Quote:
Originally Posted by RolloTomasi
(Post 854273)
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.
