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?