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

[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?

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

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.

This is true now, but it hasn't always been the case. There were plenty of numbers to go around back in the 80s and 90s. Of course back then, horses actually bled in a race before getting lasix, so they usually ran poorly, but they improved a lot given first lasix.

However, I've seen the "Champions" book advertised here. Check out the performance of some really good horses and the Beyers they earn before and after lasix. Many of these did not come after poor races. There is an obvious improvement time and time again of at least a few lengths.

In the last 5 years or so, 1st timers with Lasix return 77 cents on the dollar. Those without return 47. The sample size is huge. Euro shippers with Lasix return 66 cents on the dollar, those without 38 cents. Obviously the sample size isn't as large, but it includes over 8000/2000 in those categories.

I personally don't care about banning Lasix. There are WAY bigger issues. But, anyone racing without it is racing at a disadvantage.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

This is true now, but it hasn't always been the case. There were plenty of numbers to go around back in the 80s and 90s. Of course back then, horses actually bled in a race before getting lasix, so they usually ran poorly, but they improved a lot given first lasix.

However, I've seen the "Champions" book advertised here. Check out the performance of some really good horses and the Beyers they earn before and after lasix. Many of these did not come after poor races. There is an obvious improvement time and time again of at least a few lengths.

In the last 5 years or so, 1st timers with Lasix return 77 cents on the dollar. Those without return 47. The sample size is huge. Euro shippers with Lasix return 66 cents on the dollar, those without 38 cents. Obviously the sample size isn't as large, but it includes over 8000/2000 in those categories.

I personally don't care about banning Lasix. There are WAY bigger issues. But, anyone racing without it is racing at a disadvantage.

I dont think that 1st timers or euro imports are of particularly valid use. The fact that a first timer is on lasix or isnt on could be conceived as trainer intent and as such muddies the water there. And plenty of euros that bleed are sent here specifically to get lasix which would also signal intent. The problem in analyzing the numbers is it isnt clear what horses improve because they are being helped by eliminating or reducing bleeding and what horses are running better simply because they are on it. I have had plenty of horses not improve much if at all on lasix. When I worked for Jerkens he was one of the last guys who ran a lot of horses w/o lasix and we had quite a few not improve much at all when the owners insisted we put them on it.

And being that not using lasix is voluntary no one has to be at a disadvantage unless they choose to be.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I dont think that 1st timers or euro imports are of particularly valid use. The fact that a first timer is on lasix or isnt on could be conceived as trainer intent and as such muddies the water there. And plenty of euros that bleed are sent here specifically to get lasix which would also signal intent. The problem in analyzing the numbers is it isnt clear what horses improve because they are being helped by eliminating or reducing bleeding and what horses are running better simply because they are on it. I have had plenty of horses not improve much if at all on lasix. When I worked for Jerkens he was one of the last guys who ran a lot of horses w/o lasix and we had quite a few not improve much at all when the owners insisted we put them on it.

And being that not using lasix is voluntary no one has to be at a disadvantage unless they choose to be.

Of course it is their choice, I never said differently. I disagree about a sample including 100,000 horse not being relevant. That is a HUGE discrepancy in ROI among the maidens. I study this stuff all the time and you won't find one factor with that kind of difference very often.

I have no doubt Lasix enhances performance. Just because everyone uses it now making it difficult to test doesn't erase a few decades of evidence.

[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".

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

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".

Every vet and trainer I know say exactly the opposite. They will all tell you that if a horse who doesn't normally bleed, all of a sudden bleeds (a decent amount like a 3), there is almost certainly something going on. As Chuck said, it could be an infection. It could be an injury that has yet to be diagnosed. It could be a lot of things. It would be a huge mistake to just assume that the horse bled for no reason and that a bigger dose of lasix is the answer.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Every vet and trainer I know say exactly the opposite. They will all tell you that if a horse who doesn't normally bleed, all of a sudden bleeds (a decent amount like a 3), there is almost certainly something going on. As Chuck said, it could be an infection. It could be an injury that has yet to be diagnosed. It could be a lot of things. It would be a huge mistake to just assume that the horse bled for no reason and that a bigger dose of lasix is the answer.

Whoa - that's not how it's looked at

What I am saying is that no, "other things" are not considered causal for Exercise Induced Pulmonary Hemorrhage.

There can be bleeding in the lungs due to other things that are NOT EIPH. Not all bleeding is EIPH. But 93% of race horses have evidence of microscopic bleeding due to EIPH in their lungs after races.

Including some lung infections (which can be secondary to chronic subtle bleeding in origin, as blood is the perfect bacterial growth medium)

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

Whoa - that's not how it's looked at

What I am saying is that no, "other things" are not considered causal for Exercise Induced Pulmonary Hemorrhage.

There can be bleeding in the lungs due to other things that are NOT EIPH. Not all bleeding is EIPH. But 93% of race horses have evidence of microscopic bleeding due to EIPH in their lungs after races.

Including some lung infections (which can be secondary to chronic subtle bleeding in origin, as blood is the perfect bacterial growth medium)

I wasn't talking about microscopic bleeding. It may very well be true that 93% of racehorses have evidence of microscopic bleeding. Microscopic bleeding is not a big deal. We don't need lasix for microscopic bleeding. Microscopic bleeding isn't going to affect a horse's performance in the least bit. Could it turn into a problem eventually? Yes, of course it conceivably could turn into a problem if it gets worse. But there is also a good chance that the microscopic bleeding won't get any worse and it will never turn into a real problem and it will never affect the horse's performance.

I know you will probably argue that we should use lasix prophylactically to make sure that the microscopic bleeding doesn't get worse. That is a fair argument. Some people will agree with that argument and others won't.