I think Lasix is the least issue people should be taking issue with. But WTF do I know? Im not a vet or a trainer Im just a person who works with and rides horses everyday and from my stand point having ridden races I was never worried the horse was gonna throw one off because it had Lasix.
Why not start with Bute? Or Cortizone or why not make every horse that is on the vets list have a full exam, x-rays and all before it works to get off the list. There is a whole lot of other crap that should be done in racing way before the outlawing of Lasix, but what do I know.

Not at all. But I'm not the one forming my opinion by deliberately ignoring science and reality. You are.

We don't need more uneducated lasix conspiracy nuts. We need leadership.

Those are good points. I agree with everything you said.

I would be in favor of all of those things. I wish they would implement everything you are suggesting. As we both know, I'm sure they aren't going to do all of those things overnight. If they start doing them, it will probably be one thing at a time. I don't care which one they start with, as long as they start somewhere.

I think lasix should be somewhere on that list too. And as I said, I don't care what comes first on the list.

The truth of the matter is that I am far more qualified than you. I actually treat animals, including horses, with lasix, I am trained in it's pharmacology and use, I have a license and degree that proves that, and I am a published researcher regarding the pharmacologic effect of lasix in race horses.

You? You're a rude guy on the internet. You're entitled to an opinion on race day medications, but when you start saying false things about lasix to advance an agenda, I call bullsh.i.at. on the lasix lies. Because, yes, I know far more about lasix than you do.

The question is do you think using therapeutic medications that help protect the lungs of race horses should continue to be allowed?

You say no. Good luck with that. I'll fight you and your ilk every step of the way.

You might be on to something. I have connections in Buenos Aires.

I hear it's nice as long as you can avoid getting shanked.

What part of science and reality am I ignoring? I never said that laisx is totally ineffective in lessening the chances and severity of bleeding.

The one ignoring reality is you. You say that "eliminating lasix will ruin horseracing". To make a statement like that you must be totally out of touch with reality. For years we had no lasix in this country and racing was great. In other countries they have no lasix and racing is great. So how would eliminating lasix ruin racing?

Well, me and 60,000 other professionals in the American Veterinary Medical Association, the American Association of Equine Practitioners, and many a trainer.

But you hold on to your tiny minority opinion about lasix as a root of evil in horse racing.

Either you believe in therapeutic medication and modern veterinary medicine for hard-working equine athletes, or you do not.

You don't.

Yeah: I say that attitude isn't good for the horse, and will ruin racing.

Is the issue of therapeutic medication really that black-and-white? No grey areas?

Do you think there are instances where therapeutic medication is used when not indicated, overused, or even abused?

Do you think therapeutic medications can be allowed on race day, or not?

The very definition of therapeutic medication is that used at the proper dose, under veterinary supervision, for the proper indication.

You are more qualified than most to discuss the efficacy of lasix in preventing and/or lessening bleeding.

I've been in the business for 29 years as a bettor, owner, and racing manager. I talk to trainers every day. I talk to vets all the time. I look at our horses several times a week. I've been directly involved with close to 100 horses over the years. Do I know as much about lasix as you? Of course not. But I know enough about it and enough about all aspects of the business to have an informed opinion on the issue.

My opinion isn't necessarily right but it is at least an informed opinion.

You say I'm a "rude guy on the internet". I've posted on this board for several years and I think at least 95% of the posters would disagree with you. I think most people would tell you that I am one of the most polite people on this board.

I don't think too many of those 60,000 people would say that "eliminating lasix will ruin horseracing". I think you are in the minority there.

That's right. And when the anti- lasix proponents start lying about the drug, and the science surrounding it, in order to further their agenda, that's when I entered the conversation.

How about 60,000 professionals advising that, "eliminating race day lasix is bad for the health and welfare of the horse".

Considering that the health and welfare of the horse enables horse racing's existence, it's not really hyperbole.

What do you mean "can be"? Therapeutic medications are already allowed on race day.

So your contention is that legal medications at the racetrack are used only in a therapeutic fashion?

Type. Can continue to be

Nope. Stop changing the subject. I gave the definition of therapeutic medication. Do you agree with therapeutic medication use on race day, or not?

There is a cadre of people that want all medication eliminated from race day use. That's great.

Unfortunately for some of these old, white, rich guys who run racing, the veterinary and scientific community dared to say back to them, "We agree, eliminate all adjuncts, all NSAIDS, all illegal drugs - but not lasix - it's a valuable therapeutic and beneficial and necessary for the health and welfare of the horse".

