I think it was fairly obvious from both cmorioles question and my own, that we were satisfied with the most accessible and commonplace method of diagnosing EIPH (ie endoscopy) as a means of quantifying severity.

You're attempt to roadblock any further discussion of the issue at hand with your bluster about lab coats, plastic catheters, and half liters of saline is duly noted.

Actually, we were discussing the signficance of bleeding on performance. That in and of itself need not include discussing lasix.

A good scientist would be able to separate and isolate the components of a multi-variable problem. Investigate each independently to ensure the most accurate definitions. Only later will those components be put back together, so that all the information can be integrated to form a cohesive whole from which to draw a logical, and hopefully valid, conclusion.

Try harder.

...and these very same horses routinely destroy our horses when they don't use Lasix.

But that is not the most accurate method of quantifying severity. You know that. In fact, it's known that endoscopy misses the diagnosis the majority of time.

Damn! Science! Truth! How dare I! :D

Even though I've not mentioned "lab coats, plastic catheters, and half liters of saline". Seriously: does reality ever intrude upon you?

Yet it means everything when one wants to ban the use of a valuable therapeutic drug - lasix - on race day.

But let's discuss your first premise: tell me, what does science tell us about the significance of EIPH, bleeding, on performance? We have that answer. Tell us what science has found about the significance of EIPH on performance.

Yeah. You might take your own advice. Because believe me, you aren't doing any of that. You are deliberately ignoring any science at odds to your opinion.

The question is not if lasix should be used on race day. The question is: do we want to allow the use of proven effective therapeutic medications on race day, or not?

Not only that, but apparently most of the scientific evidence that validates the use of lasix comes from a single study (from 2009--took a while to prove, didn't it?) done under racing conditions in...wait for it...South Africa.

I thought we weren't supposed to care what happened with racehorses across the Atlantic.

Their system and methods are totally different. Right?

Can you please provide some quantitative proof to that? Thanks!

Like, all the times your horses over 30 years have not used lasix in their races, and have beaten their peers.

Didn't you just post a whole list of purported facts that gush over the advent and widespread use of endoscopy?

Please be consistent.

I was presuming that the more accurate method of diagnosis you were referring to was a bronchial lavage. My bad.

I never said I wanted lasix banned.

False. Completely false. Again, you are simply ignoring that which you do not want to hear. There are 127 studies on lasix in the race horse, including many in the US. In fact, I have posted several on the previous thread, that you have certainly seen.

So are you just ignoring that? Or did you forget it exists? Or are you deliberately misstating in the above paragraph? Because your statement is grossly factually untrue.

Nope. You are, again, mistaken.

Now you're just making up sentences with words, to try and cover your lack of knowledge of the subject.

Do you think therapeutic medications should be banned on race day, or not? We both agree that illegal and non-therapeutic medications should be banned, I assume.

I think you misunderstand. I'm asking why we can't seem to win any race that matters overseas? Sure, our turf horses aren't the greatest, but they do win a decent number of BC races. Overseas, without Lasix, well, it is getting embarrassing. I'd settle for a horse that could run 10th at this point.

From the same person who conducted the South African study in 2009, when reviewing EIPH in 2004:

The currently favored treatment for EIPH is administration of furosemide
before intense exercise....However, it should be borne in mind that neither the relationship between severity of EIPH and red cell count in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid nor the efficacy of furosemide in reducing severity of EIPH in racehorses in the field have been demonstrated. In fact, there is strong evidence that furosemide does not reduce the prevalence of EIPH and other evidence that it does not reduce the severity of EIPH under field conditions. The association between furosemide administration and superior performance in Standardbred and Thoroughbred racehorses should be considered when recommending use of this drug.

Level-headedness and an open mind when targeting a problem are good things.

If horses without lasix do better, why don't you take all your horses off lasix and gain that performance advantage here in the states?

Is there any scientific evidence, in those 127 published papers on lasix in race horses, supporting your impression that horses without lasix perform better than horses with lasix?

So does intellectual honesty, and not changing the subject to a straw man, as you just did. Let alone quoting sentences out of context.

So let's go back to what you are trying to avoid.

You said: " ... apparently most of the scientific evidence that validates the use of lasix comes from a single study (from 2009--took a while to prove, didn't it?) done under racing conditions in...wait for it...South Africa."

I said: That is false. Your statement is false. "most of the scientific evidence that validates the use of lasix" comes from multiple studies - 127, to be closer - done in multiple countries, the vast majority being America.

