Kentucky's ongoing attempt to end racing in state proceeds..

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I think the logic of people who think we should use lasix is twisted. They race all over the world without lasix. How can you say that we need lasix here when they don;t use it anywhere else? Do you think they should start using it in England, Dubai, and Hong Kong? Is our racing the model fro the world? I don't think so. It's the exact opposite. We are the laughing stock of the world. To say we need lasix here, when it is not used anywhere else, is a losing argument.

By the way, there of plenty of trainers out there that will tell you lasix is a performance enhancing drug that does mask other drugs. In addition, it totally knocks horses out. Lasix completely dehydrates you. Do you think it a good idea to do any type of rigorous physical task while you are totally dehydrated? It's terrible for a person and it's terrible for a horse.

You are taking the extemely myopic view that the supporters of the ban dispense. While Lasix may be banned outside of North Amercia, it is used in training of horses and banned on raceday when horses need it most. Please explain to me why it is ok to train on it but not race on it.

What do owners in jurisdictions that ban Lasix do when their horses can't compete because of bleeding? They either ship their horses to North America and race them here or sell them to North American owners. They are laughing alright, all the way to the bank. The vast majority who ship here for one or two races run their horses on Lasix when they do.

I would love to see those trainers who say that Lasix is a performance enhancing drug come up with any credible scientific study to support that position. It won't happen because it does not exist.

If Lasix is such a drain on horses, than why are 99% of horses racing in North America racing with it? There is no rule against trainers running their horses without Lasix, so why are many more not doing that? Just because someone says something is true does not make it so, and that is the type of slippery slope BS that Chuck is talking about that divides the industry. Then again, Obama won an election and will run for a second term with the same type of if we say it enough people will believe it nonsense which is proven to work.

I am sure as a horseplayer you look forward to horses being taken out of training more often, retired earlier in their careers, less incentive for people to own a horse which will have a more limited racing career, more unwanted horses in need of a home, smaller fields and being duped by betting a horse that will bleed and burn money. Sounds like a great idea.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by pointman

You are taking the extemely myopic view that the supporters of the ban dispense. While Lasix may be banned outside of North Amercia, it is used in training of horses and banned on raceday when horses need it most. Please explain to me why it is ok to train on it but not race on it.

What do owners in jurisdictions that ban Lasix do when their horses can't compete because of bleeding? They either ship their horses to North America and race them here or sell them to North American owners. They are laughing alright, all the way to the bank. The vast majority who ship here for one or two races run their horses on Lasix when they do.

I would love to see those trainers who say that Lasix is a performance enhancing drug come up with any credible scientific study to support that position. It won't happen because it does not exist.

If Lasix is such a drain on horses, than why are 99% of horses racing in North America racing with it? There is no rule against trainers running their horses without Lasix, so why are many more not doing that? Just because someone says something is true does not make it so, and that is the type of slippery slope BS that Chuck is talking about that divides the industry. Then again, Obama won an election and will run for a second term with the same type of if we say it enough people will believe it nonsense which is proven to work.

I am sure as a horseplayer you look forward to horses being taken out of training more often, retired earlier in their careers, less incentive for people to own a horse which will have a more limited racing career, more unwanted horses in need of a home, smaller fields and being duped by betting a horse that will bleed and burn money. Sounds like a great idea.

You say they train on lasix overseas. How often do horses in Europe get lasix?

The arguments that most of these trainers make are total BS. They want to try to pretend that banning lasix would be the end of racing as we know it. They make all these completely exaggerated claims that are complete nonsense. Are there some horses that are bad bleeders that would be hurt by a ban on lasix? Absolutely. I'm not denying that. But I think the overall positive effects of a lasix ban would far outweigh the negatives.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

You say they train on lasix overseas. How often do horses in Europe get lasix?

