Lasix

[AeWingnut]

Originally Posted by Merlinsky

There's a shock, vets are pro-medication. Gee they're not remotely benefiting financially from the Lasix,etc. that they put in the horses. The AVMA is also pro-slaughter. They might call what they're peddling here pro-horse. I don't believe that's the case myself. Even if you think the horses shouldn't be neglected and are convinced that that'll happen, you can be pro-euthanasia. I don't see them out there pushing people with lousy colts to geld them. The more horses with Lasix that run and go on to breed, the worse the bleeding situation gets in future generations. It should be a negative when you go to a stallion that he was a known bleeder. Not unlike a really weak hind end or pencil thin pasterns. Not 'oh nevermind, he'll just take Lasix.' It's a defect plain and simple. The heart-lung mechanism is one of if not the most important things on a horse. As wonderfully conformed as Secretariat was, he did what he did thanks to heart-lung efficiency. Need to see that in action? Watch the gusts in the Canadian International. As for the masking of other drugs, yeah I guess the World Anti-Doping Agency has it on the banned list because it masks other drugs based on no evidence whatsoever.

The World Anti-Doping Agency sounds authoritative but aren't these the people that framed Floyd Landis

Question I have:

Is Lasix used extensively on horses that have not bled or have bled what might be considered insignficant amounts ? (I guess insignificant would mean no breathing problems or infections likely, etc... because the amount of bleeding is so small).

Once a horse bleeds, its Lasix for life, if the trainer so chooses?
I also know that in Texas anyway, a horse can get on lasix if bleeding occurs
during a workout which makes sense. But the vets have to have a look.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Question I have:

Is Lasix used extensively on horses that have not bled or have bled what might be considered insignficant amounts ? (I guess insignificant would mean no breathing problems or infections likely, etc... because the amount of bleeding is so small).

Once a horse bleeds, its Lasix for life, if the trainer so chooses?

If a horse shows a propensity to bleed even a small amount they have a greater chance of bleeding signifigntly in the future. Since very few horses come with crystal balls to tell us if today is the day that we bleed badly it is used as a preventative measure in many cases.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

If a horse shows a propensity to bleed even a small amount they have a greater chance of bleeding signifigntly in the future. Since very few horses come with crystal balls to tell us if today is the day that we bleed badly it is used as a preventative measure in many cases.

Vet has to give the OK in the first place but not thereafter?
And does the horse have to bleed.
In other words, if a horse has never bled, Lasix is
still used, or bleeding must have occurred.

And then
once it occurs, since it is likely the horse will bleed again,
its used as prevention.

[Riot]

A vet has to observe and certify that the horse bled in a work or a race, and the horse can then go on the offical "bleeder's list" so it can get the drugs to try and prevent bleeding.

Horses that have bled are tracked by the offical track vet, and have varying periods of mandatory time off from racing after a bleeding episode.

The various jurisdictions have their own regulations.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

If a horse shows a propensity to bleed even a small amount they have a greater chance of bleeding signifigntly in the future. Since very few horses come with crystal balls to tell us if today is the day that we bleed badly it is used as a preventative measure in many cases.

Every horse in the first 2yo race at Kee was on Lasix. I tend to think it is used a lot more liberally than you let on.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Every horse in the first 2yo race at Kee was on Lasix. I tend to think it is used a lot more liberally than you let on.

You dont need me to tell you when or where it is used since it is right there in black and white. Are 2 year olds somehow immune to bleeding? As long as there is equal access and the information is made public I dont see why you would care.

[Bigsmc]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You dont need me to tell you when or where it is used since it is right there in black and white. Are 2 year olds somehow immune to bleeding? As long as there is equal access and the information is made public I dont see why you would care.

I don't see why anyone cares.

The author's article has some compelling statistics, but none of them correlate with Lasix use other than the timing of the legalization of the drug and the decline of field sizes and races run per horse. Quite possibly sheer coincidence, although he says,

It can't be a coincidence that the introduction of Lasix came at precisely the time a trend began whereby horses make fewer and fewer starts each year.

Why can't it be a coincidence?

Another gem,

So, it appears that Lasix doesn't solve bleeding or keep horses in training longer.

How does Lasix not solve bleeding problem. Does he have any statistics of horses bleeding through Lasix vs. horses that don't, in order to help his stance that it does not solve bleeding? I don't think it will ever be completely solved, but any trainer or vet can tell you it definitely helps the bleeding.

He also states,

There is strong evidence that it is detrimental to the long-term well-being of the horse.

Where is that evidence? The aforementioned smaller field sizes and less races per career? There are no other reasons that horses are running less and less often? It's solely the fault of Lasix? Please.

If he offered up some medical or physical proof that Lasix is making the breed more fragile, then we could have a discussion of it's positives and negatives. Otherwise this is just a poorly researched witch hunt.

[cmorioles]

I'm just curious why they need lasix without ever having raced. About 99% of them get lasix first time out now. Those that don't get it are at a competitive disadvantage, plain and simple.

There is very little doubt in my mind that lasix enables horses to run faster whether they bleed or not, thus everyone uses it.

As for why I would care, I happen to like the sport. Horses ran a lot more and broke down a lot less before lasix and other drugs were legalized. I'd like to see that happen again someday, though I know I won't.

[philcski]

Here's the problem with his claim that Lasix is the cause for declining field size- bleeding has NOT caused reduced fields, trainers seduced by the completely BOGUS Ragozin idea that significant time off between races is required for optimal performance (see: Denis of Cork); not to mention hundreds of years of inbreeding for speed which has made the breed more fragile.

Horses used to run 30+ times a year. Now it's 15 for even the "hardest knocking" types. Multiply the number of races run and reduce the number of starts per year, even with a siginficant increase in total registered foals per year, and you have reduced fields.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I'm just curious why they need lasix without ever having raced. About 99% of them get lasix first time out now. Those that don't get it are at a competitive disadvantage, plain and simple.

There is very little doubt in my mind that lasix enables horses to run faster whether they bleed or not, thus everyone uses it.

As for why I would care, I happen to like the sport. Horses ran a lot more and broke down a lot less before lasix and other drugs were legalized. I'd like to see that happen again someday, though I know I won't.

This is simply not true. Do you or anyone else have any evidence that horses brokedown less? They only started collecting the data recently on breakdowns and horses making fewer starts has been a trend since 1960 which is long before lasix.