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

[Dunbar]

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?

Has anyone addressed this question other than with an "I don't care about the rest of the world" response? Someone said horses only average 3 or 4 starts a year in Ireland and France. What about Australia and Hong Kong? Are horses in those areas making fewer starts per year than here?

To read this thread, one would think we are currently in a Golden Age of horseracing, and that to go back to the pre-1995 situation in New York is absolutely unthinkable. Were New York horses making fewer starts per year before 1995 than now?

Rupert's point, I think, is that "the sky is falling, the end is near" may be an over-reaction in the face of the experience of the rest of the world. That seems like a reasonable point to me, especially considering our own long experience pre-Lasix.

--Dunbar

[Calzone Lord]

Banning lasix probably isn't going to do any good for the horse player.

It's also extremely unpopular with a strong majority of trainers and vets...who are both far more powerful groups in the industry than betting customers.

A lasix ban is basically a bid for more worthless PR from industry do-gooders. It would make the New York Times feel like it did some good.

It's unfortunate that it's an issue at all right now.

Meanwhile, poker is still on TV ... and everytime I go to the track I see the poker tables, slot machines, craps tables, blackjack tables, and Roulette tables all kicking the sh!t out of the horse racing simulcast section.

At-least horse racing is still holding its own with Pai-Gow when both are being offered in the same place...as the Asian population in Erie isn't so large.

However, I have no doubt Pai-Gow is handling far more than 30-track full card simulcasting here...and that's not because the local horse bettors are going the Internet and rebate shop route. It should be a wildly superior game to all -- and it's laughably uncompetitive when people have the option.

[rpncaine]

Being totally honest..as much as I love Horseracing, if I had access to REAL craps dice, I'd be there every second that I could! It is just so much fun and fast action.

[Powderfinger]

Great thread with some interesting viewpoints.
I have seen several horses die after crossing the finish line from a heart attack. Why would this happen to a perfectly healthy young animal? I'm not an equine expert, but if lasix is a diuretic that stops bleeding doesn't that mean it's a blood "thickener"? and if the blood is thicker, wouldn't that make it harder for the heart to pump it through the system causing more heart attacks? Something unnatural about a animal losing so much fluid from the body; there has to be some drawbacks.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

Banning lasix probably isn't going to do any good for the horse player.

Not only that, it will make it tougher.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

Has anyone addressed this question other than with an "I don't care about the rest of the world" response? Someone said horses only average 3 or 4 starts a year in Ireland and France. What about Australia and Hong Kong? Are horses in those areas making fewer starts per year than here?

What the international aspect of the argument boils down to in general is: year-round racing (NA) vs. seasonal racing (elsewhere).

Do racehorses, as athletes, need a signficant period of rest from competition annually?

A lot of comparisons are made between racehorses and human athletes to make points about medication. But what human athletes are asked to train and compete indefinitely during the length of their careers?

Which of these schedules would tend to favor the health of the horse?

Year-round racing is necessary for a lot of people in the industry to stay in business. Furthermore, it does not appear to be economically viable to voluntarily give horses time off. This was one of the arguments used to oppose the ban on anabolic steroids. If horses couldn't be helped artificially to recover from their races, how could they continue to race year-round? A similar argument was used by Dale Romans recently about lasix. The wealthy owners can afford to give horses time off after a significant bleeding episode, the average horseman cannot.

This issue will underly every future medication debate beyond the lasix one. Therapeutic medications are used in racing to promote the well-being of the racehorse, but are they also being relied upon to avoid the cost of resting the horse? If so, will be banning medications make it impossible to race horses in the current year-round fashion?

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

It should be a wildly superior game to all -- and it's laughably uncompetitive when people have the option.

And that's the problem, right there. It isn't how the public perceives the use of drugs; it's that now that there is plenty of competition for gambling dollars, the average American prefers to spend his or her gambling dollars elsewhere.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

What the international aspect of the argument boils down to in general is: year-round racing (NA) vs. seasonal racing (elsewhere).

