Can racehorses bleed at other times besides workouts and races (eg., during routine gallops)? If so, is it safe or appropriate to give those horses lasix more frequently?

Horses breathing
 

Thanks for the link. I read and it certainly was very informative. My one question would be if a horse only breathes through the nose, why are tongue ties used?

Unfortunately lasix has never been proved to prevent EPIH. If it doesn't prevent why the nearly 100% use in USA racing?

Lasix has been proven to markedly decrease the incidence and severity of EIPH in a quantitative and qualitative manner. As previously discussed in this thread, there are thought to be multifactoral causes of EIPH, and yes, lasix does not prevent EIPH in 100% of horses. Just the vast majority.

This is the valid veterinary medical proof of the drugs efficacy over decades, and there is no "opinion" available on that matter. The evidence is so strong, and the benefit to the race horse so obvious, that the American Association of Equine Practitioners and the American Veterinary Medical Association both support keeping lasix as an approved race day therapeutic medication, while they support the elimination of every single other medication we have for race day use.

To keep the horse from getting it's tongue up over the bit = out of control horse.

Some think a tongue tie helps prevent dorsal displacement of the soft palate while racing, but there's not alot of real evidence it works to do that.

When and where was this published?

:zz:

Well, you can read the 120 available studies on the subject over the past 40-50 years by clicking on this link and entering the words

EIPH equine

in the search term box at the top.

Then hit "search".

If you enter the terms EIPH equine lasix you'll get another 28 studies that are more specific.


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

Sounds like an evasion.

I played along anyhow. Here's what I found:

-No significant differences were detected among treatments. (2009)

-At this time, there is no treatment that is considered a panacea, and the currently allowed treatments have not proven to be effective in preventing EIPH. (2003)

-In conclusion, although both modalities (nasal strip and furosemide) were successful in mitigating EIPH, neither abolished EIPH fully as evaluated via BAL. (2001)

-Although in the frusemide-control experiments, a significant reduction in mean pulmonary arterial, capillary and wedge pressures was observed both at rest and during galloping at 14 m/s on 3.5% uphill grade, all horses still experienced EIPH.(2001)

-Comparison of average and maximum EIPH scores of 44 horses with a minimum of 4 observations (2 nontreated, 1 saline-treated, and 1 furosemide-treated) indicated that although furosemide did not stop EIPH, it did reduce the EIPH score in 28 (64%) horses. (1985)

-Furosemide administered in different dosages and time intervals prior to exercise did not prevent EIPH. (1984)

No. It's not an evasion. Just surprise that anybody who has actually been reading along this thread expects there to be one paper that supports what I said - which is the uniform position of the discipline of veterinary medicine, as proven by the research.

You might read the entirety of the thread where this has been discussed already?

So now that you've "played along" superficially and shallowly, you can "play along" for real, and quote the other multiple studies that do exactly what I said, which was: Lasix has been proven to markedly decrease the incidence and severity of EIPH in a quantitative and qualitative manner.

You might also read the thread, where the concepts of "prevention" and "cause" and "attenuate" and "reduce incidence and severity" have already been discussed.

Because it appears that you are wrongly thinking that there is a claim that lasix prevents bleeding in all horses. Which nobody has ever maintained. It's clear you are confusing the different things, "prevent" and "decrease the incidence and reduce the severity".

In fact, two of the studies you superficially quoted, above, prove exactly what I said. Like this one:

-Comparison of average and maximum EIPH scores of 44 horses with a minimum of 4 observations (2 nontreated, 1 saline-treated, and 1 furosemide-treated) indicated that although furosemide did not stop EIPH, it did reduce the EIPH score in 28 (64%) horses.

-In conclusion, although both modalities (nasal strip and furosemide) were successful in mitigating EIPH, neither abolished EIPH fully as evaluated via BAL. (2001)

And one of the studies you quoted, above, about not working, isn't even talking about lasix, but an entirely different drug.

Again, as discussed throughout this thread: clinical practice and research shows that lasix works to decrease the frequency and severity of EIPH in race horses. All horses? No. Completely eliminate? No, but it has in some. Does it not work in some animals? That's right, due to what has previously been discussed here.

You mean like the ones that ship in for the Breeders Cup from Europe? Yeah, they are sure idiots.

Even in the 14 that didn't bleed? Did horses in the 70s and 80s have a rash of respiratory infections? I sure don't remember it. Do we even no if this microscopic bleeding causes poorer performance?

