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

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

It isn't unlike wearing a seatbelt. A seatbelt might not save your life in a car wreck everytime but you sure do increase your chances with one.

Except, of course, that it is still a drug. You can't convince me that every horse needs a drug to run. The reason every horse gets is because trainers also believe it is a performance enhancer. I've heard many say as much.

[Fearless Leader]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Except, of course, that it is still a drug. You can't convince me that every horse needs a drug to run. The reason every horse gets is because trainers also believe it is a performance enhancer. I've heard many say as much.

It would probably be in your best interest to find some different trainers to associate with. I suggest looking for a few that actually know what they are talking about.

[Riot]

This is interesting info published last year.

They took 37 baby 2-year-old thoroughbreds, and exercised them at the track for 5 months. Then they breezed them over 2-3 furlongs, and looked to see if they had evidence of bleeding in their lungs. No lasix or history of racing, no training on lasix.

(sounds like the 2-year-old in training sales, doesn't it?)

24 hours after their breezes, 23 had evidence of microscopic bleeding down in the lung. 14 did not.

Now, they also found that the horses that bled? Had increased inflammation in the lung, and decreased immune response capability against bacteria and other particles that can get down in the lung. All at the microscopic level.

That's a respiratory infection waiting to happen.

That is a good reason why lasix should be permitted as a race day therapeutic medication.

Vet J. 2011 Nov;190(2):e3-6.

Pulmonary inflammation due to exercise-induced pulmonary haemorrhage in Thoroughbred colts during race training.

Michelotto PV Jr, Muehlmann LA, Zanatta AL, Bieberbach EW, Kryczyk M, Fernandes LC, Nishiyama A.

Source: Department of Physiology, Universidade Federal do Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil. michelottojunior@yahoo.com.br

Abstract: This study investigated the putative roles of inflammation and platelet-activating factor (PAF) in exercise-induced pulmonary haemorrhage (EIPH). Two-year-old Thoroughbred colts (n=37) were exercised on a racetrack for 5months before commencement of the study. Each colt was then exercised at 15-16m/s over 800-1000m and broncho-alveolar lavage fluid (BALF) was collected 24h later.

The colts were subsequently divided into two groups on the basis of BALF analysis; an EIPH-positive group (presence of haemosiderophages, n=23) and an EIPH-negative group (absence of haemosiderophages, n=14).

BALF from the EIPH-positive group had a significantly higher protein concentration (0.39±0.28 vs. 0.19±0.12mg/mL, P=0.031), higher PAF bioactivity (0.18±0.12 vs. 0.043±0.05 340:380nm ratio, P=0.042) and a higher lipid hydroperoxide concentration compared to the EIPH-negative group.

There was also a lower nitrite concentration and reduced production of superoxide anion and hydrogen peroxide by alveolar macrophages in the EIPH-positive group.

There was evidence of pulmonary inflammation and a decreased innate immune response of alveolar macrophages in EIPH-positive colts compared with the EIPH-negative group.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Riot

This is interesting info published last year.

They took 37 baby 2-year-old thoroughbreds, and exercised them at the track for 5 months. Then they breezed them over 2-3 furlongs, and looked to see if they had evidence of bleeding in their lungs. No lasix or history of racing, no training on lasix.

(sounds like the 2-year-old in training sales, doesn't it?)

24 hours after their breezes, 23 had evidence of microscopic bleeding down in the lung. 14 did not.

Now, they also found that the horses that bled? Had increased inflammation in the lung, and decreased immune response capability against bacteria and other particles that can get down in the lung. All at the microscopic level.

That's a respiratory infection waiting to happen.

That is a good reason why lasix should be permitted as a race day therapeutic medication.

Even in the 14 that didn't bleed? Did horses in the 70s and 80s have a rash of respiratory infections? I sure don't remember it. Do we even no if this microscopic bleeding causes poorer performance?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Even in the 14 that didn't bleed? Did horses in the 70s and 80s have a rash of respiratory infections? I sure don't remember it. Do we even no if this microscopic bleeding causes poorer performance?

That has been discussed in some depth earlier in the thread. You can look back and read it.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Riot

That has been discussed earlier in the thread. You can look back and read it.

I'd rather read War and Peace. I scanned through it and couldn't find it.

We all know these studies will usually find exactly what the people funding the study want it to find. I prefer to use common sense. Horses raced for decades with this undetected microscopic bleeding. They seemed to be just fine, and were a lot sturdier lot than what we have now. I certainly don't think Lasix is the only problem, but shouldn't it have at least helped a little bit with horses being able to run more often?

Like I've said, as a bettor I don't really care if it is banned. I just have to laugh when those that say it isn't a performance enhancer dismiss that as ridiculous. Their actions contradict everything they say.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I'd rather read War and Peace. I scanned through it and couldn't find it.

We all know these studies will usually find exactly what the people funding the study want it to find.

Well, no. Not at all. Properly done and peer-reviewed published studies are extremely valuable, as they stand up to scrutiny and questioning and dissection from "all sides".

I prefer to use common sense. Horses raced for decades with this undetected microscopic bleeding.

That's right.

They seemed to be just fine,

How can you speak to that in the least? It's a guess. I've watched horses race since the 1960's, too. How do you know they couldn't run a length faster? Or come back to their next race two weeks sooner?

Common sense - and physiology - tells me, as a veterinarian, that a horse with blood in it's alveoli can't oxygenate as well as one without microscopic blood in it's alveoli.

and were a lot sturdier lot than what we have now.

That's an assumption stated as fact.

I certainly don't think Lasix is the only problem, but shouldn't it have at least helped a little bit with horses being able to run more often?

It DOES help. ALOT. Measurably and repeatedly. There is plenty of proof over the past 40 years.

Like I've said, as a bettor I don't really care if it is banned. I just have to laugh when those that say it isn't a performance enhancer dismiss that as ridiculous.

We'll, we're just going by the science.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

We all know these studies will usually find exactly what the people funding the study want it to find. I prefer to use common sense. I just have to laugh when those that say it isn't a performance enhancer dismiss that as ridiculous.

More hit-and-run quotes from choice abstracts:

-Given the purported ergogenic effects of frusemide, the external nasal strip is a valuable alternative for the attenuation of EIPH

-Improvement of performance in the furosemide trials was due more to the weight-loss related effects of the drug than its apparent alleviation of EIPH

-The existing literature references suggest that furosemide has the potential of increasing performance in horses without significantly changing the bleeding status.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Fearless Leader

It would probably be in your best interest to find some different trainers to associate with. I suggest looking for a few that actually know what they are talking about.

You mean like the ones that ship in for the Breeders Cup from Europe? Yeah, they are sure idiots.