Do racehorses, as athletes, need a signficant period of rest from competition annually?

A lot of comparisons are made between racehorses and human athletes to make points about medication. But what human athletes are asked to train and compete indefinitely during the length of their careers?

Which of these schedules would tend to favor the health of the horse?

Year-round racing is necessary for a lot of people in the industry to stay in business. Furthermore, it does not appear to be economically viable to voluntarily give horses time off. This was one of the arguments used to oppose the ban on anabolic steroids. If horses couldn't be helped artificially to recover from their races, how could they continue to race year-round? A similar argument was used by Dale Romans recently about lasix. The wealthy owners can afford to give horses time off after a significant bleeding episode, the average horseman cannot.

This issue will underly every future medication debate beyond the lasix one. Therapeutic medications are used in racing to promote the well-being of the racehorse, but are they also being relied upon to avoid the cost of resting the horse? If so, will be banning medications make it impossible to race horses in the current year-round fashion?

Racehorses get hurt alot. The vast majority of these injuries are minor and are easily treated. When people talk about banning medications and they talk about giving horses rest as opposed to "drugs" I wonder what world they live in. I would love for someone to give me the parameters of a medication ban. So no meds from what point? 3 days? 5 days? A week? A month? Are we going to going to modernize and standardize our system of testing so that those who follow the rules arent unjustly persecuted because the current system is frighteningly vague.

Most people don't know that we have no steadfast rules concerning withdrawl times in most jurisdictions. The Pletcher incident in the BC a few years ago where he and the vet asked the state vet if they would be ok giving a medication 18 days before the race and were told they would be and yet the horse still got a positive test should be a great indicator of where we stand. The RMTC has made some progress in this area but is still a longway from being complete. People also don't realize that a positive test does not necessarily mean that the drug in question had any effect on the performance of the horse but rather is just the detection of a drug above a certain number which often arbitrarily assigned.

So I want to know what am I supposed to do when a horse has an issue? If a horse acts colicky should I not give her medication and just hope that it is a little gas because if I give her banamine she wont be able to run the following week? If Bodemeister grabs a quarter working a week before the Derby should Baffert not treat him or go to the local church and pour some holy water on it? Or just scratch and turn him out? Because the evil Bute and Banamine would be among the meds called for in these situations.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Racehorses get hurt alot. The vast majority of these injuries are minor and are easily treated. When people talk about banning medications and they talk about giving horses rest as opposed to "drugs" I wonder what world they live in.

Is it that black-and-white with even minor injuries where the use of medication totally replaces any form of rest? Shouldn't the two be used in conjunction?

Anyways, the type of "rest" I was talking about was an "off season" of sorts. While horse racing can certainly be successful as a year-round venture, can it do so using the same group of horses the entire time? Can any individual racehorse stay in full race training and competition continuously? Is it feasible to stratify the horse population so that one group of horses (eg low-level claimers, stakes horses) get "down time" while another is actively running?

Why do racehorses get hurt alot? A huge factor is the number of miles they accumulate in a finite period of time.

Most people don't know that we have no steadfast rules concerning withdrawl times in most jurisdictions. The Pletcher incident in the BC a few years ago where he and the vet asked the state vet if they would be ok giving a medication 18 days before the race and were told they would be and yet the horse still got a positive test should be a great indicator of where we stand. The RMTC has made some progress in this area but is still a longway from being complete. People also don't realize that a positive test does not necessarily mean that the drug in question had any effect on the performance of the horse but rather is just the detection of a drug above a certain number which often arbitrarily assigned.

On the other hand, how many "therapeutic" positives are the result of indiscriminate "pre-racing"? Take the Tom Amoss case from this year. Five positives for the same medication in the span of a few weeks. Or Kiarin McLaughlin at a fall Keeneland meet a couple of years ago with multiple positives for an inhalant. Superficially, does this look like bad luck or mismanagement? Should the public reasonably be expected to accept that a significant number of horses in the same barn need to be on the same medication (never mind still be entered to race)?

