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

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Riot

Here's the thing: as soon as the businessman leaders of racing start talking about the pharmacologic medical effects of lasix, and using those as arguments, they have to defer to the far more educated medical veterinary world to tell them how the drug works. Some refuse to do that if the medical facts go against their goal or opinion. That's absurd. The only interest the veterinary world has in this fight is the welfare of the horse.

How much does it cost annually to treat horses with lasix on raceday? The estimate is somewhere in the neighborhood of $30 million. That's ignoring lasix administered for morning workouts. That's ignoring all post-race endoscopy. That's ignoring all post-workout endoscopy. That's ignoring all adjunct bleeder medication. That's ignoring all "pre-race bleeder" treatments.

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?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

How much does it cost annually to treat horses with lasix on raceday? The estimate is somewhere in the neighborhood of $30 million. That's ignoring lasix administered for morning workouts. That's ignoring all post-race endoscopy. That's ignoring all post-workout endoscopy. That's ignoring all adjunct bleeder medication. That's ignoring all "pre-race bleeder" treatments.

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?

Anyone who thinks vets are pro-lasix for monetary reasons is just plain wrong. Lasix is hardly a big revenue source especially when one considers the time consiumed giving shots and filing paperwork (well except in MD where you seemingly can do whatever you want). If a vet makes $15 profit a shot and gives 10 shots a day, 4 days a week (probably high numbers) you are talking $600 a week. Of course this assumes that they have 10 horses in on a given day and that they treat horses in a jursidiction that races year round. For instance vets working at CD dont treat clients horses with lasix at Keeneland or Turfway or Ellis Park. If they have a large enough practice they may have a secondary vet that covers that track but most dont bother. However long it takes to run a days card is approx the time a vets day is disrupted giving lasix since everyone wants to be treated close to 4 hours out. That time takes away from far more lucratitive activities like xrays, scans, injections, etc. A set of xrays might cost you $500 at the big tracks and take 20 minutes to do with the new digital machines. When you add time spent doing prerace (day before) shots which also must be done in a time specific (24 hours pre post cutoff) and post race jugs and such you see why some practice hire young kids just out of vet school to do lasix and post race stuff. Surely hiring an additional vet is more costly than the money that can be earned giving $20 lasix shots and $25 electrolyte jugs?

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.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Anyone who thinks vets are pro-lasix for monetary reasons is just plain wrong.

Wasn't my intent. Nevertheless, there is a monetary aspect to the debate that doesn't disappear into thin air simply because everyone claims to be in it for the horse's health.

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.

Lasix is hardly a big revenue source especially when one considers the time consiumed giving shots and filing paperwork (well except in MD where you seemingly can do whatever you want).

Neither did I say that lasix administration is a major revenue source for vets.

On the hand, do you think $30 million annually is a major expense for racehorse owners collectively?

If a vet makes $15 profit a shot and gives 10 shots a day, 4 days a week (probably high numbers) you are talking $600 a week. Of course this assumes that they have 10 horses in on a given day and that they treat horses in a jursidiction that races year round. For instance vets working at CD dont treat clients horses with lasix at Keeneland or Turfway or Ellis Park. If they have a large enough practice they may have a secondary vet that covers that track but most dont bother.

I understand at an individual level it may seem like small potatoes, but just because lasix shots are potentially spread amongst several different practices, does that mean that the revenue generated simply vanishes?

However long it takes to run a days card is approx the time a vets day is disrupted giving lasix since everyone wants to be treated close to 4 hours out.

So, between roughly 8:00am and 12:00pm, veterinarians are doing nothing else but administering lasix shots? No chance within the 30 minute intervals to do anything else? A second ago, you said, being generous, vets might be responsible for only 10 lasix shots per day. Now you make it sound like they are performing 10 lasix shots per race.

That time takes away from far more lucratitive activities like xrays, scans, injections, etc. A set of xrays might cost you $500 at the big tracks and take 20 minutes to do with the new digital machines.

This presumes that trainers are willing to do costly diagnostic tests on their horses in the first place. I think you're being a little bit disingenuous as to what horsemen are willing to spend, and what income is being "lost" by racetrack veterinarians by doing raceday lasix shots.

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?

When you add time spent doing prerace (day before) shots which also must be done in a time specific (24 hours pre post cutoff) and post race jugs and such you see why some practice hire young kids just out of vet school to do lasix and post race stuff. Surely hiring an additional vet is more costly than the money that can be earned giving $20 lasix shots and $25 electrolyte jugs?

So now the main veterinarians aren't even doing these lasix shots. It's the associates they've hired. I guess they actually do have the time to do all that other lucrative stuff. Problem solved.

