NYTHA Lasix Primer & Letter to NYS RWB

[GenuineRisk]

Graham Motion on Lasix (note what he says about Britain)

Team Valor’s Barry Irwin has said he can’t convince you that you don’t need Lasix on raceday. Why is that?
My problem with doing away with Lasix is that we’re going to go back to how it was before in New York (the last state to permit the drug), where everybody is trying to use things under the table that nobody knows about. I honestly don’t believe that in some of these other countries people don’t use alternative medications to Lasix. It’s better the devil you know than the devil you don’t know. Most horses bleed to a degree. Lasix is one medication that we know helps horses that have this hemorrhaging. My feeling is let’s control the administration like they do in Canada. 5 cc’s are to be given by a state veterinarian. If we do away with Lasix, we’d better step up security big time. No one’s going to like that. You cannot tell me that people are not going to use other things.

Are you suggesting the rest of the world should adopt our rules?
That’s a tough point. No, I’m not. In England, everyone gives Lasix up to the race, then they take it away. A lot of it comes to the horsemanship side.

We are so much more proactive over here in scoping our horses. I want to be on top of our horses. When we consider a horse to bleed, it might just have a spot in his lungs. In many places bleeding is only identified if it’s external.

http://www.paulickreport.com/feature...graham-motion/

[Danzig]

i don't buy the assertion from some that it's performance enhancing. to me that's akin to people still saying the turns are tighter at pimlico. it's not true, but people believe it. those who've done studies say it is not, that's enough for me.
horses who 'move up' do so because they aren't suffering eiph, not because lasix gave them talent they didn't have before.

and yes, there are other articles and studies that say euros train on lasix-as did the second article i posted...then there's the study done by the irish that said the same thing. go google it, that's what i did. it's all there. also, in the irish study, one of their points was to 'send bleeders to the u.s.'. obviously they get that lasix prevents bleeding, why else send them here?

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i don't buy the assertion from some that it's performance enhancing. to me that's akin to people still saying the turns are tighter at pimlico. it's not true, but people believe it. those who've done studies say it is not, that's enough for me.
horses who 'move up' do so because they aren't suffering eiph, not because lasix gave them talent they didn't have before.

The same person that finally proved that Lasix was effective under racing conditions also did a study that concluded that Lasix was a performance enhancer. Furthermore, lasix has other effects aside from reducing the severity of bleeding, namely causing a ~3% decrease in body weight (ie upwards to 30lbs) and changing the acid-base balance of the blood (ie the same principle behind "milkshaking" albeit at a less dramatic level). Those potential factors are still on the table, so saying that horses receiving lasix run better simply because they don't bleed is not necessarily accurate.

and yes, there are other articles and studies that say euros train on lasix-as did the second article i posted...then there's the study done by the irish that said the same thing. go google it, that's what i did. it's all there. also, in the irish study, one of their points was to 'send bleeders to the u.s.'. obviously they get that lasix prevents bleeding, why else send them here?

Not sure if it was the same Irish study you were referring to, but the one I found stated that less than 10% of horses receive lasix in training. I would presume that significantly less than here in the US. Also, let me reiterate that just because a medication is banned on raceday doesn't mean that it shouldn't be utilized for training or recovery. There is nothing hypocritical in that.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

What is the source that asserts that European horses are trained on lasix?

For god's sakes, stop this baloney and just go and effing ASK THEM. Everyone knows it. It's not illegal. Vets know it, trainers know it, the stewards know it, it's entirely permitted.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

The same person that finally proved that Lasix was effective under racing conditions also did a study that concluded that Lasix was a performance enhancer. Furthermore, lasix has other effects aside from reducing the severity of bleeding, namely causing a ~3% decrease in body weight (ie upwards to 30lbs) and changing the acid-base balance of the blood (ie the same principle behind "milkshaking" albeit at a less dramatic level). Those potential factors are still on the table, so saying that horses receiving lasix run better simply because they don't bleed is not necessarily accurate.

Well, Rollo learns how to google. Good for you! Please, quote the exact study you are referring to that "lasix is a performance enhancer". I rather know what is being referred to, and I'd like to correct your misunderstanding.

Regarding the weight loss. No, it usually is not upwards of 30 pounds, and please, don't hesitate to quote the specific two studies that examined this very question: does weight loss contribute to increased performance with lasix? Because I guarantee you probably won't like the results.