Isn't more likely that trainers in these instances are being too aggressive with their "pre-race" regimens? In the event of a positive and subsequent punishment, are the regulators really unjustly persecuting the offendors? Who is making the sport (and medications) look bad in these instances?

So I want to know what am I supposed to do when a horse has an issue? If a horse acts colicky should I not give her medication and just hope that it is a little gas because if I give her banamine she wont be able to run the following week. If Bodemeister grabs a quarter working a week before the Derby should Baffert not treat him or go to the local church and pour some holy water on it? Or just scratch and turn him out? Because the evil Bute and Banamine would be among the meds called for in these situations.

If the plan is to adopt a zero-tolerance policy, then racing probably can't operate. Not sure if that's what's being called for. If threshold levels of therapeutic medications are still utilized, then the scenarios you suggest should be comfortably handled with the horse's health put foremost.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

Is it that black-and-white with even minor injuries where the use of medication totally replaces any form of rest? Shouldn't the two be used in conjunction?

Of course they are used in conjunction depending on the injury and severity of it. There are also alternate therapies that are used like ultrasound, ice, hosing, etc.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Of course they are used in conjunction depending on the injury and severity of it. There are also alternate therapies that are used like ultrasound, ice, hosing, etc.

And chiropractice, and sports-specific muscle therapy

Racing's got 99 problems, but lasix ain't one.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

Anyways, the type of "rest" I was talking about was an "off season" of sorts. While horse racing can certainly be successful as a year-round venture, can it do so using the same group of horses the entire time? Can any individual racehorse stay in full race training and competition continuously? Is it feasible to stratify the horse population so that one group of horses (eg low-level claimers, stakes horses) get "down time" while another is actively running?

While a break can be helpful some horses do terrible when turned out. Is it better to give a horse a break from training occasionally? Sure. But not all horses that are at the track are in fulltime training.

I dont think it is possible to have 2 sets of horses alternate down time because it is hard to determine the timing of when a horse is going to improve or go off form. While some stakes horses might get mandatory rest because of the design of their future schedule I dont know anyone who would take a regular horse out of training that was thriving and doing well.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

Why do racehorses get hurt alot? A huge factor is the number of miles they accumulate in a finite period of time.

Horses get hurt because they are big, strong animals who are fed high test diets and honed to stay on edge. They have skinny legs and big bodies and most of the time those legs arent exactly perfectly conformed. They may have club or flat feet, be back or over at the knee, may be cow or sickle hocked. When thier foot strikes the ground the concussion isnt sent exactly up the leg through the foot in a straight line but correspondnt to the physical makeup of the feet and legs. This leads to certain area's getting more stress. A horse who is back at the knee is much more likely to sustain a knee chip than one who isnt. A horse who has flat feet is much more likely to get sore feet than one who doesn't. Horses with long pasterns are much more likely to run down/have suspensory issues than one who isn't. The surfaces that we train on in the best of times are hardly uniform from day to day, and from hour to hour, depending on the weather or even the amount of traffic on the track.

That doesnt even take into consideration internal issues like stomach issues, colic, tying up, etc.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Horses get hurt because they are big, strong animals who are fed high test diets and honed to stay on edge. They have skinny legs and big bodies and most of the time those legs arent exactly perfectly conformed. They may have club or flat feet, be back or over at the knee, may be cow or sickle hocked. When thier foot strikes the ground the concussion isnt sent exactly up the leg through the foot in a straight line but correspondnt to the physical makeup of the feet and legs. This leads to certain area's getting more stress. A horse who is back at the knee is much more likely to sustain a knee chip than one who isnt. A horse who has flat feet is much more likely to get sore feet than one who doesn't. Horses with long pasterns are much more likely to run down/have suspensory issues than one who isn't. The surfaces that we train on in the best of times are hardly uniform from day to day, and from hour to hour, depending on the weather or even the amount of traffic on the track.

That doesnt even take into consideration internal issues like stomach issues, colic, tying up, etc.

