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

[Riot]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

But doesn't lasix have other systemic effects besides reducing the severity of bleeding that may improve performance?

It can cause a small weight loss via diuresis (causing peeing), but research doesn't seem to support that the weight loss is contributory to any improved performance (there was a study that repeated everything with and without lasix with also replacing the weight lost by the horse due to lasix).

Lasix is the same "water pill" people take who have cardiac problems. Used in a one-time prerace injection, it won't cause a massive weight loss, it doesn't cause massive dehydration, it doesn't cause massive electrolyte problems (unless a trainer is really screwing with stuff by also spiking electrolytes in an excessive manner, or withholding water from the horse for 24 hours, etc)

Its funny - watching Australian racing, the temps there have been hot lately, and horses are literally wringing water off their bodies by the time they get to the post. We don't see that on horses using lasix to that extent (sweating is cooling) - but I'll bet those horses lose 20-30 pounds in water weight, too, before a race.

At the same time, does lung bleeding necessarily preclude a horse from performing competitively?

If your lungs are filled with mucus from a cold, can you breath? Can you do your 2-3 miles of daily roadwork? Can you inhale deeply and oxygenate yourself successfully under maximal physical effort?

Depends upon the amount of stuff down in your smallest airways and alveolar sacs, right?

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Riot

If your lungs are filled with mucus from a cold, can you breath? Can you do your 2-3 miles of daily roadwork? Can you inhale deeply and oxygenate yourself successfully under maximal physical effort?

Depends upon the amount of stuff down in your smallest airways and alveolar sacs, right?

It's hard to believe that a horse suffering a bleeding episode during a race will run to its maximum effort, but that doesn't mean that it can't race competitively all the same, does it? Certainly there have been winners of races found to have bled post-race.

Horses are still bleeding despite the use of lasix, so it's not necessarily a forgone conclusion that lasix is the definitive treatment for bleeding. In fact, in the AVMA link you provided, the organization supported the use of lasix only in the "absence of a more effective treatment...". Hardly a ringing endorsment.

Don't many believe that horses are able to continue to perform even with minor injuries of all types? In fact, what percentage of racehorses, or any type of athlete, are considered to be completely "sound"?

As to the protection of the betting public, does lasix administration guarantee that a horse is being given ample opportunity to run to its best? Don't most jurisdictions allow for a variable dose lasix to be administered on raceday. Who's to stop the connections of a known bleeder (but probably unknown to the public), controlled normally with the maximum allowable amount of lasix, to suddenly drop the dose to the minimum? Would it be simpler and beneficial for the betting public's interest (and not necessarily the horse's health) to prevent this from the outset, by not allowing a licensed veterinarian in the stall on raceday with a needle and syringe and perhaps by banning horses from racing that bleed visibily from the nose?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

It's hard to believe that a horse suffering a bleeding episode during a race will run to its maximum effort, but that doesn't mean that it can't race competitively all the same, does it? Certainly there have been winners of races found to have bled post-race.

Absolutely. We've raced horses since the dawn of time and we see the 1 in 20 that bleed out through their nose, but not the rest.

But now we have more advanced medicine, and we know what bleeding out the nose can mean, and we have a drug that helps the majority of horses not do that and thus not scar their lungs, get infections, suffocate.

Horses are still bleeding despite the use of lasix, so it's not necessarily a forgone conclusion that lasix is the definitive treatment for bleeding. In fact, in the AVMA link you provided, the organization supported the use of lasix only in the "absence of a more effective treatment...". Hardly a ringing endorsment.

You've certainly misread that

As I've pointed out here, the causes of EIPH are thought to be multifactorial, and we know that lasix doesn't work on some horses. That, and FLAIR strips, are the best, and have shown to be most efficacious. Nobody, especially the veterinary world, has declared lasix a "definitive treatment" in the least. Yes, we are always looking to improve upon that. There are multiple other drugs attempted to help EIPH. They don't work. Yes, the AVMA and AAEP is indeed a "ringing endorsement", calling specifically for the use of this one drug on race day against all others, against the current racing establishment. Why? Because it's use protects horse lungs. It protects horses lives, use, and ability to be a racehorse. In spite of every other jurisdiction in the world, including American non-racing equine sports, forbidding lasix use, the AVMA and AAEP are fighting and recommending that lasix only continue to be an allowed race day medication.

http://www.avma.org/issues/policy/an...racehorses.asp

And it's not "to make vets money". That's absurd beyond belief. It's because it works and helps horses.

