a race on dirt surfaces at tracks in the United States and Canada between June 28 and July 13, 1997 in jurisdictions that allowed the use of furosemide.

PROCEDURE: Race records were analyzed by use of multivariable ANOVA procedures and logistic regression analyses to determine the effect of furosemide on estimated 6-furlong race time, estimated racing speed, race earnings, and finish position. Principal component analysis was used to create orthogonal scores from multiple collinear variables for inclusion in the models.

RESULTS: Furosemide was administered to 16,761 (74.2%) horses. Horses that received furosemide raced faster, earned more money, and were more likely to win or finish in the top 3 positions than horses that did not. The magnitude of the effect of furosemide on estimated 6-furlong race time varied with sex, with the greatest effect in males.

When comparing horses of the same sex, horses receiving furosemide had an estimated 6-furlong race time that ranged from 0.56 +/- 0.04 seconds (least-squares mean +/- SE) to 1.09 +/- 0.07 seconds less than that for horses not receiving furosemide, a difference equivalent to 3 to 5.5 lengths.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE:

Because of the pervasive use of furosemide and its apparent association with superior performance in Thoroughbred racehorses, further consideration of the use of furosemide and investigation of its effects in horses is warranted.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10476714

Am J Vet Res. 1990 May;51(5):772-8.

Effects of furosemide on the racing times of Thoroughbreds.

Sweeney CR, Soma LR, Maxson AD, Thompson JE, Holcombe SJ, Spencer PA.
Source

Department of Clinical Studies, New Bolton Center, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Kennett Square 19348.
Abstract

The effects of furosemide on the racing times of 79 horses without exercise-induced pulmonary hemorrhage (EIPH) and 52 horses with EIPH were investigated.

Racing times were adjusted to 1-mile equivalent racing times by 2 speed handicapping methods, and analysis of covariance was used to adjust actual racing times by winning time and distance for each race.

All 3 methods of determining racing time indicated that geldings without EIPH had significantly faster racing times (P less than 0.05) when given furosemide before racing than when furosemide was not given before racing.

Females and colts without EIPH were determined to have faster racing times when furosemide was given before racing, but the difference was not significant.

Geldings with EIPH had significantly faster racing times (P = 0.0231) when given furosemide before racing, as determined by one of the speed handicapping methods.

There was a strong correlation (range 0.9314 to 0.9751) between the 1-mile equivalent racing times, as determined by the 2 speed handicapping methods for horses with and without EIPH.

Furosemide failed to prevent the development of EIPH in many horses that were previously considered to be EIPH-negative.

When given furosemide, 62 (25.3%) of 235 EIPH-negative horses were EIPH-positive after racing.

Furosemide had questionable efficacy for prevention of EIPH in known EIPH-positive horses.

Thirty-two (61.5%) of 52 EIPH-positive horses given furosemide before a race remained EIPH-positive after that race.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2337276

Am J Vet Res. 1980 Aug;41(8):1183-9.

Effects of furosemide on cardiovascular function and performance when given prior to simulated races: a double-blind study.

Milne DW, Gabel AA, Muir WW, Skarda RT, Hamlin RL, Pipers FS.
Abstract

In a double-blind study under simulated racing conditions, six Standardbred horses, which had been trained for 12 weeks, were given 1 mg of furosemide/kg of body weight or saline solution IV 15 minutes before the first of two warm-up workouts (1.6 km at 60-minute intervals).

Sixty minutes later, 135 minutes after drug or placebo injection, these horses were driven 1.6 km at maximum speed.

Heart rate, respiratory rate, cardiac output, pulmonary trunk pressure, body temperature, PCV, arterial oxygen, and plasma lactic acid were recorded during and after the first warm-up workout and after a simulated race (1.6 km).

Values increased compared with values determined at rest whether saline solution or furosemide was given.

There were decreases in arterial CO2 and pH. When furosemide was given, the pulmonary trunk pressure was significantly lower (P < 0.05) during the first warm-up workout (1.6 km). There were no significant differences in the other values.

