TDN OP-ED: Jerry Brown on missing Lasix discussion point
 

http://www.thoroughbreddailynews.com...ent.cfm?id=934

Thoro-Graph's Jerry Brown parses out the Lasix discussion and the backwards suggestion regarding handle from the 'anti' crowd.

In comments in the TDN this week, both Dr. Bramlage and Arthur Hancock took the position that Lasix needs to be banned because bettors want that to happen, and handle will suffer if we don't (click here). Those gentlemen are certainly qualified to comment as professionals about veterinary medicine and breeding, but when it comes to bettors and handle, they are playing in my ballpark. My handle is seven figures a year, and I produce high-end handicapping data used by hundreds of big bettors, including some who bet more than I do. And that idea isn't just untrue, it's dangerously wrong.

Dr. Bramlage says "the general public doesn't understand" Lasix. I don't know whether families picnicking at Saratoga understand Lasix or not, but I do know those people don't drive handle. Allen Gutterman once estimated that 2% of those betting are responsible for 50% of handle, and my guess is that 10% of us generate close to 90%. We are not passive "fans"-- we are horseplayers, participants in the industry. And I can tell you for a fact that we make it our business to understand Lasix as it applies to handicapping, and that not a single horseplayer I have talked to will bet MORE if Lasix is banned. It would add an extra unhandicappable variable to each horse in every race, and more confusion. Some of us--like me--would bet less.

People bet when they have an opinion. The stronger the opinion, the more likely they are to bet, and the more money they will bet. Things that create uncertainty hinder investment in business, and the same applies here as well. Not knowing whether the reason a horse stopped last time was because he bled, and whether the problem has since been dealt with, creates uncertainty. Factoring in the randomness that someone in the field will bleed today, at a short price, creates uncertainty.

It's worth thinking about why Lasix is the only drug that is listed in the program. And it's worth thinking about how people would pay for and bet on the basis of inside information that would become crucial if Lasix is banned, and how that would affect public perception. It's happening now with illegal drugs, and it has destroyed the morale and enthusiasm of many horseplayers. I see it all the time on the board at my website.

It's also worth thinking about something that happened a few years ago, when the industry went tearing off to build synthetic tracks, without talking to those of us who were going to have to try to answer undecipherable questions about how each individual horse was going to handle each surface, and make decisions about betting those races (or not). Is everyone happy about how that worked out?

There are two major problems with the drug debate that is currently going on in our industry. The first is that the Lasix issue is being lumped in with the illegal drug issue, because both involve drugs, and in some cases because people have agendas. I've been heavily involved in trying to stop cheating in our game for a long time, not for idealistic reasons, but because money is being stolen from honest horsemen and horseplayers (like yours truly). Attempting to stop something illegal, which everyone agrees about, and attaching it to banning a legal therapeutic drug, which is controversial, is like having a bill to fix the Veterans Administration, and combining it with declaring war on Iran, because both involve the army. As long as it's both or none, movement will be impossible on the non-controversial part, the relatively low-hanging fruit.

The second problem is that only two alternatives are being discussed regarding Lasix, and that's a false choice. It's not simply they all get to run on it, or none do. So here's a rational, pragmatic proposal to deal with Lasix. Not as a sports issue, but as a business issue-- because this is a business first, and a sport second. If you don't think so, try it without bettors.

First of all, starting with next year's 2yo crop, we go back to the way it used to be-- to get on Lasix a horse has to be certified as a bleeder by a state vet, not your own vet, following a race or work. Second, any horse who goes on Lasix has to carry a five-pound penalty. From what work I've been able to do on this with very little data that looks about right, but after a year there will be lots of data, and the penalty can be tinkered with. Third, older horses currently on Lasix have the option of staying on it-- and accepting the five-pound penalty.

The idea is to allow the horses that really need medicine to get it, and to remove the incentive for others to use it. Best guess is this will drastically reduce the number of horses on Lasix over time, and enable us to concentrate on real problems, like the fact that nasal strip info is not being provided to the betting public, which is ridiculous. And oh yeah, the minor problem we have with illegal drugs--which is killing our industry.

Jerry Brown is the president of Thoro-Graph Inc. (www.thorograph.com) publisher of data used by professional horseplayers and horsemen. As a consultant, he is responsible for the purchase of 87 stakes winners including Victory Gallop, Distorted Humor, and Rachel Alexandra.