BTW: where is the betting public's outrage against the use of FLAIR nasal strips, which have the same efficacy in decreasing bleeding as lasix?

Don't many believe that horses are able to continue to perform even with minor injuries of all types? In fact, what percentage of racehorses, or any type of athlete, are considered to be completely "sound"?

Why shouldn't we help horses if they are hurting? Why should we not help keep horses from bleeding into their lungs? Getting harmed? That's inhumane.

We domesticated them, we breed them for a single purpose, and we use them for our pleasure, entertainment and income.

The least we can do, if we want horses to be elite athletes, is treat them with the respect and humane care they deserve, and give them the best veterinary care possible.

As to the protection of the betting public, does lasix administration guarantee that a horse is being given ample opportunity to run to its best? Don't most jurisdictions allow for a variable dose lasix to be administered on raceday. Who's to stop the connections of a known bleeder (but probably unknown to the public), controlled normally with the maximum allowable amount of lasix, to suddenly drop the dose to the minimum?

The stewards via current racing rules.

Do you know the influence of giving 6cc versus 10cc of lasix to a 1200-lb racehorse?

What are you afraid lasix will do to a horse that's unfair to the betting public or horse?

Would it be simpler and beneficial for the betting public's interest (and not necessarily the horse's health) to prevent this from the outset, by not allowing a licensed veterinarian in the stall on raceday with a needle and syringe and perhaps by banning horses from racing that bleed visibily from the nose?

Humm ... horse health versus betting public. I'll take horses health, the well-being of these beautiful athletes, every. single. time.

Without the horse, the betting public has nothing. And if the betting public (or an owner or trainer) puts their money against the welfare of the horse, they deserve to get absolutely nothing.

The "vet in the stall with a needle" has been easily remedied by state vets only giving lasix shots pre-race.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

It's hard to believe that a horse suffering a bleeding episode during a race will run to its maximum effort, but that doesn't mean that it can't race competitively all the same, does it? Certainly there have been winners of races found to have bled post-race.

Horses are still bleeding despite the use of lasix, so it's not necessarily a forgone conclusion that lasix is the definitive treatment for bleeding. In fact, in the AVMA link you provided, the organization supported the use of lasix only in the "absence of a more effective treatment...". Hardly a ringing endorsment.

Don't many believe that horses are able to continue to perform even with minor injuries of all types? In fact, what percentage of racehorses, or any type of athlete, are considered to be completely "sound"?

As to the protection of the betting public, does lasix administration guarantee that a horse is being given ample opportunity to run to its best? Don't most jurisdictions allow for a variable dose lasix to be administered on raceday. Who's to stop the connections of a known bleeder (but probably unknown to the public), controlled normally with the maximum allowable amount of lasix, to suddenly drop the dose to the minimum? Would it be simpler and beneficial for the betting public's interest (and not necessarily the horse's health) to prevent this from the outset, by not allowing a licensed veterinarian in the stall on raceday with a needle and syringe and perhaps by banning horses from racing that bleed visibily from the nose?

After a race, trainers will often times have their vet scope the horse to see if the horse bled. If the horse did bleed, the vet will usually rate the severity of the bleeding on a scale of 1-5. If they tell you that the horse bled and the severity was a "3", you can assume that the bleeding probably affected the horse's performance negatively. But if the vet tells you that the horse barely bled (just a drop) and the severity wasn't even a "1", the vet will usually tell you that the bleeding had no effect on the horse's performance.

As Riot said, it is normal for racehorses to bleed. I think she said that 93% of horses will show trace amounts of blood if you scope them. A trace amount of blood is not going to affect their performance. It doesn't mean that you shouldn't take it seriously or that you shouldn't stay on top of it. If it starts to get worse, it could become a problem.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

As Riot said, it is normal for racehorses to bleed. I think she said that 93% of horses will show trace amounts of blood if you scope them.

Little correction just so we stay accurate Scopes only show bleeding roughly 60-70% of the time (the vet sees gross evidence of blood in the trachea)

Transtracheal washes and bronchoalveolar lavage will find more horses that have bled: 93% with evidence of bleeding upon microscopic examination of what's down there.

Horses that grossly bleed out the nostrils: about 5%