No lasix needed here

[Kitan]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

This is not a modern problem; this is the problem of the equine. Vigorous exercise is a high risk for bleeding in the lungs. It's why it's called EIPH. Exercise Induced. For whatever reason, evolution in all its messiness brought about an animal that often bleeds in the lungs during taxing exercise, and for some reason, mild dehydration reduces the chances that will happen. We could stop all horse racing for several dozen millennia while we attempt to selectively evolve the horse past this, because right now, the majority of them do bleed, or we can give them a diuretic before vigorous exercise. One of these two gives us a better chance of seeing a Triple Crown winner again in our lifetimes.

I would think that Lasix actually might be part of the problem, and I don't think its a coincidence that there hasn't been a Triple Crown winner since Lasix became popular and legalized. It's not just a diuretic, it's a powerful one. It causes an unnatural amount of water and electrolytes to be excreted, which in turn results in excessive weight loss. More time is needed to put that weight back on in a healthy manner as well as restore proper functioning of the Sodium-Potassium pump. More time to recover = more time to return to peak performance. I'm no vet or equine scientist but that's basic physiology.

Take for example the fourth place finisher of the Melbourne Cup this past week, Signoff. These are his starts this season:
Aug 30th 7f
Sept 13 8.5f
Sept 26 10f
Oct 11 12f
Oct 18 10f
Nov 1 10.5f
Nov 4 16f

In a span of 9 and a half weeks he ran 7 times, five at group level. This is, as you may know, an extremely common occurrence down there. I cannot recall ANY horse at that level in North America running that many times in a short period of time, never mind the consistency. Add Lasix to these horses and the weeks between starts would slowly add up because they need a longer time to recover in between races.

For the record, I am not for or against Lasix. I just think it's important to consider the dynamics of the drug, rather than say it's just a simple diuretic that somehow decreases pulmonary hemorrhaging.

The majority of horses do bleed, but not at a level severe enough to affect performance. So instead of waiting a million years to selectively evolve, why not just use artificial selection as a method to simply decrease the chance of bleeding and the potential severity of it? Genetic traits can be tracked, you know.

And from a gambling perspective, how often would bleeding affect performance? In a quarter of a percent of all starters? Judging by our posts in the playalong threads, I'd be more worried about other circumstances causing a ticket to be ripped up.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Kitan

I would think that Lasix actually might be part of the problem, and I don't think its a coincidence that there hasn't been a Triple Crown winner since Lasix became popular and legalized. It's not just a diuretic, it's a powerful one. It causes an unnatural amount of water and electrolytes to be excreted, which in turn results in excessive weight loss. More time is needed to put that weight back on in a healthy manner as well as restore proper functioning of the Sodium-Potassium pump. More time to recover = more time to return to peak performance. I'm no vet or equine scientist but that's basic physiology.

Take for example the fourth place finisher of the Melbourne Cup this past week, Signoff. These are his starts this season:
Aug 30th 7f
Sept 13 8.5f
Sept 26 10f
Oct 11 12f
Oct 18 10f
Nov 1 10.5f
Nov 4 16f

In a span of 9 and a half weeks he ran 7 times, five at group level. This is, as you may know, an extremely common occurrence down there. I cannot recall ANY horse at that level in North America running that many times in a short period of time, never mind the consistency. Add Lasix to these horses and the weeks between starts would slowly add up because they need a longer time to recover in between races.

For the record, I am not for or against Lasix. I just think it's important to consider the dynamics of the drug, rather than say it's just a simple diuretic that somehow decreases pulmonary hemorrhaging.

The majority of horses do bleed, but not at a level severe enough to affect performance. So instead of waiting a million years to selectively evolve, why not just use artificial selection as a method to simply decrease the chance of bleeding and the potential severity of it? Genetic traits can be tracked, you know.

And from a gambling perspective, how often would bleeding affect performance? In a quarter of a percent of all starters? Judging by our posts in the playalong threads, I'd be more worried about other circumstances causing a ticket to be ripped up.

Correlation is not causation. There are soooo many factors that can be pointed to as a possible cause for the reduced number of starts in the US- more 6f races, focus on Ragozin numbers as a training guide, breeding becoming a commercial enterprise, lack of suitable races being written. We know we have a lot less grass racing, but we also have a drier climate than Europe, so that's not going to change. Any of these things could be pointed to as a cause of reduced starts. We obsess about Lasix because our society has had it drummed into us for decades that drugs are bad, mmmkay.

And you can't breed for a reduction in bleeding because there is just no way of telling if a horse is going to bleed. Yeah, the majority of horses won't suffer long-term damage, but what about the one who does, drops during a race and kills himself, his jockey and takes out half the field behind him? That's the problem- we do not know if a horse is going to bleed or not in a race. We have no way of knowing. Lasix is a preventive. It's not perfect; no preventive is, but it reduces the chance of EIPH and reduces its severity. Most people aren't going to be in a serious car accident; it doesn't mean wearing a seat belt every time you get into a car isn't still a good idea.

Without Lasix horses will still go to the post dehydrated; they'll just have been denied water for 2 days before the race. Which is not as effective as Lasix.

We're American; it's our nature to want a one-size-fits-all solution, but very few things in life are one-size-fits-all. Oddly, Lasix comes about as close as one can get, to a problem that is a part of the equine's evolutionary makeup. It's not going to make a slow horse fast, but it will reduce the chance of the horse breathing blood while he runs. Again, the Euros train on it, even if they aren't allowed it on race day. Why would they do that, unless they felt it was beneficial to the horse's health?

And believe me, I was very anti-Lasix for years, but you do enough digging on a subject, and sometimes the evidence is just too persuasive.