And those horses suffer worse from EIPH than race horses.

Who cares what was done 50 years ago? When I was a child, I was taught to drench colic horses with a mixture of turpentine and linseed oil! Now we knows that probably killed alot of horses - yet veterinarians did it!

Medicine advances. Sports medicine advances, in humans and animals. I attended a veterinary conference yesterday on diagnosis and treatment of back and hind end injuries in performance horses, and half the diagnostic techniques, and most of the treatments, were not even available, let alone taught to me, when I graduated veterinary college.

We need to use what we know today. Not pretend we are in the 1800's. Or even the 1990's. It's 2012.

And by the way: several of the recommended treatments are viewed as "race horse trainer cheating" by some lay people because for many years, race horse trainers have abused and misused some things associated with those therapies. Does that make them less valid when used appropriately as a medical treatment? Of course not.

Do you know what is required on the race track to get permission from the stewards to give a horse lasix on race day?

Yes, virtually nothing. I know that isn't what is on paper. I've spent plenty of time on the backstretch, and that is reality.

Gary Stevens is going to testify before Congress. Stevens takes a zero-tolerance stance on race-day medication. Stevens must be a terrible guy to take such a stance. He must have some really selfish and negative intentions. It's either that, or he must just be really ignorant on the subject. LOL. Let the attacks on Stevens begin.

http://www.drf.com/news/hovdey-steve...day-medication

For me, if all horses need drugs to race, preventive or otherwise, there shouldn't be racing. I can't think of any other sport for any type of being where this would even be considered.

Congress are the last people that should be making medical decisions for doctors and their patients, don't you agree?

Veterinarians are quite willing to testify before Congress supporting a complete ban on all possible performance-enhancing drugs on race day in the horse industry. Every major veterinary organization in the country has come out publicly and strongly for that position: see the above position statements.

That doesn't include lasix, however. It does include all race day NSAIDS, and all current "bleeding prevention" adjunct drugs. Why is that? Why only lasix? Hummmm .....

So you are also against banning banamine? Omeprazole? Clenbuterol? Ketoprofen? Because there wouldn't be any horse racing without those drugs on the backstretch.

Horse racing in other countries use lasix daily as a therapeutic drug during speed training to prevent lung damage. It's just outlawed on race day. How backwards is that? It's allowed as a therapeutic drug on the race track in the morning, but not in the afternoon?

It's 2012. We shouldn't be making medical decisions for horses based upon decades-old outdated information and assumptions from the past.

Other horse sports do. The FEI, the Federation Equestre Internationale, for example at the Rolex International Three-Day Event here in KY now, has a list of permitted competition-day drugs, which includes certain levels of aspirin, banamine, and bute. That's right - on competition day. These drugs are not considered performance-enhancing at the allowable levels.

And the FEI is twice as tough on testing and drugs as horse racing could ever dream of being.

The Olympics has a long list of competition-day allowable drugs, and levels, that athletes can use. Includes albuterol and other "lung" (asthma) drugs.

We need to ban illegal performance enhancers. Not helpful therapeutics.

This is the closest you've ever come to making any sort of sense.

I assure you, in 50 years, they are going to be saying the same kind of thing as what you said about colic.

LOL - About lasix? Heck no. We know all about the pharmacology of lasix.

Banning certain drugs could actually backfire. For example, if they banned bute, it would probably make trainers more likely to inject ankles and knees. That would be worse for the horses. I don't know what the answer is.

Certainly looks like furosemide's days are numbered. Hope it works! We all know what this is about. The industry has to drastically reduce the number of catastrophic breakdowns. We can't have Mrs. Alvarado (the NM woman in the NY Times article) bringing her family to the track only to see animals being euthanized. When people go to the track they expect to see a horse race, not a slaughterhouse. If one in five hundred NFL football players died every player start we'd have two players killed every fall weekend. How would that go over? one in five hundred is not an accident; one in five hundred is a bloodsport.