No doubt that conformation is an important component of racehorse injury. But isn't even the most ideally conformed racehorse susceptible to injury if overworked/overraced?

Does treating minor issues with legal therapeutics, specifically for racing purposes(versus for training or recovery), enable potential overload, and potentially cause some minor injuries to become "major" ones? If that scenario is commonplace, would a ban of therapeutics (to threshold levels) from, say, 7-days out (after most horses have had their final breeze for an upcoming start) be a logical approach to controlling medication use?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

No doubt that conformation is an important component of racehorse injury. But isn't even the most ideally conformed racehorse susceptible to injury if overworked/overraced?

Does treating minor issues with legal therapeutics, specifically for racing purposes(versus for training or recovery), enable potential overload, and potentially cause some minor injuries to become "major" ones? If that scenario is commonplace, would a ban of therapeutics (to threshold levels) from, say, 7-days out (after most horses have had their final breeze for an upcoming start) be a logical approach to controlling medication use?

Of course any horse is more likely to be injured if overworked/overraced. But that is a trainer issue not a medication issue. While I hate to break off into another tangent IMO the standards for getting a trainers license is far too low.

It isnt an exact science and never will be. Are trainers/vets using meds to keep their horses running? Yes but in many cases they arent causing the horse any real harm though like most things in this debate it is hard to quantify. Abuse and abusive practices have no place in the business but there is very little research/investigation/surveillence done to counter this. IMO it would be far more practical and productive to focus our energy towards eliminating the bad apples and people who push the envelope rather than debate something stupid like lasix.

As for the 7 day withdrawl I support it to a degree. Joint injections should not be allowed inside of 7 days in my view. That is the rule in PA and it is something that they get right. But there are many other meds that shouldnt be cut off that early plus I believe that it can be hard to set testing levels for some meds that far out accurately. Something like adequan which is given IM is best used at 48 hours prior to race to be effective. It isnt much more than a joint supplement (of sorts-laymans terms) and isnt a performance enhancer but does help keep joints healthy. Same with ulcer meds and some other things.

There is a misconception that bute or banamine is masking pain and allowing injured horses to race and breakdown. That isnt true in virtually every case especially so with banamine which used to be allowed at 4 hours out in KY. These meds have been around for a long time and they just didnt recently start causing issues. In fact the best way to get a sore horse sound enough to pass the vet is to simply not train them at all, just walk them while maintaining the same feed schedule. They will start to feel better without the work and the energy that they arent burning off will make them look like they are aggressive and feeling good like a healthy horse. Of course once they break from the gate and start pounding on those injured legs the problems begin.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

On the other hand, how many "therapeutic" positives are the result of indiscriminate "pre-racing"? Take the Tom Amoss case from this year. Five positives for the same medication in the span of a few weeks. Or Kiarin McLaughlin at a fall Keeneland meet a couple of years ago with multiple positives for an inhalant. Superficially, does this look like bad luck or mismanagement? Should the public reasonably be expected to accept that a significant number of horses in the same barn need to be on the same medication (never mind still be entered to race)?

I cant speak for these 2 incidences specifically but as I said before often you believe that you are playing within the rules and dont find out that they changed the speed limit on you till you get the notice that you aren't.

What the public doesnt understand is that most horses have similar issues that are treated close to the same way. Sure a valuable horse may get to have expensive therapies in conjunction with a medicine regimine that a cheaper, less valauble horse doesnt get but it isnt that different than people who have bad backs. The treatments are pretty similar.

[Cannon Shell]

I think the stomach issue is something that can be easily explained as people can relate.

It wasnt that long ago that we didnt have any idea to what extent ulcers played in the health of horses. It seems amazing now but 20 years ago very few people made much of it. When a stomach scope was developed we found that a huge majority of horses had stomach ulcers, even seemingly healthy, in-form ones might have some degree of ulcers.

