great idea. that would end racing once and for all. wouldn't take long either.

Why is the horse bleeding ??? Dude any horse competing in any sport, jumping, barrel racing or even just log pulling can bleed. Why dont we just ban horse sports period because that seems like where all this B.S. is headed.
Ill say it again Lasix is the least issue to be taking issue with but whatever floats your boat.

This is what Arthur Hancock and George Strawbridge have created with their inane scorched earth policy. A entire group of clueless people who suddenly think they have answers when they dont even know what the question is.

Honest question because I really don't know the answer. What happens to horses that bleed through Lasix? I seem to remember horses not being able to enter for a pretty decent amount of time, and even being barred from racing. Has all this changed?

As I said - the ignorant and angry anti-lasix crew trying to destroy veterinarians reputations professionally and ginning up ridiculous conspiracy theories is about all they have left for argument when they don't like what they hear. The scientific world has told them they are wrong about lasix - how dare we!

We would have to then ban all horse sports across all country. Anything that involved speed: cross-country, harness, barrel racing. EIPH is a horse (and sometimes dog and human problem) not a racing problem.

:tro:

I'm confused about this.

On turf? On dirt? Both surfaces? are we talking about euro shippers to american or american shippers to europe?

I just cant think of a high number of euro's who routinley destroy our best dirt horses when they do not use lasix.

On turf? sure it seems that way. Though you would think it would be expected considering America focuses on dirt racing and Europe focuses on turf racing... which of course has nothing to do with lasix.

They are not allowed to race, and if the episode is repeated (they continue to bleed) they are banned from racing. See highlighted section below.

I want to point something out about lasix. It is administered IV (in the vein) four hours before a race. It starts to work in 5 minutes (making a horse urinate), it's peak action is at about 1 hour, and it's half-life is about 2 hours. This means that, when the horse goes on the track for the race, the action of the furosemide (lasix) has been done and over for an hour or two.

It is illegal to administer lasix closer than 4 hours to post time.

Depends on a few factors. It used to be that a when you put your horse on lasix initially that was considered to be the first episode and you were prohibited from entering for 14 days. The second time you bled you would get 30 days but only if the state vet visably saw the blood coming from a horses nose and examined them post race to make sure the blood wasnt from a cut in their mouth or another horse. The 3rd time would get you 90 days and any episode after that would get you ruled off for good.

One of the technical issues with the current rules that could be an issue with banning lasix in stakes is that the way the rules read in some places if you take the horse off lasix and put them bak on again you get 30 days and are considered a 2 time bleeder. If this were to happen and a horse unfortunately bled because they happened to hit their head in the gate they would get 90 days and be a step away from being banned. The rules can be changed obviously but the intent was to prevent trainers from putting them on and taking them off indiscriminately so that will have to be addressed.

I am under the impression that eventually lasix will not be allowed on raceday because those who are the adamantly behind the movement are well heeled and hate being told no and will keep fighting until they get their way. If only they felt so strongly about topics which could actually help improve the sport tangibly...

these are such ridiculous questions.

when dirt racing becomes more prevalent oversea's.. and when American trainers actually start sending their good horses to race oversea's in a race that is not called the dubai world cup... maybe then they wont be such ridiculous questions.

Or I guess Wesley Ward should just start stepping up his game.

Like putting their money, influence and control towards detecting and eliminating drugs of abuse, drugs that harm horses, illegal drugs, illegal use of permitted drugs.

Rather than eliminating our most safe and effective therapeutic drug for EIPH that helps protect horses lungs during a race, because it's easy and the public is stupid about what lasix does.

I can't wait for Breeders Cup, the first horse pulling up 1/8 before the wire, staggering and snorting before the stands as bright red blood rushes out nose all over the jock and handlers. The press can interview Dr. Bramlage live on TVG, who will say, "Yes, we have a drug that prevents this, it has been banned for use against the advice of the veterinary community. This was preventable".

Go For Wand will fade to a distant memory.

The interesting thing is that, with the proliferation of multi-hemisphere breeding, plenty of horses across the world have virtually the same pedigrees.

I'd settle for better backside and tote security, sane takeout rates, better use of technology like races being shown in HD. You know things that are no brainers that no one seems to bother doing anything about.

I disagree with your assertion for number 1, but that is fine. You didn't even address #2. If horses running without Lasix are bleeding and it does permanent damage to lung tissue, why are these horses still able to come here and beat our lung tissue protected horses? It seems pretty obvious to me that this so called tissue damage has no affect on thoroughbred performance.

All of those things would be great. However, none of them are going to do much good until horses are able to race more often. Field size is the number one factor that drives betting. I'm not suggesting banning Lasix is going to do that either, but that is the number one problem that needs to be addressed. Why can't horses run often like they did in the past?

i have tried several times without success to find a bloodhorse story from a few years ago that showed even tho some believe euros routinely thrash us when we meet, that it isn't actually the case. very frustrating to say the least that i can remember reading the thing, but can't produce a link.

Your premise is completely misguided. You are cherry picking the best horses and using them as a typical example. Even horses who are grade 2 or 3 level are still far superior to the average horse. While good horses can have the same issues that an ordinary horse has it isnt just that they are faster that makes them superior, often it is a higher pain threshold or abilty to run despite issues. I have trained or worked for trainers in which plenty of horses that regressed due to lung tissue damage.

What the breeding theory people dont seem to understand is that very few horses can be bad bleeders and still compete at the highest levels consistently. What they should be more concerned with is the horses with a single graded win that become stallions more than some supposed genetic defect being passed on. No one seems to mind that horses at stud with terrible feet or altered conformation (things that are visably passed on) are breeding large numbers of mares.

but the horses are allowed to and do train on Lasix oversea's, they are just not allowed to do it on raceday, so a definative answer cannot be given. And when these very good European turf horses come over and beat our average at best turf horses, the majority of the time these Euro's ARE using lasix... so again no conclusion can be reached.

Common sense tells us that yes, of course lung tissue damage would affect a thoroughbreds perfomances. Though that is just an opinion of mine, which disagrees with your own personal opinion.


In my opinion all your questions prove is that turf racing is better over sea's than in America. It seems to not have anything to do with lasix.

Everyone loves to use the av starts per year stat but they fail to recognize 2 things that negatively effect that number. The fact that 2 year olds are included skews the numbers simply because nowdays virtually every 2 year old that runs will drag the number down. The 2nd is nowdays trainers are judged almost exclusively by win percentage. Giving a horse a prep race is hardly acceptable any longer. Even guys like Zito who would seem to be secure in their place have adjusted the way they train high dollar babies because the owners look at a loss as a huge negative even if the experience is beneficial for the horse. A guy like Whittingham would be scorned now as too old fashioned because he almost always gave his first timers a race or two. Even at the lower level tracks trainers are selected by win percentage. You solve that and trainers will be filling the box because for the most part we make money by running but if we have a barn full of empty stalls, well you know...