![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
How many practicing racetrack veterinarians are there in this country? Perhaps as many as 3,000 (sitting on the sidelines...puzzled). That's like $10k a year per person. What's the median income of an equine veterinarian? Maybe $85k. That's a 12% hit. Is that a lot? |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
What puzzles me about the financial argument is that people dont seem to understand that the elimination of raceday lasix wont cause horses to stop bleeding and actually will make trainers even more hyper-sensitive about scoping, pre and post race. It will make trainers more apt to use meds in workouts to try to prevent an episode (lasix isnt the only thing used for bleeding in morning workouts) and more likely to use other supplements in order to try to prevent bleeding. Obviously more horses will bleed and some minor incidents will turn into more serious ones. When a horse bleeds you are looking at 2 scopings (post race and before going back to work and probably after most workouts from then on), anti-biotics (to prevent infection and are expensive), clenbuterol (helps clear lungs) and a number of other treatments such as immune builders. Most vets hate having to give lasix and fill out the paperwork. They dont make much money at it, have to run around from barn to barn within a short period of time, and prevents them from attending to the important part of their jobs. However they almost universally realize that it is the best solution to EIPH that we currently have hence the support for its usage. Oh yeah I have no idea what the median income for a racetrack vet is across the country (especially since many vets are operating solo versus some practices that might have 4 or 5 vets) but at the larger tracks 85k is not even remotely close. |
#3
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
![]() Quote:
In addition, if lasix were to be banned raceday, it would set a precedent for reassessment of all other medications, which one way or another, will force a major disruption to the attending veterinarian's economic niche on the racetrack. Quote:
On the hand, do you think $30 million annually is a major expense for racehorse owners collectively? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
By the way, if it takes only 20 minutes to do a digital radiography study, wouldn't a hustling vet be able to bookend that half-hour with a couple of $30 lasix shots? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Again the idea that horses will stop getting sick or hurt is insanity. Why do you think medications are given? Prevention or treatment. Why dont people get this? Lasix is not a major revenue source and no the $30 million dollar expense is not significant considering the replacement therapy will be far more expensive. That $30 million just wont revert to the owners pockets. What difference does a small amount of revenue matter especially if it is spread out. Again vets will make more money without lasix. You realize that barns are spead out, the shots have to be drawn out, not every horse is agreeable to getting a shot and there is a time factor which greatly limits what you can do inbetween. Yeah maybe you will have a gap where you go 3 races without a client horse in but giving lasix is still a bigger pain in the ass than anything. Especially when you consider that life at the racetrack starts at 5am and most barns are wrapping thing up by 11am. I wont even answer the next one since it makes no sense. No because you have to travel between barns, unload the equipment, shoot the xrays and load it back up again. In an emergency you may be able to pull it off but vets are real keen on leaving a barn w/o their $80000 xray machines. As I said some of the larger practices hire vets to do the dirty work, most dont have the luxury. Of course it is a given that trainers will be more apt to scope. You will have to be even more vigilant in treating even really minor incidences. I have no idea what the average is because when you are talking nationwide you have extremes. In NY probably 50%. In PA probably 20%. At River Downs probably 5%. I would guess in NY it would be closer to 90% if there was no lasix. Another issue that isnt addressed is that we have wide variances in this country between the top and bottom tracks. At the lower levels noone has the money to do the extra work and as a result those horses will suffer the most which Im sure is a fact that doesnt elude some of the high horse anti lasix people. You want to make money? If they ban lasix come up with some sort of treatment for bleeders (call is sameaslasix), make it out of innocuous materials, call it all natural, spend some money marketing and you will do great, at least for awhile till people figure out it doesnt work. |
#6
|
|||||
|
|||||
![]() Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Quote:
What part of, "eliminating lasix would increase veterinary incomes" is too hard for you to understand?
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Quote:
Has a nice ring to it. Quote:
Quote:
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
I am not overreacting at all because when the claim is made that "medication" will be cracked down on I start to wonder if those making that claim really understand what they are claiming? As I said are we not going to be allowed to treat horses with injuries if this hypothetical medication crackdown come to pass? Are we not going to be able to use medication in the preventiong of things like ulcers and joint health? So if this supposed crackdown comes what exactly would be cracked down on? When you ask an open ended question with no basis in reality dont be surprised when you dont like the answer. How do you think we came to use lasix in the first place? Was lasix originally designed to be used for horses bleeding episode? The idea that substitutes wont crop up is not true because I know of things already being touted as replacement therapy for lasix and they are far, far more expensive. And they may work but are all still in the experimental phase so who knows. Again you are acting as though the nationwide vet community is acting as a whole and has come up with this pact to stick together because we dont want to lose our lasix revenue. It just isnt true and with racing days being cut the vets have been losing income from this source for years. I understand your point but some vet practices have hired extra people to help cover raceday medication and prerace shots that would not be needed. I cant for the life of me figure out why you dont think that vets wont react to a lasix ban with other potential solutions especially given your insistence on money being a factor (which it is). I dont understand why you think that trainers havent been talking about potential replacements already? This is a political issue but not here on this board and I am just trying to give you insight into what is being discussed and what is in the pipeline. If you choose to believe something else that is your perrogative. |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
![]() So are we still just dismissing nasal strips because they don't stick that great? Is that really the only reason?
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
I have a new hero. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
![]() http://www.drf.com/news/crist-lasix-...hat-you-preach
crist on the lasix debate. 'A generation ago, administering it could flush illegal substances out of a horse’s system and make them undetectable in post-race tests. Now, though, more precise testing and a greater reliance on plasma than urine has made that argument moot.' 'Banning furosemide will have no positive impact with civilians, who barely know what it is, and who will hardly be reassured or attracted to the game once it has been explained to them that racing has banned a medication that is used to keep horses from hemorrhaging during a race.'
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
And your insulting passive-aggressive attempt to say that vets care more about money than the horses is duly noted.
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts |
#14
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
However, you said that veterinary world cares only about the welfare of the horse. I simply pointed out that a lot of money is thrown around treating bleeders. Money that goes to the veterinary world. Abstract: Your half-truthed, holier-than-thou, cut-and-pasting crusade only weakens the reasonable platform built up by the sensible sorts who are against a lasix ban. Results suggest that you are effective at reducing confidence in pro-lasix sentiment and may cause complete reversal of opinion in extreme (> Grade 2) cases. Tomasi, Rollo. "Kentucky's Ongoing Attempt To End Racing". Derby Trail: The Paddock. p120-240. derbytrail.com |
#15
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
You don't have to believe that. And I don't have to pretend you haven't insulted veterinarians by saying that the financial aspect is one of their concerns when they make this medical recommendation. The only financial concerns vets routinely have is being unable to treat an animal that needs help, because an owner won't pay for it. But believe me: diagnosing and treating a horse for a bleeding episode, inflammation of the lungs, chronic cough or respiratory infection for a few weeks will pay much, much better than giving that horse a lasix injection. I wonder if owners who want to eliminate lasix have thought the cost argument through?
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts |