Originally Posted by Cannon Shell (Post 860928)

No I am telling you that there are far greater forces that affect the number of starts than lasix.

Hello? It will ruin the game? What do you think has been happening?

You obviously havent been paying close enough attention to the trends of the last 20 years. I know you have been but you are just being stubborn. Of course it is shortsighted of owners to think this way but that what they have been doing!!!!! Lukas get a lot of grief (and obviously his last 8-10 years havent been kind) but his disciples who now have a stranglehold on a huge amount of the good horses in this country dont really follow his model of success. He ran horses and ran them alot. The spacing stuff came from the sheets guys and when Frankel won everything for a few years and gave credit to this methodology everyone who could read figured this was the magic trick. Of course I'm not just talking about trainers either. There arent a handful of big owners that dont have an "advisor" whose sole purpose on life is deciding what to do with their bosses horses. Most of them wouldnt know a horse if it fell over them but they believe they can read sheets or TG's or some other methodology that tells them as soon as a horse runs a really good race you should "space" the races further or like Alpha stop running entirely. That is the exact opposite of how people felt 30 years ago. When a horse ran a big race they would want to strike while the iron was hot.

Behind a lot of this hate to lose stuff is the value of bloodstock which was a significant driver of business for the last 15 years. As soon a horse shows they can run the plot to "maximize" the horses value begins. That plan rarely includes running them where they will be challenged. Big trainers having 5 strings of horses makes it easy to transfer them to find the softest spot possible. The thing is that when owners listen to TVG or HRTV or the trade magazines, this style of management is praised and many smaller owners want to emulate that "winning" approach. Of course they dont talk about all the flameouts that are managed into oblivion (see Godolphim for multiple examples)

Originally Posted by Danzig (Post 860939)

and they also send bleeders elsewhere when they discover them. they aren't kept where they can't race on lasix, and therefore won't suffer damage as they get race day treatment, not just training days.

Originally Posted by Antitrust32 (Post 860918)

so the fact that euro's train on lasix means nothing to you?

You are reaching conclusions through information that you are just assuming.

Originally Posted by cmorioles (Post 860982)

But 93% of all horses bleed. Obviously all the bleeders don't get sent here, only the worst ones. Are you trying to say most of the G1 winners that shipped in from overseas are part of the magic 7%?

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi (Post 860966)

As expected, you masterfully backpedaled from your earlier absolute that inhalants from racing don't affect EIPH. Antitrust had a good point that perhaps racing on dirt predisposes horses more to bleeding than on natural grass courses. No one said anything about bacteria, et al directly causing EIPH, nor suggested that inhaling kickback immediately led to EIPH in the same race. Only the notion that lower airway inflammation, for which many different microscopic sources found in dust/kickback are responsible, can exacerbate bleeding was offered. Seems like you agree even though your original response read the opposite way.

You're welcome.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell (Post 860914)

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...

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin (Post 860990)

That whole thing about 93% being bleeders is totally misleading. A high percentage of those cases is microscopic bleeding. Microscopic bleeding is not going to affect performance at all. That is not to say that microscopic bleeding is necessarily totally insignificant. It could get worse and progress into something more significant over time. It would be something to keep an eye on but there is a good chance that it will never develop into anything significant.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin (Post 860990)

That whole thing about 93% being bleeders is totally misleading. A high percentage of those cases is microscopic bleeding. Microscopic bleeding is not going to affect performance at all.

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 861031)

It's a sad, sad day for racing, when pushing a decidedly minority and disproven opinion is more important than doing what's best for race horses.

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 861031)

Racing is owned by rich, out-of-touch, ignorant old men who are more worried about their egos and power and demonstrably don't give a damn about the welfare of the horse.

Originally Posted by cmorioles (Post 861036)

Therefore, I have trouble believing this cry to keep Lasix is all about the horse. It isn't, it never is.

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 861038)

Yes, it's all about our "convenience". Not about the horse. Same old "discredit the messenger" straw man.

When being lasix-free causes horses to suffer, we'll be sure to point directly. at. you.

Originally Posted by Coach Pants (Post 861043)

Btw I am a republican and speak with integrity.

Originally Posted by cmorioles (Post 861039)

I'll worry about it after horses like Anew are treated differently. That is a much bigger problem than bleeding, and nobody seems to care. Until then, you are all a bunch of hypocrites.

Originally Posted by cmorioles (Post 861036)

First, horses still bleed with Lasix, it isn't a cure all. So spare me "the first horse to bleed..." BS.

