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

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by 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?

when reading the report on the study, they said that a horse doesn't improve due to lasix, but they are able to run to their level because they don't have the bleeding issue. did you read the study? did you see the percentage of horses affected by bleeding?
if people don't wish to use it on their horses, they don't have to. but it is helpful to many horses, and should be allowed.

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I don't think those other things make a horse that doesn't need it run faster if administered. I'm sure Lasix does. If Lasix is needed, fine, but it has gotten out of hand. And those that get it should be penalized. Weight is one idea, and seems a pretty good one to me.

lasix doesn't make a horse 'run faster'.
horses may not bleed for some time, and then suddenly they do. that's why people use lasix, they have no way of knowing when it'll happen to a horse.
read the study, seriously.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Danzig

when reading the report on the study, they said that a horse doesn't improve due to lasix, but they are able to run to their level because they don't have the bleeding issue. did you read the study? did you see the percentage of horses affected by bleeding?
if people don't wish to use it on their horses, they don't have to. but it is helpful to many horses, and should be allowed.



lasix doesn't make a horse 'run faster'.
horses may not bleed for some time, and then suddenly they do. that's why people use lasix, they have no way of knowing when it'll happen to a horse.
read the study, seriously.

I've read it, I just disagree. There are studies out there showing just the opposite that have been posted here before. I've been doing this a long time. I know how to measure horse speed, and I know that horses run faster with it than without.

There is ample evidence if people bother to look. As a bettor, I can quantify it. Horses that don't bleed run faster with Lasix than without. It isn't even really debatable. Of course horses are individuals and the effect isn't the same on all of them, and a scant few run worse. But by and large, it improves performance.

As for the preventative aspect, wasn't a study just released that purported to prove only a very few really need Lasix long term, and that bleeding doesn't hinder long term performance?

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...six-not-needed

I take them all with a grain of salt because everyone has an agenda. My agenda is to make money betting. It may be selfish, but it isn't slanted to one cause or the other. I look at it objectively.

Here is an example that won't happen because I think Goldencents is going in the BC Mile. If he met Rich Tapestry again, after his trip last time, I'd bet him in a second over Rich Tapestry. But, if Rich Tapestry were to add Lasix, I'd bet him. I've been doing this long enough to know Lasix makes a difference, and the difference is not heads or noses but lengths.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I've read it, I just disagree. There are studies out there showing just the opposite that have been posted here before. I've been doing this a long time. I know how to measure horse speed, and I know that horses run faster with it than without.

There is ample evidence if people bother to look. As a bettor, I can quantify it. Horses that don't bleed run faster with Lasix than without. It isn't even really debatable. Of course horses are individuals and the effect isn't the same on all of them, and a scant few run worse. But by and large, it improves performance.

As for the preventative aspect, wasn't a study just released that purported to prove only a very few really need Lasix long term, and that bleeding doesn't hinder long term performance?

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...six-not-needed

I take them all with a grain of salt because everyone has an agenda. My agenda is to make money betting. It may be selfish, but it isn't slanted to one cause or the other. I look at it objectively.

Here is an example that won't happen because I think Goldencents is going in the BC Mile. If he met Rich Tapestry again, after his trip last time, I'd bet him in a second over Rich Tapestry. But, if Rich Tapestry were to add Lasix, I'd bet him. I've been doing this long enough to know Lasix makes a difference, and the difference is not heads or noses but lengths.

but unlike other studies, this was actually done under racing conditions. now, it wasn't done to detect whether it made horses faster, but it most definitely showed that it helps regarding EIPH-which is the reason for its use. unless and until a better anti-bleeder comes along, I don't see a reason to stop using it. many horses bleed, the bleeding is lessened by using Lasix. are horses improved due to lessening instances and severity of bleeding? i would think that it was what you're seeing when you say it makes them faster. they are running without hindrance. and seeing in the report how often horses suffer from it, I'd hate to see it taken away because of a perception or belief that it is a performance enhancer. removing the hindrance of bleeding isn't an enhancer-it allows the horse to race at optimal levels.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Danzig

but unlike other studies, this was actually done under racing conditions. now, it wasn't done to detect whether it made horses faster, but it most definitely showed that it helps regarding EIPH-which is the reason for its use. unless and until a better anti-bleeder comes along, I don't see a reason to stop using it. many horses bleed, the bleeding is lessened by using Lasix. are horses improved due to lessening instances and severity of bleeding? i would think that it was what you're seeing when you say it makes them faster. they are running without hindrance. and seeing in the report how often horses suffer from it, I'd hate to see it taken away because of a perception or belief that it is a performance enhancer. removing the hindrance of bleeding isn't an enhancer-it allows the horse to race at optimal levels.