No, I do not agree. I totally disagree. The horseracing industry has done a horrible job of policing itself. The fox has not done a good job of guarding the hen-house. They've had the last 20 years to clean up the sport and they won't do it.

I think the doctor/patient argument is a horrible analogy here. In general, doctors usually do what is best for their patients. Doctors work for their patients. In horseracing, the vet does not work for his patient (the horse). The vets works for the owner and trainer, both of whom often do not have the best interest of the horse in mind.

If owners and trainers had the best interest of the horse in mind, you wouldn't have the state vet scratching horses the morning of the race. Why does the state vet scratch horses the morning of the race? Because trainers will sometimes attempt to run unsound horses. This proves that some trainers do not have the best interest of the horse in mind.

Anyway, you have a sport where hundreds of millions of dollars are being bet. When you have that much money being bet, there needs to be a governing body that insures integrity. With the stock market, they don't police themselves. You have the SEC that does that.

There needs to be someone there to protect the horses and protect the public. In my opinion, the racing industry has proven time and time again that they are incapable of policing themselves. Any time someone wants to make a significant change, the owners and trainers start dragging their feet. I'd rather have the industry take charge of itself but if they're not going to do it, then I have no problem with the government coming in.

Lets keep this simple. Pretend horse racing wasn't legal today. Now, imagine somebody proposed it as a gambling venture nationally. They give all the positives, the money and jobs it can generate, etc. At the end of the proposal, they mention, "Oh, by the way, pretty much every horse is going to be injected with a drug so they don't bleed in the lungs before they race." What do you think the chances are racing would be approved?

I put it at right around 0%, but certainly no higher than 0%.

That's not true.

Some group of self righteous vets would lobby for it, saying the drug is totally safe, and in fact, everyone and everything should be on it.

Nicely done! (But still 0% chance it would be legalized under those conditions)

Legalized? Who said anything about legalized?

After the vet and drug lobbies got after them, it would be mandated!

That is ridiculous. What percentage of horses in other countries train on lasix during speed training, 5% at the most? It is an extremely small percent. It would only be horses that are considered bad bleeders.

found this while trying to find info on lasix in foreign countries:

Long Term Lung Changes in ‘Bleeders’
It is well known that once a horse has a ‘severe’ bleed, it’s
subsequent race performance is likely to be reduced. The upper,
back sections of the lung receive high blood flow during
exercise, and is the area which exhibits evidence of vascular
changes and long term damage following a severe ‘bleeding’
episode. Prof. Frederik Derksen and other leading, well known
researchers at Michigan State and Melbourne University,
investigated the effects of bleeding on lung pathology. It is
currently believed that bleeding (or Exercise-Induced Pulmonary
Haemorrhage (EIPH) results from high internal blood pressures
(hypertension) and stress failure of the walls of the lung airsac
(alveolar) capillary arteries in all-out pacing and galloping
horses. However, the pathological changes that would be
expected in this case, with vessel fibrosis, blockage and small
bypass vessels that form within the bronchial walls, were not as
severe as previously identified. The new Michigan study
identified significant lung vascular changes, including increased
vein hypertension in the lung drainage vessels after a ‘bleeding’
episode. It was also found that both lungs had similar changes,
despite previous findings that the hind lobes of the left lung were
more scarred following a severe ‘bleed’. The study found more
collagen ‘scar’ tissue or fibrosis, degenerative red cell/monocyte
accumulation (haemosiderin) and vascular remodelling in the
airsac lining vessels in both the capillaries and drainage veins, as
well as the separating elastic (interstitial) tissues. The diameter
of the supply and drainage vessels were decreased by greater
than 50% during the healing process. This could be the reason
for the poor performance after a ‘bleed’, with increased lung
fluid build-up (oedema) and lower oxygen uptake.
Editor’s Note: The study indicated that restriction of the
veins in the area most effected by a ‘severe’ bleed, may
underlie the other damage seen after a ‘bleed’ and reduce
subsequent performance by affecting lung efficiency in
the long term. Restricting water intake for 6 hours prior
to racing may also help to reduce lung oedema and fluid
retention.