Second, as I've said a few times and been ignored, there are plenty of horsemen doing FAR worse things to horses than denying them Lasix.

There are plenty of not rich men that don't give a damn either.

You act as though without Lasix horses will be struggling to finish with blood spewing from their nostrils. Funny, I spent 5 years overseas and traveled to many racetracks around the world. I don't recall seeing many horses in distress from bleeding. It can be controlled without a drug obviously.

You say there are many worse problems out there and this isn't an issue. Maybe it isn't. But I don't see horsemen, as a group, campaigning for any of those things that could help the game. They do nothing that isn't in their own interests, ever. Sure, you get a few guys like Chuck that have a good grasp of things, but apparently they have no status among their peers.

Therefore, I have trouble believing this cry to keep Lasix is all about the horse. It isn't, it never is. You'll have to excuse me me if I don't care if they are a little inconvenienced by people that want drug free races.

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 861031)

At this point, it's pretty apparent that cmorioles, Rollo, and Rupert absolutely refuse to change their opinion about in the face of all fact to the contrary.

It's a sad, sad day for racing, when pushing a decidedly minority and disproven opinion is more important than doing what's best for race horses.

Racing is owned by rich, out-of-touch, ignorant old men who are more worried about their egos and power and demonstrably don't give a damn about the welfare of the horse.

Well, it's on your backs, cmorioles, Rollo and Rupert. You now take personal responsibility for your strong opinions, and forcing a substandard and dangerous medical practice on race horses in the face of overwhelming veterinary opposition to your decision.

We veterinarians, in overwhelming numbers, the ones that know medicine and EIPH, have told you the truth, and how wrong you are. But because you don't like to hear opposition to your decisions and your power, you call us hacks, accuse us of lying, accuse us of being as heartless as you are, accuse us of making decisions based upon money rather than caring for the health and welfare of the horse.

Screw you.

The first horse you force to run without lasix, that suffers at your hands, we'll be pointing directly at you when PETA comes for the sport and it's all over. It shouldn't take long.

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 861030)

Wrong. I cannot understand why you stick your fingers in your ears and keep repeating this blatant falsehood, page after page. It's like saying dinosaurs walked the earth with humans.

Bleeding detected on tracheal wash - seeing blood cells - EIPH - is definitive evidence that each ruptured, bleeding alveoli can no longer exchange oxygen and carbon dioxide.

It's called, "early diagnosis".

You saying that EIPH doesn't matter until so much microscopic bleeding accrues that it is grossly visible to the naked eye is patently false and absurd. That's as ridiculous as saying bleeding from an amputated leg doesn't matter until you lose so much blood you pass out. It's the same as saying congestive heart failure drowning you in pulmonary edema doesn't matter until you pass out from lack of oxygen.

What percentage of lung volume can be lost before it "affects performance"? 3% 10%? 20%

It doesn't matter until hundreds of thousands of alveoli are ruptured and the horse is literally drowning?

That's beyond absurd. It's made up non-science. And it's a terrible thing to do to a horse. You'll deliberately run a horse through EIPH until it bleeds visibly? That's animal cruelty.

And yes - when your lungs start filing with blood, it affects your performance. Even before it comes up your trachea and out your nose.

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 861038)

Lasix decreases the incidence and severity of EIPH in the race horse. Proven effective beyond a doubt no matter how often you call "BS". So essential to the health and welfare of the horse, that it's the only therapeutic drug the united veterinary world says should be allowed to be administered on race day.



You're right. It's about a powerful few in racing angry that the veterinary world has the audacity to tell them they are wrong. How dare the underlings speak up! They pay our salaries!



Yes, it's all about our "convenience". Not about the horse. Same old "discredit the messenger" straw man.

When being lasix-free causes horses to suffer, we'll be sure to point directly. at. you. Who will you blame then? The medical world is on record, publicly saying you are wrong. Who will you blame? Hey!

I'll bet it will be those horrid trainers, and their evil veterinary accomplices, using all those "illegal drugs we can't detect"!

After all, you eliminated "scourge of steroids" three years ago, and look at how the sport has changed ... oh. Whoops. Never mind. Guess that's why lasix is being attacked now.

Hint: maybe go after illegal drugs, but more importantly, abuse of currently legal drugs. Through .. testing! Yeah! Testing! Rather than picking on drugs that help horses?

But wait, that costs money ... guess we'll just go back to eliminating lasix. Damn! Racing would be so perfect for the rich, old powerful white men, if only it were not for the trainers and veterinarians and public bothering them.

Oh, yeah - there are living creatures, horses, involved, too.