NYTHA Lasix Primer & Letter to NYS RWB

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Powderfinger

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.

[Honu]

Originally Posted by Powderfinger

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.

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.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Powderfinger

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.

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.

[cmorioles]

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?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by freddymo

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.

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!

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Powderfinger

What if they banned not only lasix but "bleeders" from racing?

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.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

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.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

...and these very same horses routinely destroy our horses when they don't use Lasix.

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.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

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?

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.

From the Kentucky Racing Rules http://www.lrc.state.ky.us/kar/810/001/018.htm (note: adjuncts have been banned, this has not been updated on their website)

Section 6. Furosemide and Adjunct Bleeder Medication; Use on Race Day. (1) Furosemide may be administered, in accordance with this section, to a horse that is entered to compete in a race.

(2) Furosemide may be used under the following circumstances:

(a) Furosemide shall be administered at a location under the jurisdiction of the commission, by a single intravenous injection, not less than four (4) hours prior to post time for the race in which the horse is entered.

(b) The syringe employed in the injection shall be provided immediately to the commission veterinarian, steward, or commission employee, if requested, to determine if there has been a violation of this administrative regulation.

(c) The furosemide dosage administered shall not exceed 500 mg, nor be less than 150 mg.

(d) The specific gravity of a post-race urine sample shall not be below 1.010. If the specific gravity of the post-race urine sample is determined to be below 1.010, a quantification of furosemide in serum or plasma shall be performed. Concentrations above 100 nanograms of furosemide per milliliter of serum or plasma shall constitute a violation of this section.

(e) A horse eligible to receive furosemide pursuant to Section 7 of this administrative regulation that does not show a detectable concentration of the drug in the post-race urine, plasma, or serum shall be in violation of this administrative regulation.

(3) Up to two (2) of the following adjunct bleeder medications may be administered to a horse not less than four (4) hours prior to post time for the race in which the horse is entered:

(a) Aminocaproic acid:

(b) Carbazochrome:

(c) Conjugated estrogens; and

(d) Tranexamic acid.



Section 7. Furosemide Eligibility. (1)(a) A horse shall be eligible to race with furosemide if the licensed trainer or licensed veterinarian determines that it would be in the horse's best interests to race with furosemide.

(b) Horses eligible for furosemide and entered to start may be monitored by an commission-approved representative during the four (4) hour period prior to post time of the race in which the horse is entered.

(2) A horse eligible for furosemide shall receive furosemide unless the licensed trainer or licensed veterinarian submits a written request to the commission veterinarian to no longer administer furosemide to the horse. The request shall be on the form "Certificate of Termination of Lasix KHRA 100-5 (8-06)", incorporated by reference in 811 KAR 1:090, and shall be submitted to the commission-approved representative not later than time of entry.

(3)(a) After a horse has been determined by the commission veterinarian to no longer be required to receive furosemide, the horse shall not be eligible to receive furosemide for a period of sixty (60) calendar days unless it is determined by the trainer or veterinarian, in consultation with the commission veterinarian, that it is detrimental to the welfare of the horse to not be on furosemide.

(b) If a horse is determined by the commission veterinarian to be ineligible to receive furosemide a second time in a three hundred sixty-five day period, the horse shall not be eligible to receive furosemide for a period of ninety (90) calendar days.

(4) A horse that has been placed on a furosemide or bleeder list in another jurisdiction may be eligible to receive furosemide in this jurisdiction.
----------------------

Section 18. Veterinarian's List. (1) The commission veterinarian shall maintain a list of horses determined to be unfit to compete in a race due to illness, physical distress, unsoundness, infirmity, or other medical condition.

(2) A horse may be removed from the veterinarian's list when, in the opinion of the commission veterinarian, the horse is capable of competing in a race.

(3) The commission veterinarian shall maintain a bleeder list of all horses that have demonstrated external evidence of exercise-induced pulmonary hemorrhage during or after a race or workout as observed by the commission veterinarian.

(4) Every horse that is a confirmed bleeder, regardless of age, shall be placed on the bleeder list and be ineligible to race for the following time periods:

(a) First incident - fourteen (14) days;

(b) Second incident within a three hundred sixty-five (365) day period - thirty (30) days;

(c) Third incident within a three hundred sixty-five (365) day period - one hundred eighty (180) days;

(d) Fourth incident within a three hundred sixty-five (365) day period - barred from racing for life.

(5) For the purpose of counting the number of days a horse is ineligible to run, the day after the horse bled externally shall be the first day of the recovery period.

(6) The voluntary administration of furosemide without an external bleeding incident shall not subject a horse to the initial period of ineligibility as defined in this section.

(7) A horse shall be removed from the bleeder list only upon the direction of the commission veterinarian, who shall certify in writing to the stewards the recommendation for removal.

(8) A horse that has been placed on a bleeder list in another jurisdiction may be placed on the bleeder list maintained by the commission veterinarian.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

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?

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...

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

.

So, it only leaves two more questions.

1. Why are our horses so inferior when we face them without Lasix?
2. Why aren't shippers at a big disadvantage when they ship here, even with Lasix, if they have all this damage from bouts of EIPH?

I rest my case.

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.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

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...

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.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

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.

The interesting thing is that, with the proliferation of multi-hemisphere breeding, plenty of horses across the world have virtually the same pedigrees.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

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".

Go For Wand will fade to a distant memory.

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.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

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.

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.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

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.

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?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

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.

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.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

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.

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.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

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.

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.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

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?

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...