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

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by pointman

The logic of the supporters of the ban is twisted and warped, essentially they argue that a drug that helps the health of horses with no evidence that it masks other drugs, enhances performance or has negative genetic effects should be banned so that the sport does not have the appearance to the ignorant that horses performances are enhanced by drugs. Incredible.

I think the logic of people who think we should use lasix is twisted. They race all over the world without lasix. How can you say that we need lasix here when they don't use it anywhere else? Do you think they should start using it in England, Dubai, and Hong Kong? Is our racing the model for the world? I don't think so. It's the exact opposite. We are the laughing stock of the world. To say we need lasix here, when it is not used anywhere else, is a losing argument.

By the way, there of plenty of trainers out there that will tell you lasix is a performance enhancing drug that does mask other drugs. In addition, it totally knocks horses out. Lasix completely dehydrates you. Do you think it a good idea to do any type of rigorous physical task while you are totally dehydrated? It's terrible for a person and it's terrible for a horse.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

We are the laughing stock of the world. To say we need lasix here, when it is not used anywhere else, is a losing argument.

Speak for yourself.

If we are the laughing stock of the world, why are our stallions and bloodlines so desirable the world over? And, furthermore, if lasix is such a problem for overseas outfits, why do they always use it when they race in the US?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Speak for yourself.

If we are the laughing stock of the world, why are our stallions and bloodlines so desirable the world over? And, furthermore, if lasix is such a problem for overseas outfits, why do they always use it when they race in the US?

We do have some good stallions here. I'm not saying that anyone thinks all of our stallions are bad.

With regards to the Europeans using lasix in the US, they use it because they thing it's performance enhancing and they think they would be at a disadvantage by not using it.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

We do have some good stallions here. I'm not saying that anyone thinks all of our stallions are bad.

With regards to the Europeans using lasix in the US, they use it because they thing it's performance enhancing and they think they would be at a disadvantage by not using it.

So they are laughing at us but are also willing to make fools out of themselves as well.....at least according to you.

If it reads like BS it usually is BS.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

We do have some good stallions here. I'm not saying that anyone thinks all of our stallions are bad.

With regards to the Europeans using lasix in the US, they use it because they thing it's performance enhancing and they think they would be at a disadvantage by not using it.

Why would Europeans want horses that have raced on Lasix that "masked drugs" which will be passed down to the foals? Why do many train their horses on it? They buy our horses because they know that Lasix does not hurt them or their bloodlines.

Those who think that they would be at a competitive disadvantage are simply ignorant and basing their conclusion on conjecture, not scientific evidence. I am sure that many of them say that, but use it because they know their horse is a bleeder and will race more competitively here with the use of a medication that eliminates the medical problem that causes them to come here in the first place.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

We do have some good stallions here. I'm not saying that anyone thinks all of our stallions are bad.

With regards to the Europeans using lasix in the US, they use it because they thing it's performance enhancing and they think they would be at a disadvantage by not using it.

no, they use it because they can here. if everyone truly thought it was performance enhancing, than why do i see horses racing here without an 'L' next to their name???

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

no, they use it because they can here. if everyone truly thought it was performance enhancing, than why do i see horses racing here without an 'L' next to their name???

I don't know if every trainer thinks lasix is performance enhancing.

I personally think it is a big mistake to use lasix on a first-time starter. The reason is because there is a small percentage of horses that will actually run worse on lasix. I have no idea what that percentage is. It is probably somewhere between 1-5%. If possible, I would like to run a horse at least once or twice without lasix. That way you can at least see how they run without it as compared to how they run with it.

One of my trainers (a different trainer than the one I was on the phone with) had a horse that had run 3 times without lasix. He had run great every time. He had two wins and then ran 2nd in a stakes race. He then decided to put the horse on lasix for his next race. He figured that lasix helps most horses and it would probably help this horse (even though the horse had never bled). The horse ended up running poorly in his first race with lasix. The trainer never even thought of the possibility that lasix might have been the cause of the dull effort. He was dumbfounded as to why the horse ran so bad. The horse had been training great. He ran him again with lasix and he ran bad again. They went over the horse with a fine-tooth comb and couldn't find anything wrong with him. He came out of the race great and he was training great.