The arguments that most of these trainers make are total BS. They want to try to pretend that banning lasix would be the end of racing as we know it. They make all these completely exaggerated claims that are complete nonsense. Are there some horses that are bad bleeders that would be hurt by a ban on lasix? Absolutely. I'm not denying that. But I think the overall positive effects of a lasix ban would far outweigh the negatives.

So the "minor" bleeders wont become worse if not treated? The idea that getting rid of a medication will eliminate the problem that it treats is beyond stupid. What you don't understand is that taking away a tool to treat a malady in a horse costs our owners more money in a time when they can least afford to spend it. The idea that other forms of treatment for bleeders (more expensive and not made public) wont be used is stupid. It is just an L in the program that makes horses pee.

[Cannon Shell]

I have yet for someone to show me how banning lasix will produce more business for the sport. It surely will cost the industry a lot of money, especially in the short term and I have yet to see a shred of evidence that it will bring a single dollar into the sport that wouldnt be there anyway.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

So the "minor" bleeders wont become worse if not treated? The idea that getting rid of a medication will eliminate the problem that it treats is beyond stupid. What you don't understand is that taking away a tool to treat a malady in a horse costs our owners more money in a time when they can least afford to spend it. The idea that other forms of treatment for bleeders (more expensive and not made public) wont be used is stupid. It is just an L in the program that makes horses pee.

I never said that getting rid of lasix would eliminate bleeding.

One thing that many trainers won't tell you is the real reason that horses bleed. Sure some horses bleed simply because they are bleeders. But most horses bleed because there is something hurting them. Eliminating lasix would force trainers to treat the actual issue rather than just putting a band-aid on the symptom.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I never said that getting rid of lasix would eliminate bleeding.

One thing that many trainers won't tell you is the real reason that horses bleed. Sure some horses bleed simply because they are bleeders. But most horses bleed because there is something hurting them. Eliminating lasix would force trainers to treat the actual issue rather than just putting a band-aid on the symptom.

But how do you propose that you treat bleeding?

So essentially what you are saying is that getting rid of lasix will make otherwise inattenative trainers and incompetent vets smarter?

An example of treating the issue as opposed to the symptm is working on a horses back end when weakness or injury there might be causing overloading on its front end leading to lameness there. Trying to tie bleeding to treating a horse for lameness if the human connections didnt know in the first place that the reason they were bleeding was lameness is an exercise in futility.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

But how do you propose that you treat bleeding?

So essentially what you are saying is that getting rid of lasix will make otherwise inattenative trainers and incompetent vets smarter?

An example of treating the issue as opposed to the symptm is working on a horses back end when weakness or injury there might be causing overloading on its front end leading to lameness there. Trying to tie bleeding to treating a horse for lameness if the human connections didnt know in the first place that the reason they were bleeding was lameness is an exercise in futility.

I just got off the phone with one of my trainers. He says that there is almost always an underlying reason as to why a horse is bleeding. He said if you dig deep enough, you will almost always find that something is bothering the horse that is stressing him and causing him to bleed. This trainer doesn't care either way as to whether they ban lasix. He said that as long as they allow it, he will use it. He thinks there is no doubt that it is a performance enhancing drug. He says that if you follow sheet numbers, most horses move way up on lasix.

This trainer tells me that in his 20 years in the business, he can think of only one horse that he couldn't stop from bleeding. This particular horse was the only horse that he's ever had that needed lasix for his workouts. Some trainers give lasix to a lot of their horses for workouts.

This trainer went on to say that if you have a horse that runs 5 times in a row without bleeding, and then in his 6th race he bleeds (let's say he bleeds a 3 on a 1-5 scale), then you better go over that horse with a fine-tooth comb because there is almost certainly something going on with the horse.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I just got off the phone with one of my trainers. He says that there is almost always an underlying reason as to why a horse is bleeding. He said if you dig deep enough, you will almost find that something is bothering the horse that is stressing him and causing him to bleed. This trainer doesn't care either way as to whether they ban lasix. He said that as long as they allow it, he will use it. He thinks there is no doubt that it is a performance enhancing drug. He says that if you follow sheet numbers, most horses move way up on lasix.