The bloviating Barry Irwin response: http://www.thoroughbreddailynews.com...ent.cfm?id=951

Jerry Brown's response to Irwin: http://www.thoroughbreddailynews.com...ent.cfm?id=983

Well, that's clearly the dumbest thing I'll read all week and it's only Tuesday. Props to Brown for his eloquent response, because mine was more like:

I hope they are able to locate the Article Jerry Brown References about Dr Harthill. I have tried searching for it a few times with No Luck if anyone else locates it could they please post a link, I would love to read it again. No question Dr was one of a kind....

this?

http://www.drf.com/news/call-him-doctor-derby

You are a Google Wizard! Here's the pertinent bit:

"A lot of guys gauge themselves on the fees they collect," Harthill said. "I hate to say that, but there it is. I look at a good vet as someone who can answer the question, did I do that horse some good? And the horse will tell you. He really will."

One of them, according to Harthill, was Northern Dancer. As Harthill recalls it, the colt had a bleeding problem as the 1964 Derby approached, and trainer Horatio Luro consulted his old pal the doctor for a possible solution. Lasix, a diuretic descendant of calves' brain and Doan's Pills, was just making its way into the game at the time. Harthill was an early advocate of the medication, which is now used by about 95 percent of all racehorses.

"Security was following me, though, so I got a vet I knew from out of town to come along with me," Harthill said. "I told him I was going to turn to the right, and would he go that way and take this little syringe down to barn 24, stall 23, and give this to that horse. There would be a guy there called Will. He'd be waiting.

"So he did it, while the gendarmes followed me. They were following the mystique!"

Harthill smiled. He didn't really feel all that mysterious. In fact, he prefers to be considered nothing more than a horse-loving small-town vet, whose fondest wish is that people stop kidding themselves about the issue of drugs in racing.

"Therapeutics might help a horse run as fast as he's capable of running on a given day," Harthill said. "But not any faster. They're an equalizer. And besides, it's not fair to ask the public to bet on a sore horse."

i thought his comments further up were worth looking at.
why would we fail to treat horses that can be treated? wth is the point of modern medicine if it's going to be treated as a horrible thing to actually use and benefit from?

This probably sums up the entire "debate" for me.

:tro:

it really does for me too. these are the parts that got me:

"The horse should be the primary thing in a veterinarian's life. To ask a horse to run when he's not doing well isn't fair. All I'm asking for is anti-inflammatories and anti-bleeding medicine."

It is hypocrisy, contends Harthill, to treat legal therapeutics in such a manner. Such restrictions, he says, are done for purposes of public relations, and at the expense of the horse.

"It's the most unnatural thing in the world, what we ask these horses to do," he continued. "They're locked in a stall most of the day, exposed to respiratory ailments from horses shipping in from all over the country.

It sums it up for any actual horse player. Lets just hope the 1% doesnt win this cause imo horse racing handle will decline significantly if Lasix is gone.

'Horseracing currently thrives in Hong Kong, where stacks of cash are bet on the races. Lasix is not allowed in Hong Kong. The reason the wagering pools are so astronomical in Hong Kong is because the horseplayers know that the integrity of racing is without question. '

so, bets are high, there's no lasix-therefore if they used lasix there would be less bets?
correlation does not equal causation, mr. irwin.

in looking for that article, i came across some other stuff, some of it interesting. not sure who this guy is, but some of what's in his article i found interesting.

http://businessofracing.blogspot.com...orld-does.html

what caught my eye:

So how can we reconcile the fact that, according to the South African study that I reported on yesterday, "most horses bleed," with the very low rates of bleeding reported in non-Lasix countries?

A few possible explanations stand out, though there's little science so far to prove or disprove any of them.

First, training practices differ substantially as between North America and most of the rest of the world. Here, most horses train at the race track, are exercised for comparatively short times, and get comparatively more speed work, with racing-speed breezes. Elsewhere, it's more common to train away from the track, in a less pressured atmosphere. It's notable that the relatively higher rates of bleeding in non-Lasix jurisdictions occur in those places -- Hong Kong, Singapore and Dubai -- where horses do train at the race track.

Second, most jurisdictions' definitions of bleeding don't include horses that score a 3 or 4 when scoped, even though those hores are clearly compromised in performance. According to the South African study, nearly 10% of horses have serious tracheal bleeding without Lasix (reduced to essentially zero with Lasix), enough to affect their racing performance.



does anyone know if therre's been any studies done that would indicate that the type of training helps lessen bleeding in those places that don't do much at the actual track?
also, i would think one would be able to claim they have much less 'bleeders' if they don't count those on the lower end of the spectrum. if we did the same here, what would it do to our numbers of bleeders?

Zorn is the manager of the Castle Village partnership group.

