TDN OP-ED: Jerry Brown on missing Lasix discussion point

[Round Pen]

I hope they are able to locate the Article Jerry Brown References about Dr Harthill. I have tried searching for it a few times with No Luck if anyone else locates it could they please post a link, I would love to read it again. No question Dr was one of a kind....

[Danzig]

this?

http://www.drf.com/news/call-him-doctor-derby

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

this?

http://www.drf.com/news/call-him-doctor-derby

You are a Google Wizard! Here's the pertinent bit:

"A lot of guys gauge themselves on the fees they collect," Harthill said. "I hate to say that, but there it is. I look at a good vet as someone who can answer the question, did I do that horse some good? And the horse will tell you. He really will."

One of them, according to Harthill, was Northern Dancer. As Harthill recalls it, the colt had a bleeding problem as the 1964 Derby approached, and trainer Horatio Luro consulted his old pal the doctor for a possible solution. Lasix, a diuretic descendant of calves' brain and Doan's Pills, was just making its way into the game at the time. Harthill was an early advocate of the medication, which is now used by about 95 percent of all racehorses.

"Security was following me, though, so I got a vet I knew from out of town to come along with me," Harthill said. "I told him I was going to turn to the right, and would he go that way and take this little syringe down to barn 24, stall 23, and give this to that horse. There would be a guy there called Will. He'd be waiting.

"So he did it, while the gendarmes followed me. They were following the mystique!"

Harthill smiled. He didn't really feel all that mysterious. In fact, he prefers to be considered nothing more than a horse-loving small-town vet, whose fondest wish is that people stop kidding themselves about the issue of drugs in racing.

"Therapeutics might help a horse run as fast as he's capable of running on a given day," Harthill said. "But not any faster. They're an equalizer. And besides, it's not fair to ask the public to bet on a sore horse."

[Danzig]

i thought his comments further up were worth looking at.
why would we fail to treat horses that can be treated? wth is the point of modern medicine if it's going to be treated as a horrible thing to actually use and benefit from?

[ateamstupid]

"Therapeutics might help a horse run as fast as he's capable of running on a given day," Harthill said. "But not any faster. They're an equalizer. And besides, it's not fair to ask the public to bet on a sore horse."

This probably sums up the entire "debate" for me.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

This probably sums up the entire "debate" for me.

it really does for me too. these are the parts that got me:

"The horse should be the primary thing in a veterinarian's life. To ask a horse to run when he's not doing well isn't fair. All I'm asking for is anti-inflammatories and anti-bleeding medicine."

It is hypocrisy, contends Harthill, to treat legal therapeutics in such a manner. Such restrictions, he says, are done for purposes of public relations, and at the expense of the horse.

"It's the most unnatural thing in the world, what we ask these horses to do," he continued. "They're locked in a stall most of the day, exposed to respiratory ailments from horses shipping in from all over the country.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Danzig

it really does for me too. these are the parts that got me:

"The horse should be the primary thing in a veterinarian's life. To ask a horse to run when he's not doing well isn't fair. All I'm asking for is anti-inflammatories and anti-bleeding medicine."

It is hypocrisy, contends Harthill, to treat legal therapeutics in such a manner. Such restrictions, he says, are done for purposes of public relations, and at the expense of the horse.

"It's the most unnatural thing in the world, what we ask these horses to do," he continued. "They're locked in a stall most of the day, exposed to respiratory ailments from horses shipping in from all over the country.

Nobody gives a crap about drugs in Hong Kong. Comparing racing in the states with a place that is almost completely chinese in origin among its population is not useful. Have you seen just how addicted to gambling the Chinese are? Do you know how many bus loads of chinese american's are bused to Pa. Ct. NY. and NJ casinos daily. The culture is infected with the gambling bug. Do you know how many races are run in Hong Kong a year vs. the states. Plus proximity to the track is ideal for must and nobody that works their can afford to do anything other then go to the races unless they are extremely wealthy. The only outlet these folks have is the track. Macaw casinos are loaded with people as well but if you are chinese you have to PAY a lot of money to enter these casino's.

Respectfully the drugs can be controlled because the micro industry is contained in one ruling body not 50 odd states with different governing rules. Its just a whole different world and should not be remotely considered when evaluating racing in states.

[Scav]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

This probably sums up the entire "debate" for me.

It sums it up for any actual horse player. Lets just hope the 1% doesnt win this cause imo horse racing handle will decline significantly if Lasix is gone.

[Danzig]

'Horseracing currently thrives in Hong Kong, where stacks of cash are bet on the races. Lasix is not allowed in Hong Kong. The reason the wagering pools are so astronomical in Hong Kong is because the horseplayers know that the integrity of racing is without question. '

so, bets are high, there's no lasix-therefore if they used lasix there would be less bets?
correlation does not equal causation, mr. irwin.

[Danzig]

in looking for that article, i came across some other stuff, some of it interesting. not sure who this guy is, but some of what's in his article i found interesting.

http://businessofracing.blogspot.com...orld-does.html

what caught my eye:

So how can we reconcile the fact that, according to the South African study that I reported on yesterday, "most horses bleed," with the very low rates of bleeding reported in non-Lasix countries?

A few possible explanations stand out, though there's little science so far to prove or disprove any of them.

First, training practices differ substantially as between North America and most of the rest of the world. Here, most horses train at the race track, are exercised for comparatively short times, and get comparatively more speed work, with racing-speed breezes. Elsewhere, it's more common to train away from the track, in a less pressured atmosphere. It's notable that the relatively higher rates of bleeding in non-Lasix jurisdictions occur in those places -- Hong Kong, Singapore and Dubai -- where horses do train at the race track.

Second, most jurisdictions' definitions of bleeding don't include horses that score a 3 or 4 when scoped, even though those hores are clearly compromised in performance. According to the South African study, nearly 10% of horses have serious tracheal bleeding without Lasix (reduced to essentially zero with Lasix), enough to affect their racing performance.



does anyone know if therre's been any studies done that would indicate that the type of training helps lessen bleeding in those places that don't do much at the actual track?
also, i would think one would be able to claim they have much less 'bleeders' if they don't count those on the lower end of the spectrum. if we did the same here, what would it do to our numbers of bleeders?