No, lasix does NOT change the acid-base balance of the blood. Anybody who knows how this loop diuretic works knows that. If that were true, every horse given lasix would have a TCO2 positive.

Stick to being opinionated about racing, Rollo, but as an expert on lasix you're passing on half-baked information that has already, repeatedly, been "debunked".

I'm not talking about you specifically here, Rollo, but I'm tired of the outright medical lies being promulgated over the years by proponents of banning lasix. These lies and their position regarding what lasix does to the horse are at 100% odds with the veterinary and scientific community regarding what lasix does, and it sure as hell is not because they are better educated in veterinary medicine and science. They are ignorant old men, too foolish and set in their ways to leave their "knowledge" from the 1970's behind them. They are a danger to the health and welfare of the race horse.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Riot

For god's sakes, stop this baloney and just go and effing ASK THEM. Everyone knows it. It's not illegal. Vets know it, trainers know it, the stewards know it, it's entirely permitted.

Thanks for such a verifiable, scientific answer. Go figure.

With your reappearance, I guess the couple of pages of civilized discourse have abruptly come to an end.

Get ready for hyperlinks, misinformation, half-truths, and psychobabble to the VO2 max.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i don't buy the assertion from some that it's performance enhancing.

Good. You should not.

Lasix is "peformance enhancing" in the same way that an athlete with asthma takes a hit off their inhaler before running outdoors. If you don't prevent a problem (bronchiole constriction in human, EIPH in horse) you won't perform to your ability.

Lasix is given to multiple seniors with congestive heart failure. It's your grandma's "water pill". At the very same dose given to race horses via injection. Yes - grandma is using "horse drugs" at the same dose for her lungs because her heart doesn't work well! And it's only performance-enhancing if you consider grandma not drowning in excessive lung secretions from pulmonary edema "performance enhancing".

Of course, we can let human runners, kids that play soccer, grandma and horses stop in their runs because they can't breath, but why in the heck would we with hold valuable therapeutic medication from them?

Lasix doesn't make a horse faster (like an amphetamine would). It enables a horse simply to run to their genetic and conditioned ability without bleeding into their lungs and suffocating.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

Thanks for such a verifiable, scientific answer. Go figure.

With your reappearance, I guess the couple of pages of civilized discourse have abruptly come to an end.

Get ready for hyperlinks, misinformation, half-truths, and psychobabble to the VO2 max.

Watching you talk about lasix is like watching a plumber who thinks his association with water enables himself to discourse about quantum mechanics.

You think mentioning VO2max is "psychobabble"? Shows your complete ignorance of the subject at hand. You don't have a clue what first year veterinary students know about the subject: when you can discourse on acid base balances, the Loop of Henle, electrolyte gradients, metabolic acidosis and respiratory alkalosis, call me. Because that's exactly what this conversation regarding lasix and milkshakes is about.

You are making assertions, Rollo. Yes - you want to talk like you know medicine, you're going to have to step up your game and walk the walk. Half-baked, taken-out-of context assertions. I don't blame you, you're just copying what someone has told you. It's what has been passed on by some in this sport. Not the veterinary world in this sport, of course. Not the scientific community regarding lasix, of course. But lay people with an agenda. Old men who breed horses and run horses and don't want their world to be taken over by politicians they own.

The veterinary world disagrees completely with their half-baked assertions. You side with the old men versus the veterinary and scientific world, about matters veterinary and scientific. Strange. That's to the detriment of the horse, however. I don't care to see people and their half-assed ideas and google drug knowledge harm race horses.

Old rich businessmen who own race horses sure as hell are not qualified to treat my child's meningitis, and they sure as hell are not qualified to pontificate on veterinary medicine.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

Also, let me reiterate that just because a medication is banned on raceday doesn't mean that it shouldn't be utilized for training or recovery. There is nothing hypocritical in that.

Honestly Rollo, how can you take the position that Lasix is a performance enhancer and that it is ok to train on it? If you believe it is a peformance enhancer, then what scientific evidence exists that shots a couple of times a week to train won't enhance peformance in a race?

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Riot

Well, Rollo learns how to google. Good for you! Please, quote the exact study you are referring to that "lasix is a performance enhancer". I rather know what is being referred to, and I'd like to correct your misunderstanding.

From the study you rather know...

Because of the large study population and resulting statistical power,...we believe our results present clear and unequivocal evidence of an association between use of furosemide and superior performance in Thoroughbred racehorses.

