TDN OP-ED: Jerry Brown on missing Lasix discussion point

[Kasept]

http://www.thoroughbreddailynews.com...ent.cfm?id=934

Thoro-Graph's Jerry Brown parses out the Lasix discussion and the backwards suggestion regarding handle from the 'anti' crowd.

[Kasept]

In comments in the TDN this week, both Dr. Bramlage and Arthur Hancock took the position that Lasix needs to be banned because bettors want that to happen, and handle will suffer if we don't (click here). Those gentlemen are certainly qualified to comment as professionals about veterinary medicine and breeding, but when it comes to bettors and handle, they are playing in my ballpark. My handle is seven figures a year, and I produce high-end handicapping data used by hundreds of big bettors, including some who bet more than I do. And that idea isn't just untrue, it's dangerously wrong.

Dr. Bramlage says "the general public doesn't understand" Lasix. I don't know whether families picnicking at Saratoga understand Lasix or not, but I do know those people don't drive handle. Allen Gutterman once estimated that 2% of those betting are responsible for 50% of handle, and my guess is that 10% of us generate close to 90%. We are not passive "fans"-- we are horseplayers, participants in the industry. And I can tell you for a fact that we make it our business to understand Lasix as it applies to handicapping, and that not a single horseplayer I have talked to will bet MORE if Lasix is banned. It would add an extra unhandicappable variable to each horse in every race, and more confusion. Some of us--like me--would bet less.

People bet when they have an opinion. The stronger the opinion, the more likely they are to bet, and the more money they will bet. Things that create uncertainty hinder investment in business, and the same applies here as well. Not knowing whether the reason a horse stopped last time was because he bled, and whether the problem has since been dealt with, creates uncertainty. Factoring in the randomness that someone in the field will bleed today, at a short price, creates uncertainty.

It's worth thinking about why Lasix is the only drug that is listed in the program. And it's worth thinking about how people would pay for and bet on the basis of inside information that would become crucial if Lasix is banned, and how that would affect public perception. It's happening now with illegal drugs, and it has destroyed the morale and enthusiasm of many horseplayers. I see it all the time on the board at my website.

It's also worth thinking about something that happened a few years ago, when the industry went tearing off to build synthetic tracks, without talking to those of us who were going to have to try to answer undecipherable questions about how each individual horse was going to handle each surface, and make decisions about betting those races (or not). Is everyone happy about how that worked out?

There are two major problems with the drug debate that is currently going on in our industry. The first is that the Lasix issue is being lumped in with the illegal drug issue, because both involve drugs, and in some cases because people have agendas. I've been heavily involved in trying to stop cheating in our game for a long time, not for idealistic reasons, but because money is being stolen from honest horsemen and horseplayers (like yours truly). Attempting to stop something illegal, which everyone agrees about, and attaching it to banning a legal therapeutic drug, which is controversial, is like having a bill to fix the Veterans Administration, and combining it with declaring war on Iran, because both involve the army. As long as it's both or none, movement will be impossible on the non-controversial part, the relatively low-hanging fruit.

The second problem is that only two alternatives are being discussed regarding Lasix, and that's a false choice. It's not simply they all get to run on it, or none do. So here's a rational, pragmatic proposal to deal with Lasix. Not as a sports issue, but as a business issue-- because this is a business first, and a sport second. If you don't think so, try it without bettors.

First of all, starting with next year's 2yo crop, we go back to the way it used to be-- to get on Lasix a horse has to be certified as a bleeder by a state vet, not your own vet, following a race or work. Second, any horse who goes on Lasix has to carry a five-pound penalty. From what work I've been able to do on this with very little data that looks about right, but after a year there will be lots of data, and the penalty can be tinkered with. Third, older horses currently on Lasix have the option of staying on it-- and accepting the five-pound penalty.

The idea is to allow the horses that really need medicine to get it, and to remove the incentive for others to use it. Best guess is this will drastically reduce the number of horses on Lasix over time, and enable us to concentrate on real problems, like the fact that nasal strip info is not being provided to the betting public, which is ridiculous. And oh yeah, the minor problem we have with illegal drugs--which is killing our industry.

Jerry Brown is the president of Thoro-Graph Inc. (www.thorograph.com) publisher of data used by professional horseplayers and horsemen. As a consultant, he is responsible for the purchase of 87 stakes winners including Victory Gallop, Distorted Humor, and Rachel Alexandra.

