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

[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?

[Kasept]

Zorn is the manager of the Castle Village partnership group.

Start here with RMTC studies: http://www.rmtcnet.com/content_research.asp

The study you want is Dr. Sams' Univ. of FL exercise research where 2 dozen racehorses were kept under training conditions..

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Zorn is the manager of the Castle Village partnership group.

Start here with RMTC studies: http://www.rmtcnet.com/content_research.asp

The study you want is Dr. Sams' Univ. of FL exercise research where 2 dozen racehorses were kept under training conditions..

thanks!

[Danzig]

that was interesting, i would hope everyone would read it.

[cmorioles]

The point is pretty simple for me. Horses that use Lasix have a speed advantage over those that don't. I'm not a scientist, I don't know the exact reasons why. I really don't care. I just know it is so. That is how we got where we are today, where horses that don't need Lasix are given it all the time.

We are told now it is preventative. But, that isn't the main reason nearly every horse is given it. It is given to level the playing field. Jerry's idea tries to level the playing field without giving drugs to 95% of the horse population. I think it is a good idea. How can less drugs not be good?