Possible explanations for the association between use of furosemide and superior performance include reduction in severity of EIPH, reduction in body weight, induction of metabolic alkalosis, bronchiodilation, and other mechanisms.

Regarding the weight loss. No, it usually is not upwards of 30 pounds, and please, don't hesitate to quote the specific two studies that examined this very question: does weight loss contribute to increased performance with lasix? Because I guarantee you probably won't like the results.

0.03 x 500kg x 2.2lbs/kg = 33lbs.

Same study:

Another explanation for a performance-enhancing of furosemide is the acute reduction in body weight that occurs after furosemide administration. Intravenous administration of furosemide has been shown to induce a 2% to 4% in body weight within 4 hours. (4 citations noted)

No, lasix does NOT change the acid-base balance of the blood. Anybody who knows how this loop diuretic works knows that.

Why don't you just go ahead and explain it then? Explain how a drug that inhibits reabsorption of ions important in acid-base balance doesn't affect acid-base balance. Never mind the multiple studies that note an alkalosis in exercising horses following lasix administration.

If that were true, every horse given lasix would have a TCO2 positive.

Why would every horse have a TCO2 positive? The TCO2 threshold used for detecting "milkshaking" is higher than the level signifying alkalosis.

Stick to being opinionated about racing, Rollo, but as an expert on lasix you're passing on half-baked information that has already, repeatedly, been "debunked".

Hey, I'm just asking questions for the most part, trying to obtain some consistency and impartiality to the proceedings. Why has the use of lasix as a treatment for EIPH remained controversial for all these years? Why has there been hundreds of studies trying to validate its efficacy if it's effects were so cut-and-dry from the outset?

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

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.

Our horses were much more competitive in the days before Lasix. We rarely see the best Euros here any longer for financial reasons. And still, their 2nd and 3rd stringers routinely beat us.

It still doesn't answer the question though. Why aren't our horses getting more competitive since they aren't suffering this permanent damage instead of getting less competitive?

There is only one real answer. This alleged damage caused by EIPH doesn't affect horses' future performances.

[cmorioles]

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.

This is more like an incoherent rant than an actual post. Who mentioned anything about them being holier than thou? Certainly not me. For the record, a lot of horses that ship here don't get Lasix, so they all don't jump at the chance to use it. Unfortunately, they probably should, because the performance of those not using Lasix is extremely weak, even when they don't bleed. Hmmm, wonder why that is?

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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.

Trainers can be dumb about some things, but they aren't idiots. Anybody can figure out that Lasix enhances performance even for non-bleeders...unless of course you are a zealot that doesn't want to admit it.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by pointman

Honestly Rollo, how can you take the position that Lasix is a performance enhancer and that it is ok to train on it? If you believe it is a peformance enhancer, then what scientific evidence exists that shots a couple of times a week to train won't enhance peformance in a race?

I haven't taken any position. I simply quoted a study. Personally, I think all the debate about lasix being a "performance enhancer" is an exercise in semantics.

Didn't someone try and call it a "performance enabler" as an alternative? Good stuff.

The real issue is whether or not its justifiable to allow racehorses predisposed to severe bleeding to benefit competively by the administration of lasix. Why is simple barring/retirement from racing off the table?

Probably because we have extremists clouding the issue by noting that you can find minute evidence of bleeding in over 90% of racehorses, attempting to equate insignificant (from a performance standpoint) levels of bleeding with the more severe ones. In one dubious swoop, you go from having a problem affecting ~2-5% of the population to one that affects nearly 100%.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

In one dubious swoop, you go from having a problem affecting ~2-5% of the population to one that affects nearly 100%.

And that sums this whole thing up in a nutshell. People figured out pretty quickly that these horses that had severe bleeding not only recovered to previous levels of performance, they surpassed them, sometimes by a lot. It became a race to see how fast a horse could get "the juice". It got us to where we are today where virtually any horse can get Lasix with a note from the vet. We all know many of these "notes" are handed out like candy on Halloween with no actual testing done. Hell, you can probably get one for a weanling if you ask.

So, instead of getting rid of the small percentage of the horse population that have severe EIPH, it was easier apparently to just give every horse the drug, including those with tiny amounts of bleeding that doesn't change performance. As far as that goes, if there is one thing of which I am certain, it is that none of these studies can actually measure performance. You can only do that in actual races.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

From the study you rather know...

Just cutting and pasting words.

You have every right to have a position on drugs in racing. Stand up and say you don't want any drugs whatsoever on race day. Nothing wrong with that.