[Kasept]

The bloviating Barry Irwin response: http://www.thoroughbreddailynews.com...ent.cfm?id=951

[Kasept]

Jerry Brown's response to Irwin: http://www.thoroughbreddailynews.com...ent.cfm?id=983

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Kasept

The bloviating Barry Irwin response: http://www.thoroughbreddailynews.com...ent.cfm?id=951

Well, that's clearly the dumbest thing I'll read all week and it's only Tuesday. Props to Brown for his eloquent response, because mine was more like:

[Round Pen]

I hope they are able to locate the Article Jerry Brown References about Dr Harthill. I have tried searching for it a few times with No Luck if anyone else locates it could they please post a link, I would love to read it again. No question Dr was one of a kind....

[Danzig]

this?

http://www.drf.com/news/call-him-doctor-derby

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

this?

http://www.drf.com/news/call-him-doctor-derby

You are a Google Wizard! Here's the pertinent bit:

"A lot of guys gauge themselves on the fees they collect," Harthill said. "I hate to say that, but there it is. I look at a good vet as someone who can answer the question, did I do that horse some good? And the horse will tell you. He really will."

One of them, according to Harthill, was Northern Dancer. As Harthill recalls it, the colt had a bleeding problem as the 1964 Derby approached, and trainer Horatio Luro consulted his old pal the doctor for a possible solution. Lasix, a diuretic descendant of calves' brain and Doan's Pills, was just making its way into the game at the time. Harthill was an early advocate of the medication, which is now used by about 95 percent of all racehorses.

"Security was following me, though, so I got a vet I knew from out of town to come along with me," Harthill said. "I told him I was going to turn to the right, and would he go that way and take this little syringe down to barn 24, stall 23, and give this to that horse. There would be a guy there called Will. He'd be waiting.

"So he did it, while the gendarmes followed me. They were following the mystique!"

Harthill smiled. He didn't really feel all that mysterious. In fact, he prefers to be considered nothing more than a horse-loving small-town vet, whose fondest wish is that people stop kidding themselves about the issue of drugs in racing.

"Therapeutics might help a horse run as fast as he's capable of running on a given day," Harthill said. "But not any faster. They're an equalizer. And besides, it's not fair to ask the public to bet on a sore horse."

[Danzig]

i thought his comments further up were worth looking at.
why would we fail to treat horses that can be treated? wth is the point of modern medicine if it's going to be treated as a horrible thing to actually use and benefit from?

[ateamstupid]

"Therapeutics might help a horse run as fast as he's capable of running on a given day," Harthill said. "But not any faster. They're an equalizer. And besides, it's not fair to ask the public to bet on a sore horse."

This probably sums up the entire "debate" for me.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

This probably sums up the entire "debate" for me.

it really does for me too. these are the parts that got me:

"The horse should be the primary thing in a veterinarian's life. To ask a horse to run when he's not doing well isn't fair. All I'm asking for is anti-inflammatories and anti-bleeding medicine."

It is hypocrisy, contends Harthill, to treat legal therapeutics in such a manner. Such restrictions, he says, are done for purposes of public relations, and at the expense of the horse.

"It's the most unnatural thing in the world, what we ask these horses to do," he continued. "They're locked in a stall most of the day, exposed to respiratory ailments from horses shipping in from all over the country.

[Scav]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

This probably sums up the entire "debate" for me.

It sums it up for any actual horse player. Lets just hope the 1% doesnt win this cause imo horse racing handle will decline significantly if Lasix is gone.

[Danzig]

'Horseracing currently thrives in Hong Kong, where stacks of cash are bet on the races. Lasix is not allowed in Hong Kong. The reason the wagering pools are so astronomical in Hong Kong is because the horseplayers know that the integrity of racing is without question. '

so, bets are high, there's no lasix-therefore if they used lasix there would be less bets?
correlation does not equal causation, mr. irwin.

[Danzig]

in looking for that article, i came across some other stuff, some of it interesting. not sure who this guy is, but some of what's in his article i found interesting.

http://businessofracing.blogspot.com...orld-does.html

what caught my eye:

So how can we reconcile the fact that, according to the South African study that I reported on yesterday, "most horses bleed," with the very low rates of bleeding reported in non-Lasix countries?

A few possible explanations stand out, though there's little science so far to prove or disprove any of them.