Start here with RMTC studies: http://www.rmtcnet.com/content_research.asp

The study you want is Dr. Sams' Univ. of FL exercise research where 2 dozen racehorses were kept under training conditions..

thanks!

that was interesting, i would hope everyone would read it.

The point is pretty simple for me. Horses that use Lasix have a speed advantage over those that don't. I'm not a scientist, I don't know the exact reasons why. I really don't care. I just know it is so. That is how we got where we are today, where horses that don't need Lasix are given it all the time.

We are told now it is preventative. But, that isn't the main reason nearly every horse is given it. It is given to level the playing field. Jerry's idea tries to level the playing field without giving drugs to 95% of the horse population. I think it is a good idea. How can less drugs not be good?

Nobody gives a crap about drugs in Hong Kong. Comparing racing in the states with a place that is almost completely chinese in origin among its population is not useful. Have you seen just how addicted to gambling the Chinese are? Do you know how many bus loads of chinese american's are bused to Pa. Ct. NY. and NJ casinos daily. The culture is infected with the gambling bug. Do you know how many races are run in Hong Kong a year vs. the states. Plus proximity to the track is ideal for must and nobody that works their can afford to do anything other then go to the races unless they are extremely wealthy. The only outlet these folks have is the track. Macaw casinos are loaded with people as well but if you are chinese you have to PAY a lot of money to enter these casino's.

Respectfully the drugs can be controlled because the micro industry is contained in one ruling body not 50 odd states with different governing rules. Its just a whole different world and should not be remotely considered when evaluating racing in states.

Agreed with most of this. Should we take away ulcer meds like gastroguard or Nsaid's for inflammation? I am sure horses are faster when treated with theses as well.
I would still need Nexium daily if I was a world class tennis player and I would play worse if I was suffering from GERD while trying to beat my opponent. If I twisted my ankle and took an Nsaid for inflammation it would be easier for me to play without as much pain and I would likely play better. I like you know Lasix makes horses run faster then if they don't take it but I am not sure if the playing field is level, and it isn't masking other nefarious drugs, why that is necessarily a bad thing.

I like you dont get why you give a horse lasix if it is not indicated unless its use is so important to prevent bleeding.

I figure in 2 years its out of the game race day anyways

I don't think those other things make a horse that doesn't need it run faster if administered. I'm sure Lasix does. If Lasix is needed, fine, but it has gotten out of hand. And those that get it should be penalized. Weight is one idea, and seems a pretty good one to me.

Since vets dont believe Lasix makes them run faster I am sure they will agree with your premise.

What are you trying to say? Makes no sense, but...


I think Jerry Brown, and even myself, know more about measuring horse speed than vets do.

when reading the report on the study, they said that a horse doesn't improve due to lasix, but they are able to run to their level because they don't have the bleeding issue. did you read the study? did you see the percentage of horses affected by bleeding?
if people don't wish to use it on their horses, they don't have to. but it is helpful to many horses, and should be allowed.

lasix doesn't make a horse 'run faster'.
horses may not bleed for some time, and then suddenly they do. that's why people use lasix, they have no way of knowing when it'll happen to a horse.
read the study, seriously.

I am saying that vet's dont think Lasix makes horses run faster and as such they will agree with your premise that Nsaid's and Ulcer meds dont either.

I've read it, I just disagree. There are studies out there showing just the opposite that have been posted here before. I've been doing this a long time. I know how to measure horse speed, and I know that horses run faster with it than without.

There is ample evidence if people bother to look. As a bettor, I can quantify it. Horses that don't bleed run faster with Lasix than without. It isn't even really debatable. Of course horses are individuals and the effect isn't the same on all of them, and a scant few run worse. But by and large, it improves performance.

As for the preventative aspect, wasn't a study just released that purported to prove only a very few really need Lasix long term, and that bleeding doesn't hinder long term performance?

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...six-not-needed

I take them all with a grain of salt because everyone has an agenda. My agenda is to make money betting. It may be selfish, but it isn't slanted to one cause or the other. I look at it objectively.

Here is an example that won't happen because I think Goldencents is going in the BC Mile. If he met Rich Tapestry again, after his trip last time, I'd bet him in a second over Rich Tapestry. But, if Rich Tapestry were to add Lasix, I'd bet him. I've been doing this long enough to know Lasix makes a difference, and the difference is not heads or noses but lengths.

but unlike other studies, this was actually done under racing conditions. now, it wasn't done to detect whether it made horses faster, but it most definitely showed that it helps regarding EIPH-which is the reason for its use. unless and until a better anti-bleeder comes along, I don't see a reason to stop using it. many horses bleed, the bleeding is lessened by using Lasix. are horses improved due to lessening instances and severity of bleeding? i would think that it was what you're seeing when you say it makes them faster. they are running without hindrance. and seeing in the report how often horses suffer from it, I'd hate to see it taken away because of a perception or belief that it is a performance enhancer. removing the hindrance of bleeding isn't an enhancer-it allows the horse to race at optimal levels.

