Proposed weight breaks for horses not using lasix

[Calzone Lord]

This is a great idea.

Make it even more simple -- a weight break of 5lbs at all distances for horses who don't use lasix -- issue solved.

Try to give connections an incentive to not use lasix on a horse who doesn't need it -- the same way you try to give them an incentive to ride inexperienced jockeys.

[Indian Charlie]

A better incentive would be to give a purse boost to those who race without it.

[cmorioles]

A lot of journeymen riders won't make the lower weight, so it will be moot many times.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

A lot of journeymen riders won't make the lower weight, so it will be moot many times.

Good point. How about raising the base assigned weight 2 or 3 lbs and then giving the 5 lb credit for non-lasix? That should make it easier for most riders to make non-lasix weight.

As Calzone said, giving a weight break to non-lasix horses is simple and creates the right incentive. Also, it doesn't cost the track anything, as opposed to a purse incentive.

--Dunbar

[Riot]

A more major, significant mention within the story: something that will definitively affect how individual horses at this level perform in races, if they are vet scratched or able to run in a particular race, and the wagering/handicapping of the horses at these venues:

The Minnesota Racing Commission routinely adopts the model rules proposed by the Association of Racing Commissioners International, which in October 2010 reduced the allowable level of phenylbutazone (or Bute) on race day to 2 micrograms/ml from 5 mcg/ml.

[Riot]

If you read the PDF proposal, the first thing that becomes clear is the overuse of words such as "perceived" advantage of lasix, etc.

Yes, because there isn't any factual scientific support. If there was, they'd quote it.

Secondly, this phrase stands out as the first sentence in their summary:

Summary

In summary, all in racing understand that the weaning process from the use of Furosemide has the potential to put some horses at high risk to not only suffer from EIPH but also to potentially suffer secondary orthopedic injuries to the EIPH event.

"High Risk".

When you know the high risks of eliminating lasix, against the advice of the veterinary medical community, and you acknowledge those risks as the first sentence in your summary conclusion - why are you persisting in trying to do so?

Again: racing has many problems with illegal medications. They need to be addressed. Furosemide, protecting athletic horses from lung damage, most certainly isn't one of them.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

If you read the PDF proposal, the first thing that becomes clear is the overuse of words such as "perceived" advantage of lasix, etc.

Yes, because there isn't any factual scientific support. If there was, they'd quote it.

Secondly, this phrase stands out as the first sentence in their summary:



"High Risk".

When you know the high risks of eliminating lasix, against the advice of the veterinary medical community, and you acknowledge those risks as the first sentence in your summary conclusion - why are you persisting in trying to do so?

Again: racing has many problems with illegal medications. They need to be addressed. Furosemide, protecting athletic horses from lung damage, most certainly isn't one of them.

From the NY Times quoting the AJVR.
"The study, led by Dr. Corinne Raphel Sweeney and Dr. Lawrence R. Soma of the University of Pennsylvania's School of Veterinary Medicine, confirmed that improvement. The study found that horses ran an average of 0.48 seconds faster at a mile, roughly three lengths, when treated with Lasix - whether or not they had a bleeding condition. For older geldings, the improvement was as much as nine lengths. The study also found that over 60 percent of bleeders continued to bleed after being given Lasix."

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/08/sp...-evidence.html

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Riot

If you read the PDF proposal, the first thing that becomes clear is the overuse of words such as "perceived" advantage of lasix, etc.

Yes, because there isn't any factual scientific support. If there was, they'd quote it.

Secondly, this phrase stands out as the first sentence in their summary:



"High Risk".

When you know the high risks of eliminating lasix, against the advice of the veterinary medical community, and you acknowledge those risks as the first sentence in your summary conclusion - why are you persisting in trying to do so?

Again: racing has many problems with illegal medications. They need to be addressed. Furosemide, protecting athletic horses from lung damage, most certainly isn't one of them.

My take is that you are giving too much consideration to the word potential, treating it as if the high risks that at stake are GOING to happen and not potentially MAY happen. I feel like every time they send these horses out to race, they are potentially at high risk for a lot of things, not limited to bleeding but also including death. A bad step can be taken at any time. Should we not run them at all because of the potential for life ending injury? I play basketball and used to play at a fairly high level. I have seen numerous injuries to knees and ankles, some to the extent that they ended careers. Should all players wear knee and ankle braces to protect against the potential of that happening? Should I wear eye goggles to protect against the potential for getting a finger in the eye? I don't know if I'm in the majority or the minority on this but I just don't see the need to automatically assume that the horse needs something or should have it to protect against something that they may not even suffer from.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

A more major, significant mention within the story: something that will definitively affect how individual horses at this level perform in races, if they are vet scratched or able to run in a particular race, and the wagering/handicapping of the horses at these venues:

I dont believe that this is significant. The half life of bute is short enough where it doesnt really matter when giving a shot 24 hours out. I race in different jurisdictions under both rules and the prerace protocol is the same.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I dont believe that this is significant. The half life of bute is short enough where it doesnt really matter when giving a shot 24 hours out. I race in different jurisdictions under both rules and the prerace protocol is the same.

You have a good point. It interests me that you say that the pre-race timing is the same in both jurisdictions, and that doesn't make the rare positive? That's good. I was thinking based upon the half-life, and the pharmacologic effective dose, I would have thought this would cause another 8-hour add-on pre-race timing as to when you'd give it. And that would affect those lower-level warrior $5K claimers, with their chronic aches and pains, that need their residual bute to do their jobs well. Good to know you say that won't matter.

[Calzone Lord]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

A lot of journeymen riders won't make the lower weight, so it will be moot many times.

True.

I suppose they could simply make lasix a 5lbs penalty in all races where base weight is 122lbs or less, instead of a 5lbs break in weight.

Making horses carry 131lbs to run on lasix in the Kentucky Derby or Belmont Stakes -- that wouldn't go over well with a lot of big-name trainers.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

A lot of journeymen riders won't make the lower weight, so it will be moot many times.

Give them lasix

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Give them lasix

[Round Pen]

What a great Study that had to Be. Yep lasix makes them Faster. It has to make you laugh if you really believe that. Come on Folks Surely You see why this Study is absolutely Bogus. It is so easy to see I am Not even Going to tell you what it is.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Round Pen

What a great Study that had to Be. Yep lasix makes them Faster. It has to make you laugh if you really believe that. Come on Folks Surely You see why this Study is absolutely Bogus. It is so easy to see I am Not even Going to tell you what it is.

Please, inform us ignorant ones.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Give them lasix

We can't, it is on the banned substance list for human athletes.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

We can't, it is on the banned substance list for human athletes.

Actually that isnt true

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Actually that isnt true

Well, from two days ago:

"Earlier on Sunday, Uzbekistan's only gymnast at the Games, Luiza Galiulina, was temporarily suspended after her first sample came in positive for the drug Furosemide, often used as a masking agent for other banned substances."

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Give them lasix