This trainer tells me that in his 20 years in the business, he can think of only one horse that he couldn't stop from bleeding. This particular horse was the only horse that he's ever had that needed lasix for his workouts. Some trainers give lasix to a lot of their horses for workouts.

This trainer went on to say that if you have a horse that runs 5 times in a row without bleeding, and then in his 6th race he bleeds (let's say he bleeds a 3 on a 1-5 scale), then you better go over that horse with a fine-tooth comb because there is almost certainly something going on with the horse.

If you go over any horse with a "fine-toothed comb" - deliberately searching for problems not readily visible - you'll always find something wrong

He's wrong, on a medical basis, to associate such insidious other problems as being causal of EIPH. There's zero scientific evidence - and that includes decades of veterinarians treating the problem - for his observations. There are standard "state of the art" medical protocols for diagnosing and treating EIPH, and there's zero scientific evidence that says to look for other systemic physiologic or medical problems as causal.

Above I listed some good articles on what research science and veterinary medicine consider causal to EIPH.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I just got off the phone with one of my trainers. He says that there is almost always an underlying reason as to why a horse is bleeding. He said if you dig deep enough, you will almost find that something is bothering the horse that is stressing him and causing him to bleed. This trainer doesn't care either way as to whether they ban lasix. He said that as long as they allow it, he will use it. He thinks there is no doubt that it is a performance enhancing drug. He says that if you follow sheet numbers, most horses move way up on lasix.

This trainer tells me that in his 20 years in the business, he can think of only one horse that he couldn't stop from bleeding. This particular horse was the only horse that he's ever had that needed lasix for his workouts. Some trainers give lasix to a lot of their horses for workouts.

This trainer went on to say that if you have a horse that runs 5 times in a row without bleeding, and then in his 6th race he bleeds (let's say he bleeds a 3 on a 1-5 scale), then you better go over that horse with a fine-tooth comb because there is almost certainly something going on with the horse.

Ok so in effect the your trainer has shot down the breeding theory as to why we should ban lasix.

I dont disagree with him at all about triggers that may very well be underlying causes. Certainly stress can cause many issues and because they cant talk we often are clued in after the fact as well as viral or bacterial infections.
And once a horse bleeds once they are more prone to do it again. So with round about reasoning he is giving a solid reason why we should not ban lasix.

While your trainer may be a good horseman he obviously isnt skilled in statistical analysis because there is no sample size great enough of non-lasix horses to come up with an accurate assessment of sheet numbers for those types versus regular lasix horses. The sample pool would also be tainted as the vast majority of horses that run without lasix are 1st time starters and young horses, the vast majority of which are due to improve with time regardless of all other factors including lasix. And since you dont know the severity of a bleeding incident that would cause a horse to be placed on lasix couldnt the fact that the horse didnt bleed w/ medication allow the number to go back where it should be considering the bleeding may have artificially depressed the number?

Not to mention if everyone has equal access to the same medication and no advantage is being gained than why would lasix not be considered something that is leveling the playing field? And wouldnt the elimination of the medicine lead to replacement by various other remedies which will not only be unknown to the public and other participants and work with vastly different effectiveness causing more potential form changes?

[Riot]

One thing that many trainers won't tell you is the real reason that horses bleed. Sure some horses bleed simply because they are bleeders. But most horses bleed because there is something hurting them. Eliminating lasix would force trainers to treat the actual issue rather than just putting a band-aid on the symptom.

That is a completely false paragraph. Let's keep an eye on the truth here: bleeding is a physiologic process with multiple causes, but none are thought to be pathology or other pre-existing problems.

Bleeding into the lungs is a proven side effect of horses (and some dogs, and some humans) running hard on firmer surfaces under great cardio-pulmonary stress and recruitment during maximal effort.

By the way, the use of Flair nasal strips (you know, that patch some horses wear on their nose) has about equal scientifically measurable effect on halting grade 3 and 4 bleeding as Lasix.