At this point, the trainer started thinking about the possibility that the lasix was the cause of the two bad races. The horse had run great three times in a row without lasix. Then the horse ran poorly two races in a row with lasix. The trainer couldn't come up with any explanation for the horse's two bad races. So he thought there was a small possibility that this horse was one of the few that runs worse with lasix. He took the horse off lasix for his next race and the horse won (it was a stakes race) by 8 lengths.

This is not something that is common. As I said, I don't think anyone knows what percentage of horses that run worse with lasix. It could be as low as 1%. But this trainer is lucky that he ran that horse without lasix those first few races. Otherwise he would have never known that the horse was much better without lasix. That horse ended up being a multiple graded stakes winner. I'll bet you that horse would have never won a stakes race on lasix. That is why I think it is a good idea to run a horse a couple of times without it.

[Riot]

Rupert, to your trainers impressions, there has been contrary scientific measurements regarding lasix. Studies that show horses on lasix don't do as well (dehydration, electrolyte changes). Then one study in the 1990's, looking at actual race horse races run, that showed horses on lasix did better (ran slightly longer, faster) What couldn't be eliminated in the second study was maidens simply learning their job and improving their 2-3-4 starts (as they also were then put on the vet's list for lasix due to evidence of bleeding).

I consider lasix a performance-enabler. Not a performance-enhancer. It helps prevent lung damage. It enables a horse to do the best they can with what they have. Let's use modern sports medicine to help horses, not hurt them. It has nothing to do with doping.

With all the problems horse racing has, that the poobahs of racing are even addressing lasix like this is beyond my comprehension.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I don't know if every trainer thinks lasix is performance enhancing.

I personally think it is a big mistake to use lasix on a first-time starter. The reason is because there is a small percentage of horses that will actually run worse on lasix. I have no idea what that percentage is. It is probably somewhere between 1-5%. If possible, I would like to run a horse at least once or twice without lasix. That way you can at least see how they run without it as compared to how they run with it.

One of my trainers (a different trainer than the one I was on the phone with) had a horse that had run 3 times without lasix. He had run great every time. He had two wins and then ran 2nd in a stakes race. He then decided to put the horse on lasix for his next race. He figured that lasix helps most horses and it would probably help this horse (even though the horse had never bled). The horse ended up running poorly in his first race with lasix. The trainer never even thought of the possibility that lasix might have been the cause of the dull effort. He was dumbfounded as to why the horse ran so bad. The horse had been training great. He ran him again with lasix and he ran bad again. They went over the horse with a fine-tooth comb and couldn't find anything wrong with him. He came out of the race great and he was training great.

At this point, the trainer started thinking about the possibility that the lasix was the cause of the two bad races. The horse had run great three times in a row without lasix. Then the horse ran poorly two races in a row with lasix. The trainer couldn't come up with any explanation for the horse's two bad races. So he thought there was a small possibility that this horse was one of the few that runs worse with lasix. He took the horse off lasix for his next race and the horse won (it was a stakes race) by 8 lengths.

This is not something that is common. As I said, I don't think anyone knows what percentage of horses that run worse with lasix. It could be as low as 1%. But this trainer is lucky that he ran that horse without lasix those first few races. Otherwise he would have never known that the horse was much better without lasix. That horse ended up being a multiple graded stakes winner. I'll bet you that horse would have never won a stakes race on lasix. That is why I think it is a good idea to run a horse a couple of times without it.

there's more to it than just saying ' a first time starter'. they've been in training, maybe there's already been a bleeding episode? or maybe they just don't want to have to have a problem ever show up? if you can prevent bleeding and lung issues before they become an issue, why wouldn't you?
lasix has become the popular target for some reason, and really isn't the issue where drugs are concerned. the issues are with cheaters, some who are caught countless times, suspended countless times, and are still training. that's the issue, not a legal drug that has legitimate reasons for being used. it is absolutely a red herring in the whole discussion of what needs to be done to fix racing. cheating trainers and the owners who hire them are the issue. rather than all this bs posturing over lasix, where are the hearings and rules for many-times over cheaters? where are the moves for expanded testing, more security?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig

there's more to it than just saying ' a first time starter'. they've been in training, maybe there's already been a bleeding episode? or maybe they just don't want to have to have a problem ever show up? if you can prevent bleeding and lung issues before they become an issue, why wouldn't you?
lasix has become the popular target for some reason, and really isn't the issue where drugs are concerned. the issues are with cheaters, some who are caught countless times, suspended countless times, and are still training. that's the issue, not a legal drug that has legitimate reasons for being used. it is absolutely a red herring in the whole discussion of what needs to be done to fix racing. cheating trainers and the owners who hire them are the issue. rather than all this bs posturing over lasix, where are the hearings and rules for many-times over cheaters? where are the moves for expanded testing, more security?