So now that cadre is pissed. They don't want to allow lasix on race days. They want all drugs eliminated. How dare the veterinary community tell them they are wrong on this.

So some are now outright lying about lasix, nitpicking sentences from science papers to misinform, doing anything to try and prove lasix isn't therapeutic and helpful, that the science community is wrong, that old white rich horse owners are right, and lasix deserves being banned.

"The science community is lying about the research". False.
"Vets want lasix use just for the money". False.
"Lasix masks other drugs". False.
"Lasix is a hop". False.
"Vets are lying about the amount of bleeding". False.

The plutocrats have attacked the messengers, and attacked and lied about the message. It goes on and on. It's beyond absurd.

I don't give a damn what someone elses' opinion is on race day medications, as long as it's formed from reality and not lies.

If we eliminate lasix on race day, we had better be prepared for the physical damage we will do to race horses.

The "eliminate all drugs" plutocrats better stop trying to slide out of that responsibility by making up lies about the drug and the veterinary community. Because we know better, and the public will, too.

We're not going to stand for silly old rich guys agreeing to harm race horses just so their egos and preconceived ideas are not threatened. No matter how often they call us liars and say we really don't put the horse first. Eff you, old rich white racing guys. Somebody is putting the horse first, and it certainly isn't you.

The idea that the outcome of races can be manipulated by the amount of lasix given is completely without merit.
While I dont agree that the elimination of lasix will ruin racing, it surely wont have a positive effect in the short or long term especially as it contributes to a continued decline in the number of owners nationwide. Surely the added expense along with the decrease in value of a large number of horses cant be a positive regardless of how you look at it. The idea that the playing field is leveled w/o lasix is just plain wrong, it will be muddled as trainers and vets try new techniques with widely varying results.
There is a serious shortage of owners coming into the game and the number of empty stalls at tracks across the country is increasing. The decline in foal crop is far less significant than the decline in people to own them.

The common theme that less racing is going to lead to some revival as all the horses from the tracks that close are going to migrate to the surviving tracks is just not going to happen either. Racing has been shrinking for 20 years, getting smaller wont help except to further marginalize it and create more barriers to finding new participants. What racings leaders have failed to grasp is that people will choose to walk away and have been doing it for years now. Both owners and bettors are leaving yet the new strategy we get from the people with the money is a crusade against a diureitic with the side effect of enormous negative publicity giving every potential enemy of the game a free shot to stick a fork in its side.

all worrying about new owners aside chuck, what about the non-horseracing-fan public? how do we explain to people who don't a damn about the sport about giving medication on raceday?? you know, because they ask about such things all the time. surely that is the biggest issue facing the sport! :rolleyes:

and yeah, so tongue in cheek in case anyone was wondering....

It is interesting that in a society where we are medicated at a far higher rate than ever before, bombarded with ads for various medications/drugs at every turn and seemingly have a drugstore at on every corner there are those who firmly believe that people have a problem with a fairly innocous medication given to horses as a preventative measure.

Of course when the hyperbole begins and it is called abuse and tied to all kinds of other completely separate issues public sentiment (the public being pretty stupid in general) can turn.

You are far more qualified to comment on lasix then a hack vet standing behind 60k other hack vets. Just because you did 8 years of school in Guadalajara doesn't make your opinion more qualified. Rollo just googles the stuff she alleges to know about and rebuts this hack at every turn. CJ points the proliferation of the drug in 99% of the horses, the hack reps they dont all NEED the drug, yet she is OK with horses getting it when it is not indicated. Why? simple she earns on treating horses and while nobody including a hack vet is getting rich sticking horses in the neck with 60 bucks worth of lasix its all the goodies that come with the "therapeutic drug" that such vets are after. It's a job they get paid to fix horses and make them feel better. You think its for the love of the animal these people work? I have nothing against earning and appreciate that some vets love horses, they also have trailer loads of Lubrisol etc to move and bills to pay. Hence 60k think its ok to juice a horse up with anything perceived to me safe.

The Vets are the real stars in todays racing world, not the horses, not the jock and not the trainers.

What if they banned not only lasix but "bleeders" from racing? Say that after every race, the track vet examines the contestants and anyone with more that level 2 bleeding, or whatever, is disqualified from purse money. This certainly would change the picture, wouldn't it? Trainers would not only have to be concerned with how fast the horse is running but whether the horse is hurting himself or not.

Why is the horse's lungs bleeding? Because he's doing something he shouldn't. We've bred this animal to win and try at all costs. If I had an animal act where poodles jumped through a hoop 1000 times a second but , darn, their lungs bleed at the end, I'd be arrested for animal cruelty.

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...