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

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

Then buy a box of FLAIR nasal strips, and drop it off at the barn, and see if your trainer will still train for you using those. I'm serious - they have proven efficacy for EIPH. You can get them for $10-15 a strip (single use).

By the way: if we eliminate lasix, I imagine that many will go back to what they used to use before lasix - removing water from the horse for a day or two. That type of severe forced dehydration (which is unlike the diuresis induced by lasix for multiple reasons) is NOT a scenario I'd like to see.

In your opinion, how effective are the FLAIR nasal strips in comparison to lasix?

[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.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

In your opinion, how effective are the FLAIR nasal strips in comparison to lasix?

Go back about 3-4 pages, I think. There were multiple posts about the efficacy of FLAIR nasal strips, including Sightseek posting the link http://www.flairstrips.com/wp-conten...-Camp-2011.pdf to a wonderful FLAIR company brochure describing EIPH in an easy-to-understand manner, describing how FLAIR works, and listing all the efficacy data studies for their product.

Bottom line: FLAIR has the same measurable efficacy as lasix in decreasing the frequency and severity of EIPH episodes. That is why other maximally-exerting horse sports, who cannot use lasix, use the FLAIR strips universally at advanced and professional levels.

Many trainers don't care for them. Cannon? You ever try them?

[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?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

Go back about 3-4 pages, I think. There were multiple posts about the efficacy of FLAIR nasal strips, including Sightseek (I believe) posting the link a wonderful FLAIR company brochure describing EIPH in an easy-to-understand manner, describing how FLAIR works, and listing all the efficacy data studies for their product.

Bottom line: FLAIR has the same measurable efficacy as lasix in decreasing the frequency and severity of EIPH episodes. That is why other maximally-exerting horse sports, who cannot use lasix, use the FLAIR strips universally at advanced and professional levels.

Many trainers don't care for them. Cannon? You ever try them?

For the trainers that don't care for them, what is their reason for not liking them?

I'm sure that plenty of trainers would rather use lasix because they think lasix is a performance-enhancer. I'm not just guessing that. I know for a fact that many trainers think lasix is a performance-enhancer because many have told me that.

I have another question for you. As we all know, some horses get small doses of lasix while other horses (usually known bleeders) get much bigger doses. Do you think there would be any downside to giving all horses a big dose of lasix?

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I'm sure that plenty of trainers would rather use lasix because they think lasix is a performance-enhancer. I'm not just guessing that. I know for a fact that many trainers think lasix is a performance-enhancer because many have told me that.

Of course that is the reason, but nobody seems to want to admit it.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

For the trainers that don't care for them, what is their reason for not liking them?

I'm sure that plenty of trainers would rather use lasix because they think lasix is a performance-enhancer. I'm not just guessing that. I know for a fact that many trainers think lasix is a performance-enhancer because many have told me that.

I have another question for you. As we all know, some horses get small doses of lasix while other horses (usually known bleeders) get much bigger doses. Do you think there would be any downside to giving all horses a big dose of lasix?

Wasting lasix.

The dose that must be given is within the published parameters of efficacy for the drug, usually (depending upon state) 150-200mg up to 500mg, and that legally allowed dose covers dosing a variety of horses by weight at 0.5 - 1.0 mg/kg, which is the lowest established efficacious dose for lasix (cardiac patients in fulminant pulmonary edema will get 4-6 mg/kg)

I don't know why some trainers don't like FLAIRS. Have to ask them.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Of course that is the reason, but nobody seems to want to admit it.

Admit what? That horses that are not bleeding into their lungs and suffocating themselves have more air and run better? Not really a secret It's all about the VO2Max rocking that immediate, glycolytic and oxidative energy pathways. He whose ATP lasts the longest, wins.

It's that simple :-)

[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.

[cmorioles]

NO, what has been said many times, that Lasix enhances performance even for those that don't bleed.

I'm curious to hear these reasons for using Lasix when a cheaper nasal strip that doesn't involve an injection and dehydration does just as well. This should be good.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

Wasting lasix.

The dose that must be given is within the published parameters of efficacy for the drug, usually (depending upon state) 150-200mg up to 500mg, and that legally allowed dose covers dosing a variety of horses by weight at 0.5 - 1.0 mg/kg, which is the lowest established efficacious dose for lasix (cardiac patients in fulminant pulmonary edema will get 4-6 mg/kg)

I don't know why some trainers don't like FLAIRS. Have to ask them.

I think they use a 10 point scale in talking about how big a dose a horse is going to get. A bad bleeder would get a 10 point dose, meaning that the bigger dose you get, the less chance there is that you will bleed. If that is the case, why wouldn't trainers give all their horses a 10 point dose, if there was no downside?

