NYTHA Lasix Primer & Letter to NYS RWB

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Riot

Only if someone is silly enough to attribute 100% of a horses performance to the capability of the alveolar-capillary interface and measurable VO2max.

Dang. That would be you.

Why do you attribute 100% of a horses performance to VO2max? That's beyond absurd.



Science isn't lawyering. Sorry.

You've given some weak answers, but this one takes the cake. You would have been better off not answering and just saying you fell asleep. At least your non-answer has basically admitted that the long term damage from EIPH really doesn't amount to much at all.

I'm going to get some sleep now, but tomorrow we'll work on the supposed fact that low levels of EIPH actually hinder performance. I'm sure you'll come around there too.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

You've given some weak answers, but this one takes the cake.

Nonsense. You are attributing 100% of performance changes in every American horse going to Europe or Australasia to VO2max, and that's patently absurd beyond measure.

I'm going to get some sleep now, but tomorrow we'll work on the supposed fact that low levels of EIPH actually hinder performance. I'm sure you'll come around there too.

Flippant may work with other folks that don't have a clue, but sorry. It's a fail here. Your "scientific" assertions are true bullshit. I suggest you go off, learn about EIPH and lasix, and come back when you have the basic facts mastered. Read the link provided would be a good lay person start.

Ignorance is threatening American racing. Stop contributing.

[Danzig]

back in the fray after a good nights sleep.

on the face of it, when one says 'horses shouldn't be given drugs to race' sounds like a good plan.

however, the drug in question prevents hemorraging (which gives no sign of when or how badly it will occur) and potential permanent damage depending on severity of the hemorrage, isn't harmful, according to studies has no masking qualities and isn't proven to improve performance. doesn't sound like such a bad thing when you look at all that, does it?
now, if you stop using lasix....you have horses at risk of bleeding, with no idea of when or how severe it will be, you have proven bleeders without the benefit of something shown to prevent the bleeding, which puts them at risk of permanent damage. the only benefit of stopping lasix that i can see is that you can then say there's no race day medication, while completely ignoring the benefits of the now-banned drug.
but i guess for bleeders they could withold food and water for 24-48 hours.
i suppose explaining the benefits of witholding the basic necessities of life rather than using a safe drug with proven benefits would sound infinitely more palatable to people?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I think you misunderstand. I'm asking why we can't seem to win any race that matters overseas? Sure, our turf horses aren't the greatest, but they do win a decent number of BC races. Overseas, without Lasix, well, it is getting embarrassing. I'd settle for a horse that could run 10th at this point.

When did we win a lot of races overseas outside of the Dubai races when they were on dirt? When did we even run overseas prior to the Dubai races and occasional foray for the Japan Cup?

Didnt Wes Ward run a clinic last year (or the year before) at Ascot with a bunch of mediorce types?

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

When did we win a lot of races overseas outside of the Dubai races when they were on dirt? When did we even run overseas prior to the Dubai races and occasional foray for the Japan Cup?

The Japan races are what I remember, and our horses at one time were competitive. Now they are just embarrassing.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

The Japan races are what I remember, and our horses at one time were competitive. Now they are just embarrassing.

In the early years of the Japan Cup American horses did well but dont forget that Japanese racing and breeding was nothing close to what it is now. It isnt as though other countries horses are doing much in the race now either as the Japanese have been pretty dominant the last decade.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

In the early years of the Japan Cup American horses did well but dont forget that Japanese racing and breeding was nothing close to what it is now. It isnt as though other countries horses are doing much in the race now either as the Japanese have been pretty dominant the last decade.

It still doesn't change the fact that if all this damage is done to horses racing without Lasix, how is it that the Euros are the better horses when they come here most years? Clearly this "damage" is being drummed up to be something worse than it is.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

It still doesn't change the fact that if all this damage is done to horses racing without Lasix, how is it that the Euros are the better horses when they come here most years? Clearly this "damage" is being drummed up to be something worse than it is.

Are they ever better horses here on dirt? What happened to Daddy Long Legs in the Derby against our 3 year old dirt lasix diluted horses?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

It still doesn't change the fact that if all this damage is done to horses racing without Lasix, how is it that the Euros are the better horses when they come here most years? Clearly this "damage" is being drummed up to be something worse than it is.