I believe it helps, but I also believe it gives an edge. If a drug is allowed that helps some horses run faster, but others can't have it, how is that fair? We see where this has led...they all get it now. That is not good.

I have to say, two years ago I was in the anti-Lasix contingent, but I was persuaded by reading this board to change my position (it was actually Riot, and her accounts of other methods used in pre-Lasix days that convinced me. I thought Lasix was cruel because of the dehydrating effect, when, in fact, that's what actually helps protect the lungs). I think people miss the point of Lasix, which is that it's not a therapeutic drug; it's a preventative drug. It's meant to reduce the chances of a horse having an EIPH episode. Since there's no way to tell if a horse is going to bleed, better to administer it in case.

To me, Lasix is to racehorses as vaccines are to people. It's not perfect, it doesn't work in 100 percent of recipients, but it's the best option we have. And no, not every horse is going to have an EIPH episode, just as not every unvaccinated person is going to get chicken pox. And the majority of diseases we vaccinate kids against aren't usually fatal. But they can be, just as EIPH can be, and why take the risk of a horse dropping dead from EIPH in the middle of a race when there's a cheap and easy way of reducing the chance that will happen? We can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

I think we also dance around the issue that when we race horses, we are pushing them past what they evolved to do. And that's the point of athletics- challenging the body to its physical limit. But we get weird about it when it's animals- we fret about consent, and start to ask if what we do is cruelty (never mind that it's just about impossible to get a 1000 pound animal to do something it doesn't want to do). And that's the really hard part of the argument- if you say that really, most horses in hard athletic work are going to bleed in the lungs, even if only slightly, then the question we have to ask is, is it right to be racing them at all?

Of course, I think it's fine to train animals in athletic endeavors, but I think we have a responsibility to do the best we can to protect their bodies against the inevitable damage athletic careers will do. And I also think it's okay for trainers to make the decision not to use Lasix, if they feel it's in the best interests of their horse's health (like when Larry Jones felt Havre de Grace was having a bad reaction to it. Perfect, good, enemies and all that).

Except they don't all get it...and if they did, there would be no advantage. Knowing eiph can hit any horse, anytime, with no warning, and as the study said, it can kill...I think I'd rather have something to help bleeders, especially knowing its all there is for bleeders.

:tro:

95% get it. Those that don't usually have a reason. You didn't address my point. By giving a preventative drug to some horses that gives them an edge, you basically create an unfair playing field and force those that don't need it to use it. I'm sorry, I'll never be convinced that drugging horses that don't need it is a good thing.

As I said in this thread, I'm fine with bleeders using Lasix, just make sure they are penalized somewhat for doing so to level the playing field. Forget me, a guy as respected as Jerry Brown is saying that Lasix gives an edge. Does that carry no weight?

Harness racing article but addresses the arguments as they pertain to thoroughbreds also:

http://www.harnesslink.com/News/Bann...r-horses-97434

How does increasing the chance that horses will bleed in races negatively affecting their performance without warning create a fair playing field?

force those that don't need it to use it-did you see how many horses bleed? you have to give it as a preventive, as there's no way to know that a horse will bleed-and many do at some point. any anti-bleeder, and right now Lasix is the only one I know of, has to be given as a preventive as there's no way to know beforehand that a horse will bleed. and it can be no bleeding to a bad case, or even cause death.
you'd rather it not be given because you feel it gives an edge, knowing that not using it would cause bleeders to bleed worse, and could cause serious injury or death?
the study basically said it levels the playing field for bleeders, because by being given it, they can run TO their ability-not beyond it.
I'd like to see a similar study done under racing conditions that would show me that it improves a non-bleeder. and then there's the issue of a non-bleeder becoming one. I'd rather prevent an episode than chance it-I'm not the one taking the risk, the horse is.
since you believe it does give an edge, I'm sure you bet accordingly. that's why the info is given, so you know.

from the study:

Results—Horses were substantially more likely to develop EIPH (severity score ≥ 1; odds
ratio, 3.3 to 4.4) or moderate to severe EIPH (severity score ≥ 2; odds ratio, 6.9 to 11.0)
following administration of saline solution than following administration of furosemide.