However, you should probably come up with a reason why you oppose the direct and specific medical advice of the veterinary profession, who says that doing what you want is not best for the health and welfare of the horse.

We say these lay person interpretations (such as published by some of the anti-lasix folks) of the scientific information surrounding lasix use is wrong and off base. We advise the very opposite of what some lay people in racing are proposing.

Why are 60,000 medical professionals wrong, but lay people with no scientific education, correct?

The concepts being parroted about lasix by the anti-lasix crowd is like calling "creation science" science.

It's sad, like watching Jenny McCarthy continue to contend that autuism is caused by vaccination, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Why would every horse have a TCO2 positive? The TCO2 threshold used for detecting "milkshaking" is higher than the level signifying alkalosis.

No, the TCO2 threshold used for detecting milkshaking is "not higher than the level signifying alkalosis". That's false. You've misunderstood and confused two different concepts.

Hey, I'm just asking questions for the most part, trying to obtain some consistency and impartiality to the proceedings.

Have you read the paper Steve posted in the first post of this thread? Have you READ it yet? The first page is 100% accurate. There is absolutely zero scientific dissent with what is stated in that lay person synopsis.

Why has the use of lasix as a treatment for EIPH remained controversial for all these years?

It's not "controversial" What do you think is "controversial"?

Why has there been hundreds of studies trying to validate its efficacy if it's effects were so cut-and-dry from the outset?

First, no, the hundreds of studies done in the horse about lasix (not counting the thousands of human and non-equine species) are not trying to "validate it's efficacy" The validity is why most of the studies are being done in the first place. When science observes something happening, the point is to quantitate the physiology and other specifics behind it.

Grandma takes horse lasix, at the same dose as race horses, for her congestive failure. That's how terrible this very predictable, very low incidence of side effects loop diuretic is

[Riot]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

Probably because we have extremists clouding the issue by noting that you can find minute evidence of bleeding in over 90% of racehorses,

You calling the veterinary medical profession and world-renowned scientific researchers "extremists" is utter bullshiat.

You're the guy at the corner bar, nursing a beer and pontificating on how to do open heart surgery.

... attempting to equate insignificant (from a performance standpoint) levels of bleeding with the more severe ones.

The trouble with lay people with an agenda is that they make ridiculous statements like the above as if they are fact.

Go google and find some words by someone who knows what they are talking about, that says alveolar bleeding, the rupture of the capillary-oxygenation interface - which means it doesn't work, big guy - is "insignificant from a performance standpoint".

How about the words "oxygen dissociation curve" "VO2max" "Arterial O2 saturation". Ring a bell, doc?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Anybody can figure out that Lasix enhances performance even for non-bleeders...unless of course you are a zealot that doesn't want to admit it.

Science doesn't depend upon how hard you "believe". That's called "religion". It appears you've confused the two.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

This is more like an incoherent rant than an actual post. Who mentioned anything about them being holier than thou? Certainly not me. For the record, a lot of horses that ship here don't get Lasix, so they all don't jump at the chance to use it. Unfortunately, they probably should, because the performance of those not using Lasix is extremely weak, even when they don't bleed. Hmmm, wonder why that is?

i mentioned them being holier than thou. any time it comes up with euro trainers they make their statements-without talking about using it themselves.

as for everything in your post from 'for the record' on, do you have stats to show all this, or is it your perception from events?

also, i guess you didn't notice the stat about new york racers and bleeding from the nostrils dropping by 80%?

at any rate, we will have to just agree to disagree. no point in continuing, the 'zealots' ( ) on either side won't change their minds i'm sure.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

I haven't taken any position. I simply quoted a study. Personally, I think all the debate about lasix being a "performance enhancer" is an exercise in semantics.

Didn't someone try and call it a "performance enabler" as an alternative? Good stuff.

The real issue is whether or not its justifiable to allow racehorses predisposed to severe bleeding to benefit competively by the administration of lasix. Why is simple barring/retirement from racing off the table?

Probably because we have extremists clouding the issue by noting that you can find minute evidence of bleeding in over 90% of racehorses, attempting to equate insignificant (from a performance standpoint) levels of bleeding with the more severe ones. In one dubious swoop, you go from having a problem affecting ~2-5% of the population to one that affects nearly 100%.

or perhaps it's because it could affect others? like i said, as soon as they can identify who will bleed with certainty, by all means, adjust the rules.