I believe it helps, but I also believe it gives an edge. If a drug is allowed that helps some horses run faster, but others can't have it, how is that fair? We see where this has led...they all get it now. That is not good.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I believe it helps, but I also believe it gives an edge. If a drug is allowed that helps some horses run faster, but others can't have it, how is that fair? We see where this has led...they all get it now. That is not good.

I have to say, two years ago I was in the anti-Lasix contingent, but I was persuaded by reading this board to change my position (it was actually Riot, and her accounts of other methods used in pre-Lasix days that convinced me. I thought Lasix was cruel because of the dehydrating effect, when, in fact, that's what actually helps protect the lungs). I think people miss the point of Lasix, which is that it's not a therapeutic drug; it's a preventative drug. It's meant to reduce the chances of a horse having an EIPH episode. Since there's no way to tell if a horse is going to bleed, better to administer it in case.

To me, Lasix is to racehorses as vaccines are to people. It's not perfect, it doesn't work in 100 percent of recipients, but it's the best option we have. And no, not every horse is going to have an EIPH episode, just as not every unvaccinated person is going to get chicken pox. And the majority of diseases we vaccinate kids against aren't usually fatal. But they can be, just as EIPH can be, and why take the risk of a horse dropping dead from EIPH in the middle of a race when there's a cheap and easy way of reducing the chance that will happen? We can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

I think we also dance around the issue that when we race horses, we are pushing them past what they evolved to do. And that's the point of athletics- challenging the body to its physical limit. But we get weird about it when it's animals- we fret about consent, and start to ask if what we do is cruelty (never mind that it's just about impossible to get a 1000 pound animal to do something it doesn't want to do). And that's the really hard part of the argument- if you say that really, most horses in hard athletic work are going to bleed in the lungs, even if only slightly, then the question we have to ask is, is it right to be racing them at all?

Of course, I think it's fine to train animals in athletic endeavors, but I think we have a responsibility to do the best we can to protect their bodies against the inevitable damage athletic careers will do. And I also think it's okay for trainers to make the decision not to use Lasix, if they feel it's in the best interests of their horse's health (like when Larry Jones felt Havre de Grace was having a bad reaction to it. Perfect, good, enemies and all that).

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

I have to say, two years ago I was in the anti-Lasix contingent, but I was persuaded by reading this board to change my position (it was actually Riot, and her accounts of other methods used in pre-Lasix days that convinced me. I thought Lasix was cruel because of the dehydrating effect, when, in fact, that's what actually helps protect the lungs). I think people miss the point of Lasix, which is that it's not a therapeutic drug; it's a preventative drug. It's meant to reduce the changes of a horse having an EIPH episode. Since there's no way to tell if a horse is going to bleed, better to administer it in case.

To me, Lasix is to racehorses as vaccines are to people. It's not perfect, it doesn't work in 100 percent of recipients, but it's the best option we have. And no, not every horse is going to have an EIPH episode, just as not every unvaccinated person is going to get chicken pox. And the majority of diseases we vaccinate kids against aren't usually fatal. But they can be, just as EIPH can be, and why take the risk of a horse dropping dead from EIPH in the middle of a race when there's a cheap and easy way of reducing the chance that will happen? We can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

I think we also dance around the issue that when we race horses, we are pushing them past what they evolved to do. And that's the point of athletics- challenging the body to its physical limit. But we get weird about it when it's animals- we fret about consent, and start to ask if what we do is cruelty (never mind that it's just about impossible to get a 1000 pound animal to do something it doesn't want to do). And that's the really hard part of the argument- if you say that really, most horses in hard athletic work are going to bleed in the lungs, even if only slightly, then the question we have to ask is, is it right to be racing them at all?