There are multiple studies - over a hundred - that validate the use of lasix in the race horse.
Most were done in America.
Some use laboratory science duplicating racing conditions. Some use actual race horses on the track in racing conditions.
The studies vary from as long as 50-60 years ago (the origins of lasix) to the explosion of knowledge in the 1990's.

Your statement is grossly, factually incorrect.

Please - stop making stuff about lasix up out of thin air. Stop making statements of 'fact' when you are ignorant of the extent of the topic. It adds nothing to the discussion.

If you are sincerely interested in finding out the truth of the effect of EIPH on performance, and lasix on EIPH, you've spent pages proving the opposite. Again: do you want science to tell you what your opinion of lasix and EIPH should be, or is your mind already made up about it?

I'd have better luck talking to a wall. I don't think you even read the posts.

Lets try again. I never said horses without Lasix have an advantage. I actually have said just the opposite many times. I said our horses can't beat horses overseas when NONE of the horses have Lasix.

So clearly this EIPH that the shippers must be experiencing isn't causing any long term damage. If it was, our horses, through the miracles of Lasix, would be in much better physical shape. They would drub the horses from around the world. They would also expose those countries as foolish and horse haters for not seeing the light and providing their horses with the wonderful properties of this drug.

I'd have better luck remembering that you cannot jump from one idea to a logical second, but have to go step-by-step without skipping.

:zz: That makes zero logical sense whatsoever. There is zero connection between your conclusion and your first sentence. Zero.

That makes zero sense, and you clearly have no concept of how lasix actually works in the horse. Your assumptions in the above paragraph are legion and many.

Please: leave science to the scientists. You have to decide, are you going to listen to them, or not? Because right now you've clearly chosen "not". And you are making a hodgepodge of ridiculous arguments taking a snatch of concept from here and there (you are not ridiculous, friend, the arguments are logically ridiculous)

Again, the question is: Is US racing going to continue to allow the use of a proven therapeutic medication on race day, or not?

It makes zero sense if you can't read, otherwise I'm sure most can figure it out.

I'll ask some easy questions. If you can answer, great. If you won't, don't bother responding.

1. Do you think most horses that race in Europe suffer from EIPH when racing?
2. Do episodes of EIPH cause any long term damage?
3. If so, shouldn't the horses get worse the more they race?
4. If not, what is the harm in waiting to see if a horse actually bleeds before administering Lasix?

I'm glad to see you have come around and now admit Lasix enhances performance.

Baloney. It's a completely ridiculous assumption, that if American horses can't beat Euro or Australasian horses on their home turf, it means our lasix doesn't doesn't help our horses be physically better when they are taken off lasix and shipped overseas. Completely absurd.

Here's the easy answers, based upon the breadth and depth of scientific knowledge we have regarding lasix. If you don't want to believe it, you shouldn't have asked.

1. Yes. It's estimated 93% of horses in Europe suffer from EIPH when racing.

2. Yes, episodes of EIPH cause long-term damage.

3. Yes, horses DO get worse the more they race (regarding quantitative EIPH severity and damage)

4. The answer was "yes" to the previous question. My opinion matches the general consensus of the overwhelming majority of the veterinary community, that furosemide attenuates the quantity and quality of EIPH in the race horse, and is a valuable race day therapeutic drug.

Nobody has mentioned that the Derby winner was wearing a Flair nasal strip. If I trained race horses, I would race them all on lasix and with Flair nasal strips on. Both methods help protect their lungs from EIPH damage.

Outstanding, I didn't think you had it in you. But, your answers are exactly what I expected. Unfortunately, they fly in the face of what is happening on the racetrack.

Obviously horses in Europe, without Lasix, are going to have more frequent episodes of EIPH. We know it causes long term damage. The more they race, the more damage it causes.

So, our horses, with the benefit of Lasix, don't suffer as much from EIPH. Therefore, our horses must have less long term damage done.

Therefore, when our horses face those from Europe, we clearly must have a big edge. I don't see how anybody could even debate that given the information you have so kindly provided us.

So, it only leaves two more questions.

1. Why are our horses so inferior when we face them without Lasix?
2. Why aren't shippers at a big disadvantage when they ship here, even with Lasix, if they have all this damage from bouts of EIPH?

I rest my case.

Oh, please. I didn't say that and you know it. You said that.

I told you that if it were true that, as you said, our horses used to lasix couldn't beat horses not on lasix overseas, you should take your horses off lasix and gain that performance advantage you perceive.