The average times of the simulated races were not significantly (P < 0.05) different after the use of furosemide compared with average times after use of saline solution.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6778267

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I would buy that if it wasn't used so liberally. I'll just never believe that every horse in North America needs it, yet they get it anyway. Since it isn't free, it seems a lot of trainers feel they need it to level the playing field, i.e. it enhances performance.

Many of the European horses that don't need it ship for the BC and they get it anyway. Why is that? European trainers seem to think it is a performance enhancer. Are they just uneducated? The ones that don't get it rarely run to their odds. Just coincidence?

but aren't many using it because of what it prevents? horses can have an episode without having given a previous warning. i know some horses have had a significant amount of bleeding and have never bled before.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Danzig

but aren't many using it because of what it prevents? horses can have an episode without having given a previous warning. i know some horses have had a significant amount of bleeding and have never bled before.

And isn't it the crux of the issue? Was Lasix originally legalized as a preventative measure for non-bleeders? Of course not, it was used to try to cure those that had bled.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I would buy that if it wasn't used so liberally. I'll just never believe that every horse in North America needs it, yet they get it anyway. Since it isn't free, it seems a lot of trainers feel they need it to level the playing field, i.e. it enhances performance.

Many of the European horses that don't need it ship for the BC and they get it anyway. Why is that? European trainers seem to think it is a performance enhancer. Are they just uneducated? The ones that don't get it rarely run to their odds. Just coincidence?

Dont take offense but you are just guessing here. How can anyone determine what horses need or dont need lasix unless you can accurately pinpoint when a horse may have a bleeding episode? Trainers use it because it is a cheap, easy way to help your horse NOT bleed and with those who have bled before to try to prevent another episode. I'm sure you will counter with they can still bleed through lasix or it isnt proven to prevent bleeding (though I dont know how you could prove that given you rarely have any clue when your horse may bleed) but it is still a pretty effective, easy to use medication with few side effects. It isn't unlike wearing a seatbelt. A seatbelt might not save your life in a car wreck everytime but you sure do increase your chances with one.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

And isn't it the crux of the issue? Was Lasix originally legalized as a preventative measure for non-bleeders? Of course not, it was used to try to cure those that had bled.

And if they had known then that it would be a preventative for the issue that they were trying to cure what makes you think that they wouldn't have allowed it?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

And isn't it the crux of the issue? Was Lasix originally legalized as a preventative measure for non-bleeders? Of course not, it was used to try to cure those that had bled.

it's to prevent bleeding as well. if you don't know when it'll strike, it seems treating after is not nearly as good an outcome as prevention would be. if you can keep a horse from bleeding, for some severely, why wouldn't you? other countries don't allow horses who have had bleeding episodes to breed-so they send any who end up bleeding out of country to race before they get too many episodes. the fact they still have bleeders with those rules points to the fact that it may not be just genetic, if they're trying to weed them out, yet still get them.
i know if i could take medications that would prevent illness and damage, i would. i wouldn't wait til i had an episode-a bit late then, isn't it?

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

It isn't unlike wearing a seatbelt. A seatbelt might not save your life in a car wreck everytime but you sure do increase your chances with one.

Except, of course, that it is still a drug. You can't convince me that every horse needs a drug to run. The reason every horse gets is because trainers also believe it is a performance enhancer. I've heard many say as much.

[Fearless Leader]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Except, of course, that it is still a drug. You can't convince me that every horse needs a drug to run. The reason every horse gets is because trainers also believe it is a performance enhancer. I've heard many say as much.

It would probably be in your best interest to find some different trainers to associate with. I suggest looking for a few that actually know what they are talking about.

[Riot]

This is interesting info published last year.

They took 37 baby 2-year-old thoroughbreds, and exercised them at the track for 5 months. Then they breezed them over 2-3 furlongs, and looked to see if they had evidence of bleeding in their lungs. No lasix or history of racing, no training on lasix.

(sounds like the 2-year-old in training sales, doesn't it?)

24 hours after their breezes, 23 had evidence of microscopic bleeding down in the lung. 14 did not.

Now, they also found that the horses that bled? Had increased inflammation in the lung, and decreased immune response capability against bacteria and other particles that can get down in the lung. All at the microscopic level.