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.

Is it a given that trainers will become hyper-sensitive to scoping? Are they not already? What percentage of horses are scoped following a 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.

No doubt a lasix ban will result in a more episodes of performance-significant bleeding. However, whether the majority are for or against a lasix ban, I don't think it's realistic to presume that the economics of the issue do not affect the veterinarian segment of the racetrack industry. They are not simply custodians "on the sidelines" keeping an all-knowing eye on the little ignorant kiddie horsemen rough-housing with their toy horses on racetrack playgrounds. They've got dirt under their fingernails, too.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

No doubt a lasix ban will result in a more episodes of performance-significant bleeding. However, whether the majority are for or against a lasix ban, I don't think it's realistic to presume that the economics of the issue do not affect the veterinarian segment of the racetrack industry.

The veterinarian segment will make thousands more treating EIPH if lasix is eliminated. Lasix is an inexpensive injection, a pain in the ass to give as the vets have to run all over the place to give them, takes up time out of the day better spent doing other procedures, and requires paperwork. The financial argument, aside from being inherently insulting, is absurd on it's face.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

Wasn't my intent. Nevertheless, there is a monetary aspect to the debate that doesn't disappear into thin air simply because everyone claims to be in it for the horse's health.



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.


Neither did I say that lasix administration is a major revenue source for vets.

On the hand, do you think $30 million annually is a major expense for racehorse owners collectively?


I understand at an individual level it may seem like small potatoes, but just because lasix shots are potentially spread amongst several different practices, does that mean that the revenue generated simply vanishes?


So, between roughly 8:00am and 12:00pm, veterinarians are doing nothing else but administering lasix shots? No chance within the 30 minute intervals to do anything else? A second ago, you said, being generous, vets might be responsible for only 10 lasix shots per day. Now you make it sound like they are performing 10 lasix shots per race.


This presumes that trainers are willing to do costly diagnostic tests on their horses in the first place. I think you're being a little bit disingenuous as to what horsemen are willing to spend, and what income is being "lost" by racetrack veterinarians by doing raceday lasix shots.

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?


So now the main veterinarians aren't even doing these lasix shots. It's the associates they've hired. I guess they actually do have the time to do all that other lucrative stuff. Problem solved.


Is it a given that trainers will become hyper-sensitive to scoping? Are they not already? What percentage of horses are scoped following a race?


No doubt a lasix ban will result in a more episodes of performance-significant bleeding. However, whether the majority are for or against a lasix ban, I don't think it's realistic to presume that the economics of the issue do not affect the veterinarian segment of the racetrack industry. They are not simply custodians "on the sidelines" keeping an all-knowing eye on the little ignorant kiddie horsemen rough-housing with their toy horses on racetrack playgrounds. They've got dirt under their fingernails, too.

I hardly know where to start. I tried to explain how vets would make MORE money so that $30 million dollar number may be dwarfed.

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.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I hardly know where to start. I tried to explain how vets would make MORE money so that $30 million dollar number may be dwarfed.

The only thing I put on the table was that money was involved in the decision. Whether or not in the face of a lasix ban horsemen freak out and start spending more money trying to curtail bleeding or resign themselves to their fate and focus on issues they can manage effectively is anyone's guess. But the instigation for my post was Riot's claim that veterinarians have no financial interest in these decisions to overhaul medication rules. I find that a dubious claim.

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?

Again, where did I say this? Your overreacting and squaring up into a defensive posture simply because someone has the audacity to question your chapter and verse.

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.

It might stay in their pockets if Riot posts some links explaining why all the adjuncts have been proven by the scientific community to not help a horse's lungs. Plus, what veterinarian would be willing to recommend using a non-efficacious drug to treat bleeding? There could be no benefit to the veterinarian in any way shape or form. Certainly not in a papery, rectangular form with the likeness of a past president on it.

What difference does a small amount of revenue matter especially if it is spread out. Again vets will make more money without lasix.

I think that's exactly what the guys from Office Space thought when they started skimming pennies off the company account. Bernie tried a similar stunt, but Andy McCarthy was on to him. Bernie ended up dead. Mind the decimals.

I wont even answer the next one since it makes no sense.

Why? If lasix is banned, does that mean that trainers will suddenly want to start taking radiographs of multiple joints on their $10k plater? What trainer doesn't have work done on their horse because their vet is too busy giving lasix? At least there's always the 3 dark days a week to get all the major stuff done.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

It might stay in their pockets if Riot posts some links explaining why all the adjuncts have been proven by the scientific community to not help a horse's lungs.

