Prominent horse owners vow to run 2-year-olds without race-day drugs
 

Prominent horse owners vow to run 2-year-olds without race-day drugs

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports...VwW_story.html

List includes Barry Irwin, Roy Jackson, Arthur Hancock, Will Farish, Seth Hancock.

Yay! Increase in EIPH! I can't wait.

Yay, healthier horses!

I can't wait!

I also can't wait for Riot to stop being such an obvious shill.

Yay!!

Yay, another morally superior post from Riot!!

Yay!

Yay, better living through drugs!!

Not treating horses for EIPH is like not treating asthma in humans. EIPH isn't a disease caused by racing. It's a disease of all horses in all sports. Ignoring a disease and not treating it doesn't make the disease go away. It doesn't make for "healthier" people. Or horses. It makes for more suffering and affected, increasing morbidity and mortality.

Any horse retired from the track because of excessive EIPH causing lung damage can go right to the breeding barn, there is zero to physically decrease their ability to breed, other than a race record.

Not rocket science. Just basic science. And the last thing we need is more science deniers in this world.

All those sick diseased horses around the world seem fine

Only if you ignore the incidence of EIPH in American (allows lasix) and non-American racing jurisdictions. And the results in the progeny of American sires used as shuttle stallions.

Focusing on lasix as a major problem in horse racing is a sham, and an idiocy.

When I saw this all I could wonder is if they would all be wearing promise rings...

Just as all humans don't have asthma, all horses don't suffer from EIPH. There are also different levels of bleeding, but hey, just drug em all. I guess I'll start using my son's inhaler...just in case.

Freddy, I have tons of Percocet laying around and an unfilled prescription, should I fill it for you just in case you feel some pain?

Are you in favor or against withholding a therapeutic medication proven to decrease the incidence and severity of EIPH in horses with evidence of EIPH? A yes or no will suffice.

I think that's a pretty good description :)

I'm sure they all feel wonderfully self-satisfied for their efforts at taking American racing back to a past that's not in the best interest of the health and welfare of the race horse, nor at current standards of veterinary medical care.

It depends on what you call evidence.

Diagnostic evidence of the clinical condition as determined by accepted standards of practice (definition) by doctors of veterinary medicine.

I'm not trying to trick you into any answer I'm just trying to see where you draw your line in the sand, and why.

Are you in favor or against withholding a therapeutic medication proven to decrease the incidence and severity of EIPH in horses with evidence of EIPH?

Honestly, I don't know. If it were merely a therapeutic medication, I would be all for it. However, there are quite a few that believe it enhances performance. There are plenty of vets on both sides of that argument. Studies are slanted towards those paying for them. Some indicate performance enhancement, others don't.

So, until it can be proven it does not enhance performance, I'm against it. The reason I say that is that it forces those horses that don't need drugs to use them to be competitive if it is indeed a performance enhancer.

My personal belief is that it does make horses run faster, and not just because it reduces EIPH. I don't know the scientific reason, that isn't my field. But I have a lot of experience measuring thoroughbred performance and until proven otherwise, I'll stick with that.

key word, believe.

as for the latter bolded, there have been studies that show it does not enhance. but again, the key word is all that matters. it's why they have such a muddled mess. facts vs beliefs can be messy. do you believe studies that say it enhances, and disbelieve the ones that say it doesn't? if so, then it's your judgement of right and wrong, not what is.

There have been studies shown that it does as well. Perhaps believe wasn't the best word. The people that did the studies probably believe them.

I don't know which studies are right, that was my point. My experience would lean towards it enhancing performance. I measure it for a living, and I've had more than my share of time on the backside as well. I don't trust either side to be honest. If I have to pick one side or the other where there is a vast difference of opinion, for now I'll go with the one that doesn't inject 99% of horses with drugs. It doesn't mean my mind couldn't be changed.

but that's the thing...if there are two findings, then i guess it does come down to bias. i really don't know myself if it's good or not. on the face of it, blocking hemorraging would be good. and if you don't know who to treat, or not to treat, then what do you do? personally i'd rather prevent than say i wish i'd prevented. after the fact is too late.

So drug them all, then, right? I just have a problem with that I guess. If other places didn't do just fine racing without drugs, maybe I would feel differently.

So, are you really saying that if you ignore bleeders vs non bleeders, than your entire argument finally holds merit?

How much do you get paid to post here and on other boards?

i don't know. i know i asked you before about harm from lasix. is there? i think you'd said no before.
as for others-yeah, they ship them to where they can use lasix when they bleed, so they know it helps bleeders. wonder where we'll ship ours? or if there is a horse with an issue, it's better to not treat? just seems that we can never find a happy medium with things like this.