Using this argument as proof is silly. I recall a lot of Europeans coming over here and tharshing our best horses on turf prior to lasix being used.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

It still doesn't change the fact that if all this damage is done to horses racing without Lasix, how is it that the Euros are the better horses when they come here most years? Clearly this "damage" is being drummed up to be something worse than it is.

the euros are better most years at what?
and since you brought it up, regarding euros. don't they train with lasix? and as soon as they get over here, they race them on it. seems hard for them to be holier than thou when they jump at the chance to use it asap. and they'd use it at home the moment it was legalized. many push for it-and with reason.

and in australia, they remove the better bleeders after an episode, because after a second there, they can't breed. so they send them here. why do you suppose they do that? because they can run on lasix to prevent further bleeding and it's potential consequences.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Danzig

the euros are better most years at what?
and since you brought it up, regarding euros. don't they train with lasix? and as soon as they get over here, they race them on it. seems hard for them to be holier than thou when they jump at the chance to use it asap. and they'd use it at home the moment it was legalized. many push for it-and with reason.

and in australia, they remove the better bleeders after an episode, because after a second there, they can't breed. so they send them here. why do you suppose they do that? because they can run on lasix to prevent further bleeding and it's potential consequences.

Thank you for reminding me about this as it completely undercuts his entire argument and anyone's regarding the diluting of the breed. I guess Lasix only dilutes the breed when horses race on it, but not when they train on it.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by pointman

Thank you for reminding me about this as it completely undercuts his entire argument and anyone's regarding the diluting of the breed. I guess Lasix only dilutes the breed when horses race on it, but not when they train on it.

What is the source that asserts that European horses are trained on lasix? Even so, does supporting a ban of raceday medication mean that one also must support banning medication for training/therapeutic purposes?

Furthermore, a racehorse's reputation is (or should be) made on raceday, not during training sessions, so a "drug dependent" horse would still have to compete clean to have a shot at entering the breeding population.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

What is the source that asserts that European horses are trained on lasix? Even so, does supporting a ban of raceday medication mean that one also must support banning medication for training/therapeutic purposes?

Furthermore, a racehorse's reputation is (or should be) made on raceday, not during training sessions, so a "drug dependent" horse would still have to compete clean to have a shot at entering the breeding population.

Most stallions are failures regadless of what country they raced in or what medications that they raced on. The vast majority of mares are bred primarily because of pedigree first, conformation 2nd and race record third. The idea that a a diuretic can have an effect on the genetic makeup of a horse is laughable.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

What is the source that asserts that European horses are trained on lasix? Even so, does supporting a ban of raceday medication mean that one also must support banning medication for training/therapeutic purposes?

Furthermore, a racehorse's reputation is (or should be) made on raceday, not during training sessions, so a "drug dependent" horse would still have to compete clean to have a shot at entering the breeding population.

as soon as they come up with a way to know beforehand what horses will suffer a bleeding episode and when, i'll fully support removing horses who don't 'need' lasix from using it. until then, i will fully support all efforts to prevent hemorraging during training and racing.

for starters on europe and lasix, there's this pdf from grayson-jockey club:

http://www.grayson-jockeyclub.org/ne...singmatter.pdf

an excerpt:

.'....“Lasix” to race? Yes, these drugs are illegal when racing in Europe, but it is not illegal for a European trainer to administer these drugs to a horse when he is training it.'


and keep in mind, most euros run on lasix when here. i've always found it odd when euro trainers sneer at us for using it, and then use it themselves as soon as they get the chance.