Only if someone is silly enough to attribute 100% of a horses performance to the capability of the alveolar-capillary interface and measurable VO2max.

Dang. That would be you.

Why do you attribute 100% of a horses performance to VO2max? That's beyond absurd. You're ignoring every single other thing that contributes to performance: glycogen storage, quantity of fast- vs. slow-twitch muscle fibers, cardiac output, oxygen unloading, training, conditioning, inflammation, ambient humidity and temperature, etc., etc., etc.

Science isn't lawyering. Sorry.

In all seriousness:
1) Should American racing allow the continued use of race day therapeutic medications?
2) Is furosemide therapeutic?

The answer to #2 has clearly, beyond a doubt, been proven to be "yes". So it's up to American racing to answer #1.

You've given some weak answers, but this one takes the cake. You would have been better off not answering and just saying you fell asleep. At least your non-answer has basically admitted that the long term damage from EIPH really doesn't amount to much at all.

I'm going to get some sleep now, but tomorrow we'll work on the supposed fact that low levels of EIPH actually hinder performance. I'm sure you'll come around there too.

Nonsense. You are attributing 100% of performance changes in every American horse going to Europe or Australasia to VO2max, and that's patently absurd beyond measure.

Flippant may work with other folks that don't have a clue, but sorry. It's a fail here. Your "scientific" assertions are true bullshit. I suggest you go off, learn about EIPH and lasix, and come back when you have the basic facts mastered. Read the link provided would be a good lay person start.

Ignorance is threatening American racing. Stop contributing.

back in the fray after a good nights sleep.

on the face of it, when one says 'horses shouldn't be given drugs to race' sounds like a good plan.

however, the drug in question prevents hemorraging (which gives no sign of when or how badly it will occur) and potential permanent damage depending on severity of the hemorrage, isn't harmful, according to studies has no masking qualities and isn't proven to improve performance. doesn't sound like such a bad thing when you look at all that, does it?
now, if you stop using lasix....you have horses at risk of bleeding, with no idea of when or how severe it will be, you have proven bleeders without the benefit of something shown to prevent the bleeding, which puts them at risk of permanent damage. the only benefit of stopping lasix that i can see is that you can then say there's no race day medication, while completely ignoring the benefits of the now-banned drug.
but i guess for bleeders they could withold food and water for 24-48 hours.
i suppose explaining the benefits of witholding the basic necessities of life rather than using a safe drug with proven benefits would sound infinitely more palatable to people?

When did we win a lot of races overseas outside of the Dubai races when they were on dirt? When did we even run overseas prior to the Dubai races and occasional foray for the Japan Cup?

Didnt Wes Ward run a clinic last year (or the year before) at Ascot with a bunch of mediorce types?

The Japan races are what I remember, and our horses at one time were competitive. Now they are just embarrassing.

In the early years of the Japan Cup American horses did well but dont forget that Japanese racing and breeding was nothing close to what it is now. It isnt as though other countries horses are doing much in the race now either as the Japanese have been pretty dominant the last decade.

It still doesn't change the fact that if all this damage is done to horses racing without Lasix, how is it that the Euros are the better horses when they come here most years? Clearly this "damage" is being drummed up to be something worse than it is.

Are they ever better horses here on dirt? What happened to Daddy Long Legs in the Derby against our 3 year old dirt lasix diluted horses?

Using this argument as proof is silly. I recall a lot of Europeans coming over here and tharshing our best horses on turf prior to lasix being used.

the euros are better most years at what?
and since you brought it up, regarding euros. don't they train with lasix? and as soon as they get over here, they race them on it. seems hard for them to be holier than thou when they jump at the chance to use it asap. and they'd use it at home the moment it was legalized. many push for it-and with reason.

and in australia, they remove the better bleeders after an episode, because after a second there, they can't breed. so they send them here. why do you suppose they do that? because they can run on lasix to prevent further bleeding and it's potential consequences.

Thank you for reminding me about this as it completely undercuts his entire argument and anyone's regarding the diluting of the breed. I guess Lasix only dilutes the breed when horses race on it, but not when they train on it. :rolleyes:

What is the source that asserts that European horses are trained on lasix? Even so, does supporting a ban of raceday medication mean that one also must support banning medication for training/therapeutic purposes?

Furthermore, a racehorse's reputation is (or should be) made on raceday, not during training sessions, so a "drug dependent" horse would still have to compete clean to have a shot at entering the breeding population.