If you have a first-time starter that has already bled during training, that is a different story. You asked, "If you can prevent bleeding and lung issues before they become an issue, why wouldn't you?" I answered that in my last post. The reason I wouldn't want to use lasix for the first couple of races (assuming the horse has never bled in a workout), is because I would want to see how the horse runs without it. As I said, there is the rare horse that runs far worse with lasix. How would I know if my horse is one of those rare horses if I never ran him without lasix?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I think the logic of people who think we should use lasix is twisted. They race all over the world without lasix. How can you say that we need lasix here when they don;t use it anywhere else? Do you think they should start using it in England, Dubai, and Hong Kong? Is our racing the model fro the world? I don't think so. It's the exact opposite. We are the laughing stock of the world. To say we need lasix here, when it is not used anywhere else, is a losing argument.

By the way, there of plenty of trainers out there that will tell you lasix is a performance enhancing drug that does mask other drugs. In addition, it totally knocks horses out. Lasix completely dehydrates you. Do you think it a good idea to do any type of rigorous physical task while you are totally dehydrated? It's terrible for a person and it's terrible for a horse.

We are the laughingstock of the world? Yeah ok so when all those buyers come to Keeneland every year they are snickering as they write those checks?

Who gives a damn what they do elsewhere? I like basketball but don't follow the WNBA so don't give a **** what happens there just like I dont care about what is going on in Singapore or Ireland. If you knew enough about racing in other countries to know that the average racehorse in Ireland makes 3 starts a year and the average horse in France makes 4 starts a year perhaps you wouldnt be in such a hurry to emulate them. The idea that we should care what people who represent one tenth of one percent of our customers think is beyond stupid.

Plenty of trainers are f cking morons too. When the chemists at the labs say that when following the 4 hour protocols that Lasix doesn't mask any known medications I tend to believe them.

Funny that the millions of people that take lasix daily aren't all sitting home drinking water because they are so knocked out that they couldnt possibly go out and work.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I think the logic of people who think we should use lasix is twisted. They race all over the world without lasix. How can you say that we need lasix here when they don;t use it anywhere else? Do you think they should start using it in England, Dubai, and Hong Kong? Is our racing the model fro the world? I don't think so. It's the exact opposite. We are the laughing stock of the world. To say we need lasix here, when it is not used anywhere else, is a losing argument.

By the way, there of plenty of trainers out there that will tell you lasix is a performance enhancing drug that does mask other drugs. In addition, it totally knocks horses out. Lasix completely dehydrates you. Do you think it a good idea to do any type of rigorous physical task while you are totally dehydrated? It's terrible for a person and it's terrible for a horse.

You are taking the extemely myopic view that the supporters of the ban dispense. While Lasix may be banned outside of North Amercia, it is used in training of horses and banned on raceday when horses need it most. Please explain to me why it is ok to train on it but not race on it.

What do owners in jurisdictions that ban Lasix do when their horses can't compete because of bleeding? They either ship their horses to North America and race them here or sell them to North American owners. They are laughing alright, all the way to the bank. The vast majority who ship here for one or two races run their horses on Lasix when they do.

I would love to see those trainers who say that Lasix is a performance enhancing drug come up with any credible scientific study to support that position. It won't happen because it does not exist.

If Lasix is such a drain on horses, than why are 99% of horses racing in North America racing with it? There is no rule against trainers running their horses without Lasix, so why are many more not doing that? Just because someone says something is true does not make it so, and that is the type of slippery slope BS that Chuck is talking about that divides the industry. Then again, Obama won an election and will run for a second term with the same type of if we say it enough people will believe it nonsense which is proven to work.

I am sure as a horseplayer you look forward to horses being taken out of training more often, retired earlier in their careers, less incentive for people to own a horse which will have a more limited racing career, more unwanted horses in need of a home, smaller fields and being duped by betting a horse that will bleed and burn money. Sounds like a great idea.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by pointman

You are taking the extemely myopic view that the supporters of the ban dispense. While Lasix may be banned outside of North Amercia, it is used in training of horses and banned on raceday when horses need it most. Please explain to me why it is ok to train on it but not race on it.