Before we recognized ulcers was a problem that was causing horses to be less healthy, their coats would go bad, they would act colicky, they would get sour, form would go off. Trainers would turn those horses out (good ones at least) and let the issue sort itself out (even if they didnt know the root cause). Being turned out on a grass paddock can reduce stomach ulcers either completely or to a managable level so after a few months the horse could return to training.

Now that we understand the role ulcers play we not only can manage them with medicine (expensive medicine I might add) but take other steps to try to reduce the development of them. Instead of having to give horse 3 months off and spend 3 months bringing them back we can treat them and keep them healthier. While i'm sure that some will believe that the rest isnt so bad try owning a horse that cant race for 1/2 the year. The other issue is that just because you healed the ulcers in this instance the factors that caused them in the first place are still there. So eventually the same cycle will play over again.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

What the public doesnt understand is that most horses have similar issues that are treated close to the same way. Sure a valuable horse may get to have expensive therapies in conjunction with a medicine regimine that a cheaper, less valauble horse doesnt get but it isnt that different than people who have bad backs. The treatments are pretty similar.

From news reports, the regulators seem to claim that they make an effort to notify horsemen of changes in testing standards. I don't know how strong an effort is made or whether or not a horseman can reasonably be expected to juggle all the rules, changes, withdrawals, etc., especially if he's operating in more than one jurisdiction.

However, back to the pre-race regimens, how likely is it that these are typically "cookbooked", in the sense that every horse from the same barn gets the same treatment? Does this seem apporpriate form a "horsemanship" standpoint? Furthermore, what is the dominant thought process behind the administration of pre-race treamtents? What the horse actually needs? What the horse received when he (or a stablemate) was last successful? What the rules/withdrawal times allow? What "levels the playing field"?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

From news reports, the regulators seem to claim that they make an effort to notify horsemen of changes in testing standards. I don't know how strong an effort is made or whether or not a horseman can reasonably be expected to juggle all the rules, changes, withdrawals, etc., especially if he's operating in more than one jurisdiction.

However, back to the pre-race regimens, how likely is it that these are typically "cookbooked", in the sense that every horse from the same barn gets the same treatment? Does this seem apporpriate form a "horsemanship" standpoint? Furthermore, what is the dominant thought process behind the administration of pre-race treamtents? What the horse actually needs? What the horse received when he (or a stablemate) was last successful? What the rules/withdrawal times allow? What "levels the playing field"?

They dont tell us squat for the most part. Racing labs/commissions for the most part treat horsemen as potential criminals that they are looking to get. Labs use positive tests as resume builders.

As for the other questions I'm too tired to answer properly but there is a pretty wide range of opinions (among vets and trainers) as to what should be given, when and even the effectiveness of any of it.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

Has anyone addressed this question other than with an "I don't care about the rest of the world" response? Someone said horses only average 3 or 4 starts a year in Ireland and France. What about Australia and Hong Kong? Are horses in those areas making fewer starts per year than here?

To read this thread, one would think we are currently in a Golden Age of horseracing, and that to go back to the pre-1995 situation in New York is absolutely unthinkable. Were New York horses making fewer starts per year before 1995 than now?

Rupert's point, I think, is that "the sky is falling, the end is near" may be an over-reaction in the face of the experience of the rest of the world. That seems like a reasonable point to me, especially considering our own long experience pre-Lasix.

--Dunbar

If you cant see that racing in different jurisdictions in this country let alone other countries is different than you just arent trying very hard.

At the medication summit at Belmont last Summer we were given materials that showed US horses were making more starts per year than England, Ireland and France. I dont think any other countries were included. Of course when asked the foreign participants said that because their racing schedules and systems were different than ours hence the fewer starts. Naturally they unwittingly made the point that so many of us have been making, that racing is different in different places and as such simply comparing them is a bit of an apples and oranges argument.

There was a reason that lasix was legalized, it isnt just some nationwide plot by vets and trainers. To act like we can simply ignore the issue and turnback the clock is myopic. Perhaps we can revive Oscar and have him perform some of his pre-1995 magic?