They are sitting right there at Pub Med. Help yourself. That has also been extensively discussed at racing roundtables on medication.

Plus, what veterinarian would be willing to recommend using a non-efficacious drug to treat bleeding? There could be no benefit to the veterinarian in any way shape or form. Certainly not in a papery, rectangular form with the likeness of a past president on it.

If something will do no harm, and the vet says it really doesn't help, but the trainer says, "use it", then it is used. Shame you disparage an entire profession assuming they would act as you would. I'm not saying there are not vets that will take advantage of clients, but I absolutely resent your repeated hammering on the financial aspect as a reason the AVMA and AAEP recommend continuing lasix use in the race horse. It's ignorant and insulting.

What part of, "eliminating lasix would increase veterinary incomes" is too hard for you to understand?

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Riot

If something will do no harm, and the vet says it really doesn't help, but the trainer says, "use it", then it is used.

Sounds like a competitive atmosphere. I wonder if any of those useless adjuncts might actually "impair" performance? Is that the same as "no harm" (we'll ignore the hypodermic injection part and the potential for drug reaction or anaphylaxis)?

Shame you disparage an entire profession assuming they would act as you would. I'm not saying there are not vets that will take advantage of clients,

Whoa! What kind of verbal maneuver was this? The only way I can describe it is: A pot-calling-the-kettle back-pedal.

Has a nice ring to it.

but I absolutely resent your repeated hammering on the financial aspect as a reason the AVMA and AAEP recommend continuing lasix use in the race horse.

What in the holy...? When did I mention the AVMA or the AAEP? Feel free to throw UNICEF and the Red Cross in there as well.

It's ignorant and insulting.

Why don't you cut-and-paste how you really feel?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

The only thing I put on the table was that money was involved in the decision. Whether or not in the face of a lasix ban horsemen freak out and start spending more money trying to curtail bleeding or resign themselves to their fate and focus on issues they can manage effectively is anyone's guess. But the instigation for my post was Riot's claim that veterinarians have no financial interest in these decisions to overhaul medication rules. I find that a dubious claim.


Again, where did I say this? Your overreacting and squaring up into a defensive posture simply because someone has the audacity to question your chapter and verse.


It might stay in their pockets if Riot posts some links explaining why all the adjuncts have been proven by the scientific community to not help a horse's lungs. Plus, what veterinarian would be willing to recommend using a non-efficacious drug to treat bleeding? There could be no benefit to the veterinarian in any way shape or form. Certainly not in a papery, rectangular form with the likeness of a past president on it.


I think that's exactly what the guys from Office Space thought when they started skimming pennies off the company account. Bernie tried a similar stunt, but Andy McCarthy was on to him. Bernie ended up dead. Mind the decimals.


Why? If lasix is banned, does that mean that trainers will suddenly want to start taking radiographs of multiple joints on their $10k plater? What trainer doesn't have work done on their horse because their vet is too busy giving lasix? At least there's always the 3 dark days a week to get all the major stuff done.

Obviously money is a factor in everything but it is pretty clear that this is not going to be a major loss but rather an increase in revenue for racetrack vets on the whole. The idea that trainers and vets will just "resign themselves to fate" is absurd.

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.

[cmorioles]

So are we still just dismissing nasal strips because they don't stick that great? Is that really the only reason?

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

I think that's exactly what the guys from Office Space thought when they started skimming pennies off the company account. Bernie tried a similar stunt, but Andy McCarthy was on to him. Bernie ended up dead. Mind the decimals.

An Office Space AND Weekend at Bernie's reference in the same paragraph?

I have a new hero.

[Danzig]

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.'

[Riot]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

How much does it cost annually to treat horses with lasix on raceday? The estimate is somewhere in the neighborhood of $30 million. That's ignoring lasix administered for morning workouts. That's ignoring all post-race endoscopy. That's ignoring all post-workout endoscopy. That's ignoring all adjunct bleeder medication. That's ignoring all "pre-race bleeder" treatments.

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?

Are you kidding? Eliminate lasix, and every equine veterinary practice in the country will be making 10-15 times that amount treating EIPH. That would be a veterinarians dream scenario!

And your insulting passive-aggressive attempt to say that vets care more about money than the horses is duly noted.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Riot

And your insulting passive-aggressive attempt to say that vets care more about money than the horses is duly noted.

I said that? I don't thinks so.

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

[Riot]

UOTE=RolloTomasi;854279]I said that? I don't thinks so.

I do. Why would you otherwise bring it up, discuss it in depth? How much money vets make from giving a lasix injection has no bearing on the efficacy of lasix, nor upon why the veterinary world advises the racing world to not eliminate lasix.

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?