What do owners in jurisdictions that ban Lasix do when their horses can't compete because of bleeding? They either ship their horses to North America and race them here or sell them to North American owners. They are laughing alright, all the way to the bank. The vast majority who ship here for one or two races run their horses on Lasix when they do.

I would love to see those trainers who say that Lasix is a performance enhancing drug come up with any credible scientific study to support that position. It won't happen because it does not exist.

If Lasix is such a drain on horses, than why are 99% of horses racing in North America racing with it? There is no rule against trainers running their horses without Lasix, so why are many more not doing that? Just because someone says something is true does not make it so, and that is the type of slippery slope BS that Chuck is talking about that divides the industry. Then again, Obama won an election and will run for a second term with the same type of if we say it enough people will believe it nonsense which is proven to work.

I am sure as a horseplayer you look forward to horses being taken out of training more often, retired earlier in their careers, less incentive for people to own a horse which will have a more limited racing career, more unwanted horses in need of a home, smaller fields and being duped by betting a horse that will bleed and burn money. Sounds like a great idea.

You say they train on lasix overseas. How often do horses in Europe get lasix?

The arguments that most of these trainers make are total BS. They want to try to pretend that banning lasix would be the end of racing as we know it. They make all these completely exaggerated claims that are complete nonsense. Are there some horses that are bad bleeders that would be hurt by a ban on lasix? Absolutely. I'm not denying that. But I think the overall positive effects of a lasix ban would far outweigh the negatives.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

You say they train on lasix overseas. How often do horses in Europe get lasix?

The arguments that most of these trainers make are total BS. They want to try to pretend that banning lasix would be the end of racing as we know it. They make all these completely exaggerated claims that are complete nonsense. Are there some horses that are bad bleeders that would be hurt by a ban on lasix? Absolutely. I'm not denying that. But I think the overall positive effects of a lasix ban would far outweigh the negatives.

So the "minor" bleeders wont become worse if not treated? The idea that getting rid of a medication will eliminate the problem that it treats is beyond stupid. What you don't understand is that taking away a tool to treat a malady in a horse costs our owners more money in a time when they can least afford to spend it. The idea that other forms of treatment for bleeders (more expensive and not made public) wont be used is stupid. It is just an L in the program that makes horses pee.

[Cannon Shell]

I have yet for someone to show me how banning lasix will produce more business for the sport. It surely will cost the industry a lot of money, especially in the short term and I have yet to see a shred of evidence that it will bring a single dollar into the sport that wouldnt be there anyway.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

So the "minor" bleeders wont become worse if not treated? The idea that getting rid of a medication will eliminate the problem that it treats is beyond stupid. What you don't understand is that taking away a tool to treat a malady in a horse costs our owners more money in a time when they can least afford to spend it. The idea that other forms of treatment for bleeders (more expensive and not made public) wont be used is stupid. It is just an L in the program that makes horses pee.

I never said that getting rid of lasix would eliminate bleeding.

One thing that many trainers won't tell you is the real reason that horses bleed. Sure some horses bleed simply because they are bleeders. But most horses bleed because there is something hurting them. Eliminating lasix would force trainers to treat the actual issue rather than just putting a band-aid on the symptom.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I never said that getting rid of lasix would eliminate bleeding.

One thing that many trainers won't tell you is the real reason that horses bleed. Sure some horses bleed simply because they are bleeders. But most horses bleed because there is something hurting them. Eliminating lasix would force trainers to treat the actual issue rather than just putting a band-aid on the symptom.

But how do you propose that you treat bleeding?

So essentially what you are saying is that getting rid of lasix will make otherwise inattenative trainers and incompetent vets smarter?

An example of treating the issue as opposed to the symptm is working on a horses back end when weakness or injury there might be causing overloading on its front end leading to lameness there. Trying to tie bleeding to treating a horse for lameness if the human connections didnt know in the first place that the reason they were bleeding was lameness is an exercise in futility.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

But how do you propose that you treat bleeding?

So essentially what you are saying is that getting rid of lasix will make otherwise inattenative trainers and incompetent vets smarter?

An example of treating the issue as opposed to the symptm is working on a horses back end when weakness or injury there might be causing overloading on its front end leading to lameness there. Trying to tie bleeding to treating a horse for lameness if the human connections didnt know in the first place that the reason they were bleeding was lameness is an exercise in futility.

