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

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by pointman

Where did I say there are no negatives? Of course it is a benefit vs. negatives analysis. I have just yet to here a cogent argument based on factual or scientific evidence instead of speculation that comes close to making the negatives of its current use outweigh the positives.

Here was your quote, "At the end of the day, knowing that it without question has medical benefits to race horses, what is the harm in allowing horses to race on it under the current rules?"

That question sounded to me like you didn't think there was anything bad about the drug. Anyway, I will let this guy answer your question:

http://thoroedge.wordpress.com/2011/...lous-nonsense/

By the way, with regard to the PR debate I think it would be positive PR if they banned lasix. Let's just say that for our sport to be really successful that we need public perception of the sport to improve by 80%. I'm making that number up just for argument's sake. You could use any number. But if we pretend that we need public perception to improve by 80%, do I think that the elimination of lasix would improve public perception by 80%? Of course not. But I think it could improve it by maybe 5-10%. I think it would certainly help a little bit. I think the banning of steroids helped a little bit. I don't think it was a dramatic improvement but I think it helped a little bit.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Here was your quote, "At the end of the day, knowing that it without question has medical benefits to race horses, what is the harm in allowing horses to race on it under the current rules?"

That question sounded to me like you didn't think there was anything bad about the drug. Anyway, I will let this guy answer your question:

http://thoroedge.wordpress.com/2011/...lous-nonsense/

By the way, with regard to the PR debate I think it would be positive PR if they banned lasix. Let's just say that for our sport to be really successful that we need public perception of the sport to improve by 80%. I'm making that number up just for argument's sake. You could use any number. But if we pretend that we need public perception to improve by 80%, do I think that the elimination of lasix would improve public perception by 80%? Of course not. But I think it could improve it by maybe 5-10%. I think it would certainly help a little bit. I think the banning of steroids helped a little bit. I don't think it was a dramatic improvement but I think it helped a little bit.

Seriously? That is the guy you are going to use as your source?

After steroids were banned handle dropped for 2 straight years. Tracks continued to cut race days, the same trainers won and the same ones lost. It was such a rousing success that the NY Times stated that virtually no progress has been made in the area of equine drugs!

How about using your numbers that there was a .5% improvement? Then is it worth the collateral costs? The horses immediately retired? The horses with careers cut short? The added expense of trying to use other means which surely will cost more than $25? The potential of shorter fields? The 47% trainers continuing to win 47% or higher? The public not seeing ANY changes just as they didnt when steroids were banned? You see that is the point that you and others miss. This isnt like baseball where they cracked down on roids and HR totals dropped dramatically. People wont see anything different so they will continue to believe whatever they want to believe. And after viewing this thread, others elsewhere and listening to the prattle it is readily apparent that some people will believe anything for awhile.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Seriously? That is the guy you are going to use as your source?

After steroids were banned handle dropped for 2 straight years. Tracks continued to cut race days, the same trainers won and the same ones lost. It was such a rousing success that the NY Times stated that virtually no progress has been made in the area of equine drugs!

How about using your numbers that there was a .5% improvement? Then is it worth the collateral costs? The horses immediately retired? The horses with careers cut short? The added expense of trying to use other means which surely will cost more than $25? The potential of shorter fields? The 47% trainers continuing to win 47% or higher?

Is that guy not credible? I don't know who he is. I just found the article and the guy sounded like he knows what he's talking about. We know what the drug does to an animal (and a person). What this guy is saying has to have at least a small amount of merit to it, even if it is overstated and/or exaggerated.

I'm still not convinced that the advent of lasix (and other drugs) over the last 25 years, is not one of the reasons why horses are more fragile today. The reason you gave about more horses being bred might be a big part of it too. There may be a number of reasons but I am not convinced that the advent of lasix is not one of them.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Is that guy not credible? I don't know who he is. I just found the article and the guy sounded like he knows what he's talking about. We know what the drug does to an animal (and a person). What this guy is saying has to have at least a small amount of merit to it, even if it is overstated and/or exaggerated.

I'm still not convinced that the advent of lasix (and other drugs) over the last 25 years, is not one of the reasons why horses are more fragile today. The reason you gave about more horses being bred might be a big part of it too. There may be a number of reasons but I am not convinced that the advent of lasix is not one of them.

Uh no he isnt.

Do people really think that other drugs werent used before the last 25 years? There is a good possibility a 70's TC winner wasnt clean. There was a trainer in NY that moved up horses 15 lengths in 4 days. The 1967 winner of the Derby was DQ'ed for a bute positive.