Of course, I think it's fine to train animals in athletic endeavors, but I think we have a responsibility to do the best we can to protect their bodies against the inevitable damage athletic careers will do. And I also think it's okay for trainers to make the decision not to use Lasix, if they feel it's in the best interests of their horse's health (like when Larry Jones felt Havre de Grace was having a bad reaction to it. Perfect, good, enemies and all that).

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I believe it helps, but I also believe it gives an edge. If a drug is allowed that helps some horses run faster, but others can't have it, how is that fair? We see where this has led...they all get it now. That is not good.

Except they don't all get it...and if they did, there would be no advantage. Knowing eiph can hit any horse, anytime, with no warning, and as the study said, it can kill...I think I'd rather have something to help bleeders, especially knowing its all there is for bleeders.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Danzig

Except they don't all get it...and if they did, there would be no advantage. Knowing eiph can hit any horse, anytime, with no warning, and as the study said, it can kill...I think I'd rather have something to help bleeders, especially knowing its all there is for bleeders.

95% get it. Those that don't usually have a reason. You didn't address my point. By giving a preventative drug to some horses that gives them an edge, you basically create an unfair playing field and force those that don't need it to use it. I'm sorry, I'll never be convinced that drugging horses that don't need it is a good thing.

As I said in this thread, I'm fine with bleeders using Lasix, just make sure they are penalized somewhat for doing so to level the playing field. Forget me, a guy as respected as Jerry Brown is saying that Lasix gives an edge. Does that carry no weight?

[GenuineRisk]

Harness racing article but addresses the arguments as they pertain to thoroughbreds also:

http://www.harnesslink.com/News/Bann...r-horses-97434

[pointman]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

95% get it. Those that don't usually have a reason. You didn't address my point. By giving a preventative drug to some horses that gives them an edge, you basically create an unfair playing field and force those that don't need it to use it. I'm sorry, I'll never be convinced that drugging horses that don't need it is a good thing.

As I said in this thread, I'm fine with bleeders using Lasix, just make sure they are penalized somewhat for doing so to level the playing field. Forget me, a guy as respected as Jerry Brown is saying that Lasix gives an edge. Does that carry no weight?

How does increasing the chance that horses will bleed in races negatively affecting their performance without warning create a fair playing field?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

95% get it. Those that don't usually have a reason. You didn't address my point. By giving a preventative drug to some horses that gives them an edge, you basically create an unfair playing field and force those that don't need it to use it. I'm sorry, I'll never be convinced that drugging horses that don't need it is a good thing.

As I said in this thread, I'm fine with bleeders using Lasix, just make sure they are penalized somewhat for doing so to level the playing field. Forget me, a guy as respected as Jerry Brown is saying that Lasix gives an edge. Does that carry no weight?

force those that don't need it to use it-did you see how many horses bleed? you have to give it as a preventive, as there's no way to know that a horse will bleed-and many do at some point. any anti-bleeder, and right now Lasix is the only one I know of, has to be given as a preventive as there's no way to know beforehand that a horse will bleed. and it can be no bleeding to a bad case, or even cause death.
you'd rather it not be given because you feel it gives an edge, knowing that not using it would cause bleeders to bleed worse, and could cause serious injury or death?
the study basically said it levels the playing field for bleeders, because by being given it, they can run TO their ability-not beyond it.
I'd like to see a similar study done under racing conditions that would show me that it improves a non-bleeder. and then there's the issue of a non-bleeder becoming one. I'd rather prevent an episode than chance it-I'm not the one taking the risk, the horse is.
since you believe it does give an edge, I'm sure you bet accordingly. that's why the info is given, so you know.

from the study:

Results—Horses were substantially more likely to develop EIPH (severity score ≥ 1; odds
ratio, 3.3 to 4.4) or moderate to severe EIPH (severity score ≥ 2; odds ratio, 6.9 to 11.0)
following administration of saline solution than following administration of furosemide.


At least 80% of racehorses can be
expected to develop the condition at some time during
their career,1,2 approximately 60% of sudden deaths
during racing have been attributed to pulmonary hemorrhage,
2 severe EIPH has been shown to adversely affect
race performance,3 and EIPH is believed to adversely
affect the overall health of racehorses.

so, we should tell those 80% of horses 'too bad'? can't use it on you because it might give another horse an edge?