First, training practices differ substantially as between North America and most of the rest of the world. Here, most horses train at the race track, are exercised for comparatively short times, and get comparatively more speed work, with racing-speed breezes. Elsewhere, it's more common to train away from the track, in a less pressured atmosphere. It's notable that the relatively higher rates of bleeding in non-Lasix jurisdictions occur in those places -- Hong Kong, Singapore and Dubai -- where horses do train at the race track.

Second, most jurisdictions' definitions of bleeding don't include horses that score a 3 or 4 when scoped, even though those hores are clearly compromised in performance. According to the South African study, nearly 10% of horses have serious tracheal bleeding without Lasix (reduced to essentially zero with Lasix), enough to affect their racing performance.



does anyone know if therre's been any studies done that would indicate that the type of training helps lessen bleeding in those places that don't do much at the actual track?
also, i would think one would be able to claim they have much less 'bleeders' if they don't count those on the lower end of the spectrum. if we did the same here, what would it do to our numbers of bleeders?

[Kasept]

Zorn is the manager of the Castle Village partnership group.

Start here with RMTC studies: http://www.rmtcnet.com/content_research.asp

The study you want is Dr. Sams' Univ. of FL exercise research where 2 dozen racehorses were kept under training conditions..

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Zorn is the manager of the Castle Village partnership group.

Start here with RMTC studies: http://www.rmtcnet.com/content_research.asp

The study you want is Dr. Sams' Univ. of FL exercise research where 2 dozen racehorses were kept under training conditions..

thanks!

[Danzig]

that was interesting, i would hope everyone would read it.

[cmorioles]

The point is pretty simple for me. Horses that use Lasix have a speed advantage over those that don't. I'm not a scientist, I don't know the exact reasons why. I really don't care. I just know it is so. That is how we got where we are today, where horses that don't need Lasix are given it all the time.

We are told now it is preventative. But, that isn't the main reason nearly every horse is given it. It is given to level the playing field. Jerry's idea tries to level the playing field without giving drugs to 95% of the horse population. I think it is a good idea. How can less drugs not be good?

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Danzig

it really does for me too. these are the parts that got me:

"The horse should be the primary thing in a veterinarian's life. To ask a horse to run when he's not doing well isn't fair. All I'm asking for is anti-inflammatories and anti-bleeding medicine."

It is hypocrisy, contends Harthill, to treat legal therapeutics in such a manner. Such restrictions, he says, are done for purposes of public relations, and at the expense of the horse.

"It's the most unnatural thing in the world, what we ask these horses to do," he continued. "They're locked in a stall most of the day, exposed to respiratory ailments from horses shipping in from all over the country.

Nobody gives a crap about drugs in Hong Kong. Comparing racing in the states with a place that is almost completely chinese in origin among its population is not useful. Have you seen just how addicted to gambling the Chinese are? Do you know how many bus loads of chinese american's are bused to Pa. Ct. NY. and NJ casinos daily. The culture is infected with the gambling bug. Do you know how many races are run in Hong Kong a year vs. the states. Plus proximity to the track is ideal for must and nobody that works their can afford to do anything other then go to the races unless they are extremely wealthy. The only outlet these folks have is the track. Macaw casinos are loaded with people as well but if you are chinese you have to PAY a lot of money to enter these casino's.

Respectfully the drugs can be controlled because the micro industry is contained in one ruling body not 50 odd states with different governing rules. Its just a whole different world and should not be remotely considered when evaluating racing in states.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

The point is pretty simple for me. Horses that use Lasix have a speed advantage over those that don't. I'm not a scientist, I don't know the exact reasons why. I really don't care. I just know it is so. That is how we got where we are today, where horses that don't need Lasix are given it all the time.

We are told now it is preventative. But, that isn't the main reason nearly every horse is given it. It is given to level the playing field. Jerry's idea tries to level the playing field without giving drugs to 95% of the horse population. I think it is a good idea. How can less drugs not be good?

Agreed with most of this. Should we take away ulcer meds like gastroguard or Nsaid's for inflammation? I am sure horses are faster when treated with theses as well.
I would still need Nexium daily if I was a world class tennis player and I would play worse if I was suffering from GERD while trying to beat my opponent. If I twisted my ankle and took an Nsaid for inflammation it would be easier for me to play without as much pain and I would likely play better. I like you know Lasix makes horses run faster then if they don't take it but I am not sure if the playing field is level, and it isn't masking other nefarious drugs, why that is necessarily a bad thing.

I like you dont get why you give a horse lasix if it is not indicated unless its use is so important to prevent bleeding.

I figure in 2 years its out of the game race day anyways