I've been asking the same question.

That has been discussed in some depth earlier in the thread. You can look back and read it.

But ignoring the answers.

I'd rather read War and Peace. I scanned through it and couldn't find it.

We all know these studies will usually find exactly what the people funding the study want it to find. I prefer to use common sense. Horses raced for decades with this undetected microscopic bleeding. They seemed to be just fine, and were a lot sturdier lot than what we have now. I certainly don't think Lasix is the only problem, but shouldn't it have at least helped a little bit with horses being able to run more often?

Like I've said, as a bettor I don't really care if it is banned. I just have to laugh when those that say it isn't a performance enhancer dismiss that as ridiculous. Their actions contradict everything they say.

So by your latest study we give drugs to 99% of horses Lasix because 64% have microscopic bleeding?

Well, no. Not at all. Properly done and peer-reviewed published studies are extremely valuable, as they stand up to scrutiny and questioning and dissection from "all sides".

That's right.

How can you speak to that in the least? It's a guess. I've watched horses race since the 1960's, too. How do you know they couldn't run a length faster? Or come back to their next race two weeks sooner?

Common sense - and physiology - tells me, as a veterinarian, that a horse with blood in it's alveoli can't oxygenate as well as one without microscopic blood in it's alveoli.

That's an assumption stated as fact.

:zz: It DOES help. ALOT. Measurably and repeatedly. There is plenty of proof over the past 40 years.

We'll, we're just going by the science.

More hit-and-run quotes from choice abstracts:

-Given the purported ergogenic effects of frusemide, the external nasal strip is a valuable alternative for the attenuation of EIPH

-Improvement of performance in the furosemide trials was due more to the weight-loss related effects of the drug than its apparent alleviation of EIPH

-The existing literature references suggest that furosemide has the potential of increasing performance in horses without significantly changing the bleeding status.

You can't cherry pick out individual sentences from abstracts while completely ignoring the breadth of work and the other sentences in the paragraphs. For example, you quote this

-The existing literature references suggest that furosemide has the potential of increasing performance in horses without significantly changing the bleeding status.

But you fail to quote a few sentences later:

This is substantiated by clinical observations that the administration of furosemide to horses with EIPH may reduce haemorrhage but does not completely stop it.

Science - not your thing ;)

Rollo, the entirely of the veterinary community has one fairly united opinion on this. What is your explanation for that?

And yes, as has been previously pointed out here, the FLAIR nasal strips have the same efficacy in decreasing the severity of EIPH as lasix does. Glad you noticed.

Arguing medical issues with true believers is utter folly, Rollo, Rupert, and CJ.

It's like trying to talk reason to a religious zealot. Can't be done, and it's stupid to even think you can.

Fixed that for you, big guy ;)

You know what, you actually did make my post better and made my point far better than I ever could have.

I offer you a sincere thank you for that.

Good thing there's an alternative that doesn't require a raceday injection in case lasix does end up getting banned.

The people in this sport on that committee, who have "made up their minds" and deliberately and repeatedly refuse to listen to anything that shows the holes in their rather ignorant assumptions are irresponsible fools who are ruining this sport.

Of course, those in this state that think "opinion" and "fact" are the same thing are not in short supply, and have spent millions of Kentucky tax money building the Creation Museum.

Yes. Buy stock. Lasix will never be banned. That would harm too many horses. That the industry is even considering lasix a problem shows the ignorance and absurdity of those in charge.

Maybe they could have run a length faster. Is that worth drugging every horse so now they all run a length faster?

Sturdier is an assumption based on rapidly declining starts per year, which happens to coincide with the use of Lasix. I don't know if it is the cause, but it certainly hasn't helped overall.

As for your science, there have been studies done that show it does enhance performance among non-bleeders. You posted it yourself if I'm not mistaken.

Or the measured difference that a study quoted earlier here found.

If you take an aspirin for a sore knee, are you a "drugged performance enhancer"? And nobody has ever said lasix should be given to every horse.

That also coincides 100% with the advancement of the Mayan calendar.

That's right, I posted three studies about performance. What did they say again?

The thread has now come full circle. Some that are sure lasix is a performance enhancer ruining the sport will not be dissuaded by any evidence to the contrary.

Kasept and Cannon wrote some very insightful posts in the first few pages. Worth a re-read.

