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

[Riot]

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

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

The group, featuring a stable of well-known names in horse ownership and breeding circles, vowed to compete in this year’s 2-year-old season without race-day use of the commonly used anti-bleeding drug furosemide, which is marketed as Lasix and Salix. It’s the only medication allowed to be given to horses on race day in the U.S. The drug is used commonly to treat pulmonary hemorrhaging in racehorses.

The list of owners taking the pledge was released Thursday by the Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association, a national trade organization based in Lexington, Ky. The list included nearly 40 owners and racing stables.

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

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

[Indian Charlie]

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!!

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

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.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Riot

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

[Riot]

Originally Posted by freddymo

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.

[OTM Al]

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

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Riot

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.

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?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

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.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by OTM Al

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

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.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Riot

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.

It depends on what you call evidence.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

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?

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Riot

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.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

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.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

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.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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.

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by freddymo

All those sick diseased horses around the world seem fine

Originally Posted by Riot

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.

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?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

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.

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.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

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.

"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.

There are plenty of vets on both sides of that argument.

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.

Studies are slanted towards those paying for them.

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.

Some indicate performance enhancement, others don't.

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.

So, until it can be proven it does not enhance performance, I'm against it.

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.