I don't know if it harms them. I do know horses are running less and less and lasting fewer seasons since it was introduced.

Yes, they ship bleeders here, but those are the chronic type, not that kind that have to be scoped to find microscopic traces of blood. Hell, after I jog a few miles, I'd probably qualify for the stuff these days.

"Belief" doesn't matter in science and medicine.

There is no objective evidence that lasix is a performance enhancer.

There is overwhelming, unassailable evidence that lasix is a valuable therapeutic medication that attenuates the severity and frequency of EIPH.

No. There are not. The vast, overwhelming majority of veterinarians are in favor of lasix's use as a therapeutic medication, including the American Association of Equine Practitioners, and the American Veterinary Medical Association - both organizations who feel so strongly about the matter, they have published public position papers on the subject.

There are very, very few, outlier vets that think differently, that say no.

That's a common lay person belief, that is generally wrong. But that is also why studies are published in open, peer-reviewed international magazines, so the methodology and results are open to every scientists opinion and comment.

Thus, studies that stand up to peer-review, scrutiny and question are taken as definitive evidence.

No. Those numbers are wrong. I know of one old study with a few horses that indicates an improvement in running in non-EIPH horses, and many, many studies that show the opposite.

It has been proven thus, that it is not a performance-enhancer in non-EIPH horses, via objective examination of all research to date, and thus is the opinion, of the overwhelming majority of scientists and veterinary medical doctors around the world. I am one of them.

Horse racing has a serious problem with performance enhancement, but the water pill that grandma takes for her heart problem, and that horses are given to protect their lungs, isn't it.

As someone whose profession is animal medicine and health, who also cares about horses as an owner/rider/fan, who wants all performance enhancing drugs out of horse racing (and other horse sports), who has experience with published scientific research on lasix, and who puts the welfare of the horse above all else (even client preferences) in my professional life, it is utterly tragic to me that some in horse racing are trying to eliminate a valuable therapeutic medication from use, while true drug problems rage rampant.

This simply isn't true. If it were easy to measure performance, which it is not, there would be easy answers. I personally don't think those on the side of non-drug use should have to prove a drug doesn't enhance performance. It should be the other way around. I'm not sure it can be done right now with the tools we have.

Let me ask a simple, yes or no, question. If Frankel raced in the USA or Canada, would he be given Lasix? If so, does he really need it? If not, why not?

It is very easy to measure objective performance parameters scientifically. We have literally thousands of scientific papers, in human and animal medicine, that do this: measure performance. It is the basis of the creation and development of sports medicine, in humans and animals, years ago.

There are two ways that are commonly and frequently used in equine research regarding furosemide and EIPH:

The first is to take horses, train them to run on a high-speed treadmill indoors at racing speeds (where you control environment, temperature, humidity, air quality, absolute feet-per-second of speed, etc). Then subject them to testing conditions and measure the results before, during, after.

The second is to use detailed statistical analysis to examine real-life racing horses retrospectively.

What else do you think "simply isn't true"?

It already has been done.

This - the benefit of lasix to race horses, and it's ability to affect performance - is not a subject, within the veterinary and scientific community, where opinion is widely variable, or "50-50" at all. As far as the scientific and veterinary community goes, it is 99.99% to 0.01.

Scientists and veterinarians do not form an opinion, then try to justify it. We have formed our opinions based upon what the objective, repeatable evidence tells us is true and real.

That is why an overwheming, vast majority number of veterinarians and scientists say the evidence shows us that lasix is not performance enhancing in non-EIPH horses, it shows it is a valuable therapeutic medication.

That is why the overwhelming, vast majority of veterinarians and scientists advise the use of lasix in race horses with EIPH.

I have only seen two veterinarians publicly say they think lasix should be banned, that I can recall by name.

That's two out of tens of thousands that treat equines or involved in equine research - let alone the rest of the medical community.

Even if there were 100 vets that felt that way, based upon their reading of the scientific literature (which is why there are not that number), that would still an overwhelming, less than 0.0001% of equine researchers and veterinarians to feel the facts should be interpreted differently than the overwhelming majority say those facts demonstrate.

This is not a subject where there is any significant variance whatsoever in what the medical/scientific community agrees upon.

That is why it is completely shocking to we in the medical community to see lay people ask the medical community what we think, the vets give the answers (which in this case virtually everyone agrees upon!), then the lay people choose to ignore or disregard the professional, educated advice, and say, "Well, gee, I dunno ... " !

I have no idea what Frankel's health record is.

Let's go back to the child with asthma. Let's say the asthma is usually under good control, but exacerbates with exercise. Would a parent let him/her play soccer only using their prevention inhaler after an attack begins? Of course not! We would all use the prevention inhaler to prevent or decrease the severity of an exercise-induced asthma attack.