No other species gets less healthy with modern medicine. Why would thoroughbreds? Harness horses have improved by leaps and bounds and believe me they are FAR more aggressive with drugs, legal or otherwise.

In the last 20 years we have had people tell us toe grabs were no good, so we got rid of them. We have had people tell us steroids were no good, so we got rid of them. The told us we needed synthetic tracks so some tracks got rid of them. They have cut the allowable level of bute by more than 50%. They are testing to picograms levels. They have banned milkshakes.

Has a single one of these moves helped appreciably?

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Here was your quote, "At the end of the day, knowing that it without question has medical benefits to race horses, what is the harm in allowing horses to race on it under the current rules?"

That question sounded to me like you didn't think there was anything bad about the drug. Anyway, I will let this guy answer your question:

http://thoroedge.wordpress.com/2011/...lous-nonsense/

By the way, with regard to the PR debate I think it would be positive PR if they banned lasix. Let's just say that for our sport to be really successful that we need public perception of the sport to improve by 80%. I'm making that number up just for argument's sake. You could use any number. But if we pretend that we need public perception to improve by 80%, do I think that the elimination of lasix would improve public perception by 80%? Of course not. But I think it could improve it by maybe 5-10%. I think it would certainly help a little bit. I think the banning of steroids helped a little bit. I don't think it was a dramatic improvement but I think it helped a little bit.

So this the solution? I would love to credit the author if I could find his or her name. Concerned about calcium stunting growth and maintainence then why not give the horse calcium supplements? Or is that performance enhancing too? And that is some source they have to to back up that argument.

If Austrailian horses are built much sturdier than U.S. horses, then why aren't these faster beasts loading the starting gate for the Derby or the Met Mile?

If you are an owner than why don't you answer Crist? How about backing up your arguments with actions, start all your horses without Lasix, prove us doubters wrong.

Perception? What do you think the public perception is going to be when horses are choking on their blood and bleeding on the racetrack?

If you had read my earlier posts up to this you would have seen that I weighed a negative against a positive regarding the argument that Lasix enhances performance. I have not argued that using it is all good, I have just argued that ban is misguided and supported by misguided and speculative arguments without scientific evidence.

I thought that you were a pretty smart guy. I am afraid I may be mistaken.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by pointman

So this the solution? I would love to credit the author if I could find his or her name? Concerned about calcium stunting growth and maintainence then why not give the horse calcium supplements? Or is that performance enhancing too? And that is some source they have to to back up that argument.

If Austrailian horses are built much sturdier than U.S. horses, then why aren't these faster beasts loading the starting gate for the Derby or the Met Mile?

If you are an owner than why don't you answer Crist? How about backing up your arguments with actions, start all your horses without Lasix, prove us doubters wrong.

Perception? What do you think the public perception is going to be when horses are choking on their blood and bleeding on the racetrack?

If you had read my earlier posts up to this you would have seen that I weighed a negative against a positive regarding the argument that Lasix enhances performance. I have argued that using it is all good, I have just argued that ban is misguided and supported by misguided and speculative arguments without scientific evidence.

I thought that you were a pretty smart guy. I am afraid I may be mistaken.

With regard to your comment about Australian horses in the Derby, "sturdy" and "fast" are two totally different things. Our horses in the US are definitely fast. Nobody is denying that. Our horses are "fast" but they are also very fragile.

I would rather that my trainers did not use lasix. But as I said in my prior post, most trainers consider lasix to be part of their program. Most of them don't like to be told what to do. I put my foot down on certain things and others I don't. If the horse has never run before, I try to at least get the trainer to run the horse without lasix for at least their first lifetime race or two.

I agree with you that it will be bad PR when a horse comes back bleeding through the nose. We see that occasionally right now even with horses on lasix. If they ban lasix, I'm sure the incidence of this will increase somewhat.

I admit that I haven't read all your posts in this thread.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I would rather that my trainers did not use lasix.

Then buy a box of FLAIR nasal strips, and drop it off at the barn, and see if your trainer will still train for you using those. I'm serious - they have proven efficacy for EIPH. You can get them for $10-15 a strip (single use).

By the way: if we eliminate lasix, I imagine that many will go back to what they used to use before lasix - removing water from the horse for a day or two. That type of severe forced dehydration (which is unlike the diuresis induced by lasix for multiple reasons) is NOT a scenario I'd like to see.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

Then buy a box of FLAIR nasal strips, and drop it off at the barn, and see if your trainer will still train for you using those. I'm serious - they have proven efficacy for EIPH. You can get them for $10-15 a strip (single use).