There obviously is downside. The bigger dose you give them, the more dehydrated they get. In addition, if you give them the biggest dose allowable, it may make the horse too dull. Several trainers have told me that lasix can dull a horse. Do you agree with that?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Of course they could develop a training program without lasix. I wasn't saying that they would have any trouble changing their program. I was simply saying that they would rather not change their program. Why would they possibly want to change things when things are going so well for them? Not only that, lasix is somewhat effective in lessening (and even preventing) bleeding. Most traines use it. They think it works. It's part of their program. I wouldn't expect that many of them would want to get rid of it.

If i was in their position I would surely believe a lasix ban would give me an advantage. They already have really good horses, access to whaever vet care needed including expensive therapy like hyperbaric oxygen and the ability to pretty much run whernever they want to. The trainers who dont have these things would be at a huge disadvantage.

When I worked for Jerkens we ran a lot of horses without lasix and trained them the exact same way unless they were a frail filly or had some other issue. Training a bad bleeder is onething but the training of the others is pretty similar.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Go back about 3-4 pages, I think. There were multiple posts about the efficacy of FLAIR nasal strips, including Sightseek posting the link http://www.flairstrips.com/wp-conten...-Camp-2011.pdf to a wonderful FLAIR company brochure describing EIPH in an easy-to-understand manner, describing how FLAIR works, and listing all the efficacy data studies for their product.

Bottom line: FLAIR has the same measurable efficacy as lasix in decreasing the frequency and severity of EIPH episodes. That is why other maximally-exerting horse sports, who cannot use lasix, use the FLAIR strips universally at advanced and professional levels.

Many trainers don't care for them. Cannon? You ever try them?

I use them on occasion but not enough to draw any conclusions. When it is hot out they dont stay on very well

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I think they use a 10 point scale in talking about how big a dose a horse is going to get. A bad bleeder would get a 10 point dose, meaning that the bigger dose you get, the less chance there is that you will bleed. If that is the case, why wouldn't trainers give all their horses a 10 point dose, if there was no downside?

There obviously is downside. The bigger dose you give them, the more dehydrated they get. In addition, if you give them the biggest dose allowable, it may make the horse too dull. Several trainers have told me that lasix can dull a horse. Do you agree with that?

The legal dose limit at 40mg/cc is 3-4cc up to 10cc. If you have an exceptionally little 850-900 pound horse (most are 1000-1100 pounds) and fill it up with 10cc of lasix, that's still only 1mg/kg body weight.

Which will not dehydrate a horse more than 0.5-1.5% of it's body weight (not clinically detectable and easily replaceable by a few buckets of water), and is far lower than the dose used in cardiac patients.

If a trainer is withholding water for an exceptionally long time, or really messing with electrolytes (I am not talking good normal electrolyte replacement, or normal water withholding), that can potentiate the effects of lasix, because one is not supposed to do that and give lasix.

Individual animals can respond differently, too - we don't know how great each animals own kidneys are. You have to be careful giving lasix to horses with annhydrosis (non-sweaters), etc. If it's a really hot day, the horse is going to dehydrate standing in it's stall sweating if it doesn't drink enough, lasix or not.

The dose that racehorses get is really on the low end of the furosemide dosage range, even at 10cc for a tiny horse.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

NO, what has been said many times, that Lasix enhances performance even for those that don't bleed.

I'm curious to hear these reasons for using Lasix when a cheaper nasal strip that doesn't involve an injection and dehydration does just as well. This should be good.

Because the things dont stay on very well. Remember when Cat Thief won the BC with a nasal strip and all of a sudden we had to report them when entering like blinkers?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I'm curious to hear these reasons for using Lasix when a cheaper nasal strip that doesn't involve an injection and dehydration does just as well. This should be good.

Whoa, no - purposeful dehydration by withholding water is NOT the same as a lasix shot. The lasix shot is much milder, with far less possible side effects!

Seriously - can we leave the medical opinions to the medical professionals who advise the industry?

[cmorioles]

I don't recall that being a major issue. I can't believe that couldn't be improved if it was. The reporting it thing was pretty stupid.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

Whoa, no - purposeful dehydration by withholding water is NOT the same as a lasix shot. The lasix shot is much milder, with far less possible side effects!

Seriously - can we leave the medical opinions to the medical professionals who advise the industry?

You misunderstood what he was saying. He didn't say that you should dehydrate a horse. He was asking why it wouldn't be better to use the strips considering the strips "don't" dehydrate a horse the way lasix does.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

You misunderstood what he was saying. He didn't say that you should dehydrate a horse. He was asking why it wouldn't be better to use the strips considering the strips "don't" dehydrate a horse the way lasix does.

Ah ... I thought he was talking about not giving lasix, plus going back to the purposeful dehydration of 36-48 hours duration of the past, which would "work as well".

Sorry, cmorioles!

The lasix injection given hardly dehydrates a horse at all. Again, only 0.5 to about 1.5%, which is tiny. Horses still sweat.

I now would like to hear those that think lasix should be eliminated, against the advice of racing veterinarians, to explain why that would be good for the horse, and good for the sport.