That is precisely what lasix does to attentuate the severity and frequency of Exercise-Induced Pulmonary Hemorrhage in horses diagnosed with same.

I have to admit, this is probably the funniest thing you have posted.

When horses start racing competitively on a treadmill, and they are known to maintain form from day to day, I'll buy into the first test.

Seriously, the second is a joke, right? I've seen the studies. They have no idea how to measure performance.

Your asthma thing is ridiculous. These horses are treated for EIPH before anyone has a clue if they suffer from it or not. Nice dodge on the Frankel question though. The answer is, of course, he would race on Lasix. Would he need it? The answer is, of course, obviously not.

That's right. Hundreds of scientists, in human and animal medicine, are not as smart as you about ... doing science.

And of course, measuring speed and distance achievable in a horse tells us nothing about performance. How silly of we scientists! (smacks palm against forehead!)

Pardon me while I laugh hysterically - and sadly - at a man in 2012 believing the earth is flat and 6000 years old.
Good luck with your fantasy cult. Whatever you do, keep ensuring that no reality intrudes upon your religion ... opinion, whatever it is.

And please, start writing the editors of medical journals regarding the deficiencies of various study methodologies ... your opinion, surely, will be as well-received as you imagine it's worth.

ABSOLUTELY

It would probably be worth about the same as your opinion here.

How about the geared-down winning performance from Lunar Victory in today's Evan Shipman Stakes at Saratoga? A very talented horse who may be the top New York-bred horse in training on dirt, he has now won four consecutive races for Bill Mott and the anti-Lasix pledge-taking Juddmonte Farms. In the third victory of his current streak, he bled through Lasix so bad that it was noted in the race chart. Would racing be better off without the horses like Lunar Victory?

The point is racing would be better off without lasix in general. BTW geared down? Please like in 2 jumps a horse is so much slower if the rider relaxes , this stuff is so overrated. Of course I like watching good horses and of course I want to see horses like Lunar Victory run. My issue is how come at Royal Ascot and Longchamps the horses are fine and at Saratoga and Delmar they aren't?

:zz: The horses at Royal Ascot and Longchamps are not "fine". The same number of horses as in the US bleed and suffer EIPH. The horses at Royal Ascot and Longchamps just suffer EIPH more severely when it happens during a race, as they train on lasix, but don't race on it. Plenty of horses come back to the paddock snorting blood out their nostrils. Read the stewards reports before you guess.

There is a segment of the racing industry that wants no drugs allowed on race day.

I agree with that. I am anti-illegal performance enhancers. I am 100% for what improves the welfare and safety of the race horse, what is in the best interests of the horse - not owners, nor trainers, nor gamblers.

And with the health and welfare of the horse first and foremost, I agree with the 99.999% of my professional veterinary colleagues, that furosemide should continue to be allowed as a legal race day therapeutic medication. That's because the veterinary medical community knows lasix attenuates the severity and frequency of EIPH.

Thus it's continued use is for the better health and welfare of the race horse, in the view of the professional veterinary community responsible for that health and welfare

A small segment of the racing industry doesn't want any drugs used on race day. They are angry the vet community doesn't fall in line with their idea. So they have to demonize lasix. They have to demonize the veterinary community. They demonize scientific research.

They created the false meme that "lasix is a performance enhancer and must be eliminated", while maintaining they don't have to prove this made up claim.

I'm tired of the lies and the nonsense. What has to be done is what is best for the race horse. Not the egos of a very small segment of participants, who are willing to sacrifice what's best for the race horse in order to demagogue their issue and massage their egos.

Stop reading your posts, that should help.


Inject away! Maybe the jockeys should be on Lasix too, just to make sure.


You mean like what you and other vets do?

" So they have to demonize lasix. They have to demonize the veterinary community. They demonize scientific research."

Check.
Check.
Check.

I really think a lot has to do with the difference in the surfaces over which the horses are raced/trained. The fact is that our dirt races, contested with a premium on early speed, in many respects, are a battle of attrition. I don't think it can be seriously debated that dirt races are more strenuous on the horse than turf races are. Few turf races are contested in the same way; in fact, just the opposite, the premium is placed on late speed.

This is more anecdotal than anything else but twice we have owned turf horses that would bleed if worked strenuously (over 4F) on dirt. When we got up here in Saratoga and were able to work them over the Oklahoma turf course, we could work them up to 6F without incident in the morning. It did illustrate that, when a horse is breezed/raced over what was for him a more demanding/uncomfortable surface, he was more apt to bleed (even with Lasix).