Most stallions are failures regadless of what country they raced in or what medications that they raced on. The vast majority of mares are bred primarily because of pedigree first, conformation 2nd and race record third. The idea that a a diuretic can have an effect on the genetic makeup of a horse is laughable.

as soon as they come up with a way to know beforehand what horses will suffer a bleeding episode and when, i'll fully support removing horses who don't 'need' lasix from using it. until then, i will fully support all efforts to prevent hemorraging during training and racing.

for starters on europe and lasix, there's this pdf from grayson-jockey club:

http://www.grayson-jockeyclub.org/ne...singmatter.pdf

an excerpt:

.'....“Lasix” to race? Yes, these drugs are illegal when racing in Europe, but it is not illegal for a European trainer to administer these drugs to a horse when he is training it.'


and keep in mind, most euros run on lasix when here. i've always found it odd when euro trainers sneer at us for using it, and then use it themselves as soon as they get the chance.

then there's this:


The Horsemen's Journal: Archive


Medication Committee Corner: Are We Winning the Lasix War?
The Horsemen''''s Journal - Fall 2011
by Kent H. Stirling, National HBPA Medication Committee Chairman

A lot has happened in the last few months dealing generally with race-day medication and specifically with Lasix/Salix, which is used to reduce or prevent Exercise Induced Pulmonary Hemorrhage (EIPH) in racehorses. Lasix (I still can’t bring myself to call it Salix after all these years) is permitted for administration to racehorses three to four hours before post time in all United States racing jurisdictions. It is also legal on race-day in Canada, South America, and Saudi Arabia. Horses train on it in virtually every country in the world with a 50-nanogram threshold in urine or, in other words, don’t work a horse on it within two days of your race or your horse will be “positive” for Lasix. Since EIPH is a progressive condition that gets worse with age and every bleeding incident, one would be well advised to train on Lasix for speed works in those countries that don’t permit its use in racing.


imo, if they use it in training, where a horse seemingly would NOT be at maximum exertion, why would they ban it's use when he would be needing to run his best and hardest? what matter if it's not in the system within 48 hours of an actual race if it's used otherwise? how is that logical?


https://www.nationalhbpa.com/Horseme...n=3&key1=13747

there's the link to the whole article.


and for those who don't read it through, this is toward the end:


Dr. Tobin gave a presentation on the expected increased risk to horse and rider from acute/sudden death EIPH due to the banning of Lasix. This risk was fairly obvious because when New York permitted Lasix in 1995, the incidence of Epistaxis (visibly bleeding from the nostrils) immediately dropped 80 percent!

If I were to guess, I'd say that due to the endless arguments of whether it's a performance-enhancer or not, Europe just decides to dodge the issue and forbid it on race day.

Nevertheless, most intact males become stallions based on race performance.

I agree. I'm not sure anyone is suggesting that, though. Certainly the possibility exists that severe EIPH manifested as epistaxis is a heritable trait.

Lasix has been shown to reduce the incidence of epistaxis. So the potential is there for lasix to "mask" severe bleeders, theoretically allowing them to race competively and subsequently become breeding prospects.

another thing about euros-they send their 'bleeders' here to race. not exactly removing them from the gene pool by doing that...and if breeding is culling bleeding, why do they still have bleeders?
and, if they want to know who's a bleeder...why do they train with it?

This is hardly proof that European trainers utilize lasix during training.

Another poster in this thread, when discussing the safety of using lasix, seemed to suggest that even American racehorses only receive lasix for races, not training. So Europeans are allegedly using lasix like hotcakes inbetween races, but their US counterparts wait until only raceday? Seems counterintuitive, and bad practice besides, since a racehorse can suffer bleeding in training (even simply galloping) just as it can in a race.

It can be argued, as cmorioles has suggested numerous times, that lasix is used by European trainers when racing stateside because it enhances performance or at least "levels the playing field". And this indiscriminate use of drugs in a "pre-race" fashion is the underlying crux of why even therapeutic medications are being targeted for banning by certain elitist-idealists groups within the racing industry.

Well, first, permissible lasix in the States enables opportunists to make a quick buck dumping/selling their bleeders to the US. Not every horse owner is a breeder or a racing purist. Secondly, Europeans are active at the NA sales and operate breeding farms in the US, so the domestic bloodlines still make their way across the Atlantic.

Again, who says that they use it for training? Even if they are, who says they are using it indiscriminately on every horse? Perhaps they identify the bleeders first and then treat accordingly.