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

[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?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

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

I think they've made them stick better due to the overwhelming use in 3-day eventing (they sweat as badly as race horses on a hot day)

Tradition has alot to do with equipment choices, IMO.

I'd use both FLAIR and lasix. One of the causes of EIPH is thought to be unsustainable pressure differences between pulmonary capillaries and alveolar air, causing tearing of pulmonary capillary walls and bleeding into the alveoli.

FLAIR decreases the massive negative pressure generated during inspiration,that is thought to help tear vessels; and lasix decreases the exercise-induced rise in pulmonary vasculature pressure. Best to reduce pressure on both sides of the aveolar/capillary interface, in order to protect it.

Plus, FLAIR seems to just help them get more air flow - like a human wearing a Breath-right strip

[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 Danzig

http://www.drf.com/news/crist-lasix-...hat-you-preach

crist on the lasix debate.

Where are all those massive changes to the sport promised by banning steroids? You know, another drug that, used correctly, helped many horses, but was abused by only a few trainers, so everyone had to stop using them?

We've seen those sudden massive differences in win percentages of certain trainers, right?

And the general public that doesn't give a darn about horse racing now thinks much more positively about the sport?