At least 80% of racehorses can be
expected to develop the condition at some time during
their career,1,2 approximately 60% of sudden deaths
during racing have been attributed to pulmonary hemorrhage,
2 severe EIPH has been shown to adversely affect
race performance,3 and EIPH is believed to adversely
affect the overall health of racehorses.

so, we should tell those 80% of horses 'too bad'? can't use it on you because it might give another horse an edge?

http://www.nytha.com/pdf/the_lasix_question.pdf

• Much has been made of the effects of weight
loss on an athlete’s performance. The weight loss
effect of Lasix is
comparable to the weight
loss a horse might
experience if denied hay
and water for 24 to 48
hours before a race, as was often the practice before the advent of Lasix.
While Lasix use is strictly controlled, there is no oversight for if or when a
trainer takes away a horse's nutrients. Will this necessitate the
introduction of security to ensure that all trainers observe the same
protocol? Will it lead to headlines proclaiming, “Horses Starved and
Dehydrated Before They Race”?

• Lasix does not allow a horse to perform beyond
its peak natural ability. It alleviates, but does not
eliminate, a condition that hampers peak
performance. Anecdotally, historically and
scientifically, it has been demonstrated clearly
that EIPH adversely affects performance. Horses run slower when they bleed. Anecdotally,
historically and scientifically, it has been demonstrated clearly that Lasix is significantly effective
in minimizing EIPH. The refusal to connect these dots is the height of, “Don’t confuse us with the
facts.”

6) Does Lasix mask other medications?
• During the International Summit on Race Day Medication, EIPH and the Racehorse,
Dr. Richard Sams, PhD, director of HFL Sport
Science Inc. in Lexington, stated that, after the
American Association of Equine Practitioners
came up with a universally accepted standard of
practice for Lasix in 1983--recommending that it
be administered intravenously and at a time four
hours prior to a race--the concern that Lasix
could affect the detectability of other
medications was addressed. “That concern is
largely eliminated when [Lasix] is administered in
a tightly controlled environment, as it is in the
United States,” Dr. Sams said. He concluded, “I
don’t refer to [Lasix] as a masking agent. It’s
impact on post-race testing is not very
significant.”
17
• In an article in Daily Racing Form, Steven Crist said, “The whole issue of whether Lasix can
mask other drugs was a valid concern a generation ago--perhaps the best reason to oppose its
use--but from all veterinary accounts this is now a non-issue. The vastly increased precision of
testing, and a greater reliance on plasma rather than urine tests, has made this a moot point.”

2) They race without Lasix in Europe, in Hong Kong, in Japan. Why do we need it in the U.S.?
• Outside of the United States, the majority of racing jurisdictions still use archaic medical
science when it comes to an official diagnosis of EIPH.6 If a horse does not show evidence of
epistaxis (bleeding from one or both nostrils), they are not considered bleeders. With the modern
technology available to aid in diagnosis, this is the medical equivalent of refusing to use an X-ray
machine to diagnose fractures. It is irresponsible to wait for a horse to be in crisis to make a
diagnosis.
• Outside the United States, the majority of racing jurisdictions fail to officially acknowledge the
prevalence of EIPH, despite the incontrovertible
evidence that it affects the majority of horses.
BUT, trainers in Europe and Australia use Lasix
during training on a regular basis. The trainers
acknowledge its effectiveness in treating EIPH--
the ONLY motivation for using Lasix during
morning workouts is the alleviation of EIPH.

Except cmorioles hasn't said that he'd rather see it not given. Not from what I've been reading anyway. He said he would just rather there be a penalty given to those that use it. The horse that just came to my mind is Smarty Jones. If memory serves me right, John Servis did exactly as cmorioles is talking about here. He felt forced to take it to make sure his horse was competing on an even playing field even though his horse wasn't a bleeder. If there was a weight penalty in place instead, perhaps Servis doesn't add the drug because the penalty would have the effect of leveling the playing field.

I just don't see how drugging nearly every horse to compete is acceptable. If that is what is needed to run the sport, then the sport will definitely go away at some point.

Then we need to find something better than Lasix. It isn't all that effective anyway. There has to be a better way. But racing is never forward thinking in any aspect of the sport, and that includes medicine. Of course I'm not including illegal drugs where some are very forward thinking.

I don't buy the preventative argument. I've been around this game a long time. Never once was this mentioned when Lasix was being legalized. It was going to be a savior drug that helped known bleeders compete more often. The EXACT opposite has happened.

Like I said, I can live with Lasix for known bleeders, but they should be penalized. It clearly gives an edge. If you don't believe me, ask Jerry Brown. Like I just said in another post, in this day and age, if you have to drug nearly every horse so they can compete, the sport won't be around long. I'd bet anything on that.