By the way: if we eliminate lasix, I imagine that many will go back to what they used to use before lasix - removing water from the horse for a day or two. That type of severe forced dehydration (which is unlike the diuresis induced by lasix for multiple reasons) is NOT a scenario I'd like to see.

In your opinion, how effective are the FLAIR nasal strips in comparison to lasix?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

In your opinion, how effective are the FLAIR nasal strips in comparison to lasix?

Go back about 3-4 pages, I think. There were multiple posts about the efficacy of FLAIR nasal strips, including Sightseek posting the link http://www.flairstrips.com/wp-conten...-Camp-2011.pdf to a wonderful FLAIR company brochure describing EIPH in an easy-to-understand manner, describing how FLAIR works, and listing all the efficacy data studies for their product.

Bottom line: FLAIR has the same measurable efficacy as lasix in decreasing the frequency and severity of EIPH episodes. That is why other maximally-exerting horse sports, who cannot use lasix, use the FLAIR strips universally at advanced and professional levels.

Many trainers don't care for them. Cannon? You ever try them?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

Go back about 3-4 pages, I think. There were multiple posts about the efficacy of FLAIR nasal strips, including Sightseek (I believe) posting the link a wonderful FLAIR company brochure describing EIPH in an easy-to-understand manner, describing how FLAIR works, and listing all the efficacy data studies for their product.

Bottom line: FLAIR has the same measurable efficacy as lasix in decreasing the frequency and severity of EIPH episodes. That is why other maximally-exerting horse sports, who cannot use lasix, use the FLAIR strips universally at advanced and professional levels.

Many trainers don't care for them. Cannon? You ever try them?

For the trainers that don't care for them, what is their reason for not liking them?

I'm sure that plenty of trainers would rather use lasix because they think lasix is a performance-enhancer. I'm not just guessing that. I know for a fact that many trainers think lasix is a performance-enhancer because many have told me that.

I have another question for you. As we all know, some horses get small doses of lasix while other horses (usually known bleeders) get much bigger doses. Do you think there would be any downside to giving all horses a big dose of lasix?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Go back about 3-4 pages, I think. There were multiple posts about the efficacy of FLAIR nasal strips, including Sightseek posting the link http://www.flairstrips.com/wp-conten...-Camp-2011.pdf to a wonderful FLAIR company brochure describing EIPH in an easy-to-understand manner, describing how FLAIR works, and listing all the efficacy data studies for their product.

Bottom line: FLAIR has the same measurable efficacy as lasix in decreasing the frequency and severity of EIPH episodes. That is why other maximally-exerting horse sports, who cannot use lasix, use the FLAIR strips universally at advanced and professional levels.

Many trainers don't care for them. Cannon? You ever try them?

I use them on occasion but not enough to draw any conclusions. When it is hot out they dont stay on very well

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pointman

So this the solution? I would love to credit the author if I could find his or her name. Concerned about calcium stunting growth and maintainence then why not give the horse calcium supplements? Or is that performance enhancing too? And that is some source they have to to back up that argument.

If Austrailian horses are built much sturdier than U.S. horses, then why aren't these faster beasts loading the starting gate for the Derby or the Met Mile?

If you are an owner than why don't you answer Crist? How about backing up your arguments with actions, start all your horses without Lasix, prove us doubters wrong.

Perception? What do you think the public perception is going to be when horses are choking on their blood and bleeding on the racetrack?

If you had read my earlier posts up to this you would have seen that I weighed a negative against a positive regarding the argument that Lasix enhances performance. I have not argued that using it is all good, I have just argued that ban is misguided and supported by misguided and speculative arguments without scientific evidence.

I thought that you were a pretty smart guy. I am afraid I may be mistaken.

Racehorses injest a lot of calcium.
http://horse.purinamills.com/product...2-0032711.aspx
Many also supplement along with the feed
http://www.mannapro.com/products/hor...l-information/

ITTP is one of the biggest rumored "hops" in racing. Made in France.

Here is a story which refers to "blue magic" which a pretty famous US trainer was rumored to have used in his rise to prominence.
http://www.thecourier.com.au/news/lo...nz/650748.aspx

I know they are a little off tangent but the other idea that racing is so clean in foreign jurisdictions because they dont use lasix on raceday is false.

This may be a scam but from Aussie backpage.com an ad for ITTP for $950 US dollars
http://brisbane.backpage.com/MiscFor...e-race/2304216

UK
http://www.tradett.com/products/u315...orse-race.html