Where is the cry to ban these patches that ease the pressure differences between upper and lower airways, easing damage to lower lungs by EIPH?

The point isn't to halt bleeding that is Grade 3 & 4, it's to halt the unseen bleeding doing damage at the alevoli, the actual interface between blood capillary and air source (oxygenation) in the lung. Every time an alveoli is scarred by bleeding at a microscopic level, even if you can't see it on a bronchoscope, the horse is harmed.

Cannon, Kasept and Pointman have made very accurate points here about lasix. There's alot of completely inaccurate baloney out there about lasix, much being unfortunately pushed by industry leaders. What they have said here is the truth of it.

The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) and the American Association of Equine Practitioners (AAEP) both fully and unquestionably support the use of lasix as raceday medication for the welfare of the horse, based upon all scientific evidence. Using lasix is good for the welfare of the race horse. Here's the statement: http://www.avma.org/issues/policy/an...racehorses.asp

And if you want some good, "lay person" explanations of EIPH (bleeding) and lasix, The Horse has them here: http://www.thehorse.com/TopicSearch/...&nID=32&ID=296

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

That is a completely false paragraph. Let's keep an eye on the truth here: bleeding is a physiologic process with multiple causes, but none are thought to be pathology or other pre-existing problems.

Bleeding into the lungs is a proven side effect of horses (and some dogs, and some humans) running hard on firmer surfaces under great cardio-pulmonary stress and recruitment during maximal effort.

By the way, the use of Flair nasal strips (you know, that patch some horses wear on their nose) has about equal scientifically measurable effect on halting grade 3 and 4 bleeding as Lasix.

Where is the cry to ban these patches that ease the pressure differences between upper and lower airways, easing damage to lower lungs by EIPH?

The point isn't to halt bleeding that is Grade 3 & 4, it's to halt the unseen bleeding doing damage at the alevoli, the actual interface between blood capillary and air source (oxygenation) in the lung. Every time an alveoli is scarred by bleeding at a microscopic level, even if you can't see it on a bronchoscope, the horse is harmed.

Cannon, Kasept and Pointman have made very accurate points here about lasix. There's alot of completely inaccurate baloney out there about lasix, much being unfortunately pushed by industry leaders. What they have said here is the truth of it.

The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) and the American Association of Equine Practitioners (AAEP) both fully and unquestionably support the use of lasix as raceday medication for the welfare of the horse, based upon all scientific evidence. Using lasix is good for the welfare of the race horse. Here's the statement: http://www.avma.org/issues/policy/an...racehorses.asp

And if you want some good, "lay person" explanations of EIPH (bleeding) and lasix, The Horse has them here: http://www.thehorse.com/TopicSearch/...&nID=32&ID=296

You don't think a horse is far more likely to bleed if something is hurting them?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

You don't think a horse is far more likely to bleed if something is hurting them?

No, not at all. In fact I think it's less likely, as they won't run as fast or hard, they'll produce a sub-maximal cardiopulmonary effort.

93% of race horses have evidence of red blood cells (bleeding into the airways) after maximal effort if you do broncho-aveolar lavage as a diagnostic method (squirt sterile water down there, suck it back out, and look at the cells under a microscope) This is where lasix is valuable to attenuate chronic, constant lung damage over a career.

Only less than half have visible bleeding in the airways via bronchoscope (merely looking down the airway) after a race.

And very few have such severe bleeding there is blood coming out their noses.

But believe me: if we stop using lasix, the first horse that pulls up a furlong from the wire, and is taken directly to the trainer in front of the grandstand snorting and losing copious amounts of blood out it's nose over the jockey, trainer, groom in front of the crowd - it won't be pretty what will happen in the press. But more importantly, that's not good for race horses. It's not good medicine. It's not good care. We want them to be elite athletes. Let's use current knowledge in veterinary medicine to help them achieve it. And that has nothing to do with "doping".