[Danzig]

then there's this:


The Horsemen's Journal: Archive


Medication Committee Corner: Are We Winning the Lasix War?
The Horsemen''''s Journal - Fall 2011
by Kent H. Stirling, National HBPA Medication Committee Chairman

A lot has happened in the last few months dealing generally with race-day medication and specifically with Lasix/Salix, which is used to reduce or prevent Exercise Induced Pulmonary Hemorrhage (EIPH) in racehorses. Lasix (I still can’t bring myself to call it Salix after all these years) is permitted for administration to racehorses three to four hours before post time in all United States racing jurisdictions. It is also legal on race-day in Canada, South America, and Saudi Arabia. Horses train on it in virtually every country in the world with a 50-nanogram threshold in urine or, in other words, don’t work a horse on it within two days of your race or your horse will be “positive” for Lasix. Since EIPH is a progressive condition that gets worse with age and every bleeding incident, one would be well advised to train on Lasix for speed works in those countries that don’t permit its use in racing.


imo, if they use it in training, where a horse seemingly would NOT be at maximum exertion, why would they ban it's use when he would be needing to run his best and hardest? what matter if it's not in the system within 48 hours of an actual race if it's used otherwise? how is that logical?


https://www.nationalhbpa.com/Horseme...n=3&key1=13747

there's the link to the whole article.


and for those who don't read it through, this is toward the end:


Dr. Tobin gave a presentation on the expected increased risk to horse and rider from acute/sudden death EIPH due to the banning of Lasix. This risk was fairly obvious because when New York permitted Lasix in 1995, the incidence of Epistaxis (visibly bleeding from the nostrils) immediately dropped 80 percent!

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

imo, if they use it in training, where a horse seemingly would NOT be at maximum exertion, why would they ban it's use when he would be needing to run his best and hardest? what matter if it's not in the system within 48 hours of an actual race if it's used otherwise? how is that logical?

If I were to guess, I'd say that due to the endless arguments of whether it's a performance-enhancer or not, Europe just decides to dodge the issue and forbid it on race day.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Most stallions are failures regadless of what country they raced in or what medications that they raced on.

Nevertheless, most intact males become stallions based on race performance.

The idea that a a diuretic can have an effect on the genetic makeup of a horse is laughable.

I agree. I'm not sure anyone is suggesting that, though. Certainly the possibility exists that severe EIPH manifested as epistaxis is a heritable trait.

Lasix has been shown to reduce the incidence of epistaxis. So the potential is there for lasix to "mask" severe bleeders, theoretically allowing them to race competively and subsequently become breeding prospects.

[Danzig]

another thing about euros-they send their 'bleeders' here to race. not exactly removing them from the gene pool by doing that...and if breeding is culling bleeding, why do they still have bleeders?
and, if they want to know who's a bleeder...why do they train with it?

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Danzig

for starters on europe and lasix, there's this pdf from grayson-jockey club:

http://www.grayson-jockeyclub.org/ne...singmatter.pdf

an excerpt:

.'....“Lasix” to race? Yes, these drugs are illegal when racing in Europe, but it is not illegal for a European trainer to administer these drugs to a horse when he is training it.'

This is hardly proof that European trainers utilize lasix during training.

Another poster in this thread, when discussing the safety of using lasix, seemed to suggest that even American racehorses only receive lasix for races, not training. So Europeans are allegedly using lasix like hotcakes inbetween races, but their US counterparts wait until only raceday? Seems counterintuitive, and bad practice besides, since a racehorse can suffer bleeding in training (even simply galloping) just as it can in a race.

and keep in mind, most euros run on lasix when here. i've always found it odd when euro trainers sneer at us for using it, and then use it themselves as soon as they get the chance.

It can be argued, as cmorioles has suggested numerous times, that lasix is used by European trainers when racing stateside because it enhances performance or at least "levels the playing field". And this indiscriminate use of drugs in a "pre-race" fashion is the underlying crux of why even therapeutic medications are being targeted for banning by certain elitist-idealists groups within the racing industry.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Danzig

another thing about euros-they send their 'bleeders' here to race. not exactly removing them from the gene pool by doing that...and if breeding is culling bleeding, why do they still have bleeders?

Well, first, permissible lasix in the States enables opportunists to make a quick buck dumping/selling their bleeders to the US. Not every horse owner is a breeder or a racing purist. Secondly, Europeans are active at the NA sales and operate breeding farms in the US, so the domestic bloodlines still make their way across the Atlantic.

and, if they want to know who's a bleeder...why do they train with it?

Again, who says that they use it for training? Even if they are, who says they are using it indiscriminately on every horse? Perhaps they identify the bleeders first and then treat accordingly.