Imagine the uproar if every human athlete was stuck with a needle before competition...every time.

This is getting old, as you are clearly biased and admitted as much. All horses don't bleed, so the aspirin thing is silly. Aspirin also wouldn't make humans that compete without a sore knee do it better.

The studies I saw had different conclusions. I saw some that said a small difference, others that said big difference. It is tough to follow your biased snippets.

I haven't learned much about Lasix in this thread that I didn't already know, but I have learned those supporting its use are as stubborn as those against it, and both sides are wrong on some of the issues. TTFN.

You mean like the silly uproar where therapeutic use of anabolic steroid in race horses under veterinary advice was ridiculously compared to illegal steroid drug abuse in human athletes? So we banned steroids? And the sport has been saved and horses are completely different now?

The fact there is a difference at all is the entire point.

Here's a comment on my "admitted bias" for you (and the bias that apparently also encompasses the rest of the veterinary medical and research world who also hold the same opinion)

There is a reason that the American Veterinary Medical Association membership and the American Association of Equine Practitioners membership majorities hold "that opinion".

And it's not because our critical thinking skills are comparable to religious zealots.

My opinion is based upon what science has told me is true. It was formed after I reviewed the evidence. The evidence told me what was true - not the other way around. I can't hold an opinion on a drug that is contrary to the facts in front of my eyes. That would be irresponsible and stupid.

And if different evidence and new information appears, I certainly will be willing to change my opinion. I have in the past. Advancements in medicine happen all the time, and we change our advice and opinions based upon current best knowledge.

Versus holding an opinion in the face of all evidence to the contrary like some appear to do.

We could let the factual evidence tell us what opinion to have. You have a good night, too. Good discussion.

Orioles, seriously, you need your head examined.

You'd have better luck running head first into a brick wall. If you are lucky, you just might hit yourself hard enough to pass out.

I've been laid up for a month with a bad back, what else am I going to do?

Unfortunately that is not true. There is no prove. Yes a study in South Africa seemed to indicate a lessening of EIPH. This certainly was not extensive study. No one seems to every refer to the head Vet who testified before Congress that their extensive study didn't show Lasix to perform as a deterrent of bleeding in horses and was used as a masking agent for other PEDs.That is right in the congressional record.

Opanas. They're healthier than a back and forth with Quiet.

There are a lot of alternative choices that might work for your bad back.

As for arguing with a person, who in thousands upon thousands of posts has never once conceded a point or said "hey, maybe you are right", I'd just as soon stick my hand down into a running garbage disposal unit.

The whole thing with Lasix is beyond retarded.

I would love to see the look on Riot's face if I were able to ask her in person "Doctor, is bleeding in horses caused by a deficiency of Lasix?".

Knowing her, she'd say yes, but most rational people would say no.

In which case, I'd say, "Then why the fugg are you giving Lasix to the horse when the bleeding is not due to a deficiency of Lasix?"

This not true unless lasix was in use in 1960

Humans are often stuck with needles during halftime of our most popular sport and no one seems upset about that.

Perhaps because the preponderance of other evidence doesn't support that postion.

This is not an opinion matter. It's either true, or it isn't. And there are at least 50 current studies that show that yes, lasix mitigates exercise-induced pulmonary hemorrhage. That's not my opinion. It's fact.

You can go check it yourself at the links I have given.

It's scientific, measurable fact as publicly supported by the American Veterinary Medical Association and the American Association of Equine Practitioners.

As said before: does it stop bleeding in all horses? No, as EIPH has multifactoral causes. And nobody has ever maintained that. Does it decrease the extent of bleeding in most, and stop it in some? Yes, indeed.

The comment about not being able to find drugs in dilute urine is laughable nonsense that was last true about 25 years ago.

This type of ridiculous misinformation, deliberate ignoring of facts to support a predetermined political agenda, is exactly what is dangerous to this sport, but more importantly, the health of our horses.

You can't fix deliberate, purposeful ignorance.

Lasix can be banned in US racing, if racing wants no drugs at all to be used. But trying to ban it based upon decades-old falsehoods and ridiculous lies needs to be confronted for the scientifically disproven fantasy it is.

You mean like I've conceded points in this thread? ;)

Please - if all you can contribute is ad hominem, go away.

This thread has alot of good, accurate information in it. I suggest that those that want to become accurately educated on the subject go back and read the first pages, especially the comments by Kasept and Cannon.