I just got off the phone with one of my trainers. He says that there is almost always an underlying reason as to why a horse is bleeding. He said if you dig deep enough, you will almost always find that something is bothering the horse that is stressing him and causing him to bleed. This trainer doesn't care either way as to whether they ban lasix. He said that as long as they allow it, he will use it. He thinks there is no doubt that it is a performance enhancing drug. He says that if you follow sheet numbers, most horses move way up on lasix.

This trainer tells me that in his 20 years in the business, he can think of only one horse that he couldn't stop from bleeding. This particular horse was the only horse that he's ever had that needed lasix for his workouts. Some trainers give lasix to a lot of their horses for workouts.

This trainer went on to say that if you have a horse that runs 5 times in a row without bleeding, and then in his 6th race he bleeds (let's say he bleeds a 3 on a 1-5 scale), then you better go over that horse with a fine-tooth comb because there is almost certainly something going on with the horse.

[Riot]

One thing that many trainers won't tell you is the real reason that horses bleed. Sure some horses bleed simply because they are bleeders. But most horses bleed because there is something hurting them. Eliminating lasix would force trainers to treat the actual issue rather than just putting a band-aid on the symptom.

That is a completely false paragraph. Let's keep an eye on the truth here: bleeding is a physiologic process with multiple causes, but none are thought to be pathology or other pre-existing problems.

Bleeding into the lungs is a proven side effect of horses (and some dogs, and some humans) running hard on firmer surfaces under great cardio-pulmonary stress and recruitment during maximal effort.

By the way, the use of Flair nasal strips (you know, that patch some horses wear on their nose) has about equal scientifically measurable effect on halting grade 3 and 4 bleeding as Lasix.

Where is the cry to ban these patches that ease the pressure differences between upper and lower airways, easing damage to lower lungs by EIPH?

The point isn't to halt bleeding that is Grade 3 & 4, it's to halt the unseen bleeding doing damage at the alevoli, the actual interface between blood capillary and air source (oxygenation) in the lung. Every time an alveoli is scarred by bleeding at a microscopic level, even if you can't see it on a bronchoscope, the horse is harmed.

Cannon, Kasept and Pointman have made very accurate points here about lasix. There's alot of completely inaccurate baloney out there about lasix, much being unfortunately pushed by industry leaders. What they have said here is the truth of it.

The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) and the American Association of Equine Practitioners (AAEP) both fully and unquestionably support the use of lasix as raceday medication for the welfare of the horse, based upon all scientific evidence. Using lasix is good for the welfare of the race horse. Here's the statement: http://www.avma.org/issues/policy/an...racehorses.asp

And if you want some good, "lay person" explanations of EIPH (bleeding) and lasix, The Horse has them here: http://www.thehorse.com/TopicSearch/...&nID=32&ID=296

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

That is a completely false paragraph. Let's keep an eye on the truth here: bleeding is a physiologic process with multiple causes, but none are thought to be pathology or other pre-existing problems.

Bleeding into the lungs is a proven side effect of horses (and some dogs, and some humans) running hard on firmer surfaces under great cardio-pulmonary stress and recruitment during maximal effort.

By the way, the use of Flair nasal strips (you know, that patch some horses wear on their nose) has about equal scientifically measurable effect on halting grade 3 and 4 bleeding as Lasix.

Where is the cry to ban these patches that ease the pressure differences between upper and lower airways, easing damage to lower lungs by EIPH?

The point isn't to halt bleeding that is Grade 3 & 4, it's to halt the unseen bleeding doing damage at the alevoli, the actual interface between blood capillary and air source (oxygenation) in the lung. Every time an alveoli is scarred by bleeding at a microscopic level, even if you can't see it on a bronchoscope, the horse is harmed.

Cannon, Kasept and Pointman have made very accurate points here about lasix. There's alot of completely inaccurate baloney out there about lasix, much being unfortunately pushed by industry leaders. What they have said here is the truth of it.

The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) and the American Association of Equine Practitioners (AAEP) both fully and unquestionably support the use of lasix as raceday medication for the welfare of the horse, based upon all scientific evidence. Using lasix is good for the welfare of the race horse. Here's the statement: http://www.avma.org/issues/policy/an...racehorses.asp

And if you want some good, "lay person" explanations of EIPH (bleeding) and lasix, The Horse has them here: http://www.thehorse.com/TopicSearch/...&nID=32&ID=296

You don't think a horse is far more likely to bleed if something is hurting them?