That's a respiratory infection waiting to happen.

That is a good reason why lasix should be permitted as a race day therapeutic medication.

Vet J. 2011 Nov;190(2):e3-6.

Pulmonary inflammation due to exercise-induced pulmonary haemorrhage in Thoroughbred colts during race training.

Michelotto PV Jr, Muehlmann LA, Zanatta AL, Bieberbach EW, Kryczyk M, Fernandes LC, Nishiyama A.

Source: Department of Physiology, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil. michelottojunior@yahoo.com.br

Abstract: This study investigated the putative roles of inflammation and platelet-activating factor (PAF) in exercise-induced pulmonary haemorrhage (EIPH). Two-year-old Thoroughbred colts (n=37) were exercised on a racetrack for 5months before commencement of the study. Each colt was then exercised at 15-16m/s over 800-1000m and broncho-alveolar lavage fluid (BALF) was collected 24h later.

The colts were subsequently divided into two groups on the basis of BALF analysis; an EIPH-positive group (presence of haemosiderophages, n=23) and an EIPH-negative group (absence of haemosiderophages, n=14).

BALF from the EIPH-positive group had a significantly higher protein concentration (0.39±0.28 vs. 0.19±0.12mg/mL, P=0.031), higher PAF bioactivity (0.18±0.12 vs. 0.043±0.05 340:380nm ratio, P=0.042) and a higher lipid hydroperoxide concentration compared to the EIPH-negative group.

There was also a lower nitrite concentration and reduced production of superoxide anion and hydrogen peroxide by alveolar macrophages in the EIPH-positive group.

There was evidence of pulmonary inflammation and a decreased innate immune response of alveolar macrophages in EIPH-positive colts compared with the EIPH-negative group.

[Bill K]

I listened to Dale Roman's eloquent defense of race day use of Lasix. I also heard Shug question why an entire 2 year old race at Keeland the other day all horses were administered Lasix and adjunct. Has the breed dropped to the level now that all horses bleed in workouts? It doesn't make sense. What has the lifting of the race day drug ban done for NY racing? We raced for over 100 years with no drugs now in NY after 15 years of usage...we can't live without it. As far as I can see only the casino has improved racing in NY not drugs.

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by Bill K

I listened to Dale Roman's eloquent defense of race day use of Lasix. I also heard Shug question why an entire 2 year old race at Keeland the other day all horses were administered Lasix and adjunct. Has the breed dropped to the level now that all horses bleed in workouts? It doesn't make sense. What has the lifting of the race day drug ban done for NY racing? We raced for over 100 years with no drugs now in NY after 15 years of usage...we can't live without it. As far as I can see only the casino has improved racing in NY not drugs.

It's not a breed specific problem, it's a horse specific problem. You'll see the use of Flair strips in other equestrian events.

[Sightseek]

http://www.flairstrips.com/wp-conten...-Camp-2011.pdf

A good presentation on how the lungs work in a horse.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Bill K

Has the breed dropped to the level now that all horses bleed in workouts?

I doubt it, because the incidence of bleeding overtly through the nose hasn't changed over the years, either here before lasix or in other jurisdictions without lasix.

I think it's just our diagnostic methods and knowledge have vastly improved. Now we see how much EIPH there actually is in horses.

We used to diagnose only via seeing nosebleeds. About 30 years ago we started using regular bronchoscopy stallside to look down in the trachea. Now we can do well-funded scientific research on high-speed treadmills and alveolar lavage of the lungs themselves.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

http://www.flairstrips.com/wp-conten...-Camp-2011.pdf

A good presentation on how the lungs work in a horse.

What a great little reference booklet re: this subject. Thanks.

Every speed sport comes down to this:

"He whose cellular ATP lasts the longest, wins"

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Sightseek

It's not a breed specific problem, it's a horse specific problem. You'll see the use of Flair strips in other equestrian events.

apparently what i posted about this going on for centuries went unnoticed the other day by some.

i guess some have just decided no matter what is said, or written, lasix is bad, mmmmkay.