i'd want to prevent a bleed that would cause lasting damage. what would you tell me to do instead, if i was worried about such a thing, knowing the drug has medical uses and can prevent unnecessary damage to a horse that someone potentially invests a lot of money in?
if your concern is that it could move a horse up, but most horses already use it anyway, doesn't that negate any possible move-up? and many articles i've read say it's not a performance enhancer. is that an opinion, and not a proven fact? from what i've read in various studies, it's not a fact.

http://www.nytha.com/pdf/the_lasix_question.pdf


interesting point regarding witholding hay and water for 24-48 hours before racing.

Why does anyone care what Gary Stevens thinks about the topic? And why does his own personal experience matter considering he is not only being disingenious about why he kept coming back to ride not to mention because he is not a horse it isnt really relevant.

So anything you or your ex-employee say isn't relevant either? I know you aren't a horse, and I don't think Riot is either.

Seriously though Chuck, if racing were trying to be legalized today and one of the stipulations was that virtually every horse had to receive a drug injection before racing, what are the chances it would, in fact, be legalized?

Horse racing doesnt do a good job of policing itself because it doesnt have the authority to police itself.

And horseracing is far less corrupt than the stock market and its major participants

By the way the government has been supposedly protecting the horses and public for a long time and they obviously do such a poor job it has made guys like you forget that little factoid. The difference between a state racing commission and a national racing commission is the latter will just cost more to operate.

Gary Stevens is using his own personal medical history as the basis of his argument. That if he has taken time off instead of injecting his knees that he would still be riding. Of course his memory seems to be a bit short as to why he came back (financial issues relating to having too many kids) and that "rest" wasnt really an option. I would also add that jockeys rarely have much idea as to what goes on with individual horses outside of the 15 minutes that they spend on their back but Stevens does have that 3 month training career to fall back on.

As for your speculation I doubt that that issue would be relevant in the legalization as it is still is not required treatment. I undertsand what you are saying but this is being made into a far bigger item than it deserves and because this has become a political correctness battle it is impossible for those in favor of lasix use to win. The real question is what will the fallout be? May not work out so good in the long run.

It sure seems required looking at the entries every day at every track. That is my point, and you guys avoid that. Either 99% of horses need it, or they don't. We aren't talking cheap claimers here. Check out my BC Classic list. Our best horses ALL get Lasix. I find it hard to believe they all need it.

The fallout will probably be hard on the game short term, but long term, I don't think it is nearly as grave as some seem to think.

So what? What difference does it make really? Virtually every horse gets a shot of bute 24 hours out as well and has for 40 years.

There is a certain English trainer that came to the US after a very successful career in Europe. I was helping a vet in FL out one Winter shortly after that trainer came here full time and the vet was tasked with treating this trainers horse which had shipped in for a stake. The instructions were amazing not only in the amount of shots given but the timing which was all listed as well. The vet who did not treat this trainers horses regularly did not follow the detailed instructions and gave all the shots at once when the first shot was supposed to be given. The instructions were 3 days long and shots were to be given 3 or 4 different times a day leading up to raceday. The point being that this trainer was a freaking expert on drugs (all legal meds but given in a far different manner than the Vet or I had ever seen or heard of). It is almost implausible that he hadnt been treating horses in a similar fashion for quite some time in Europe where every thing is supposedly wonderful.

So what? It should be painfully obvious by now. It is all about perception. Drugging every horse before they race is never going to be perceived very well, and I personally don't think it should be. Every horse shouldn't get Bute either. They don't all need it.

Perception? Who brought this entire debate into the publics eye because it sure hasn't been much of a topic for a long time? This is a issue that was created by those within the game who have their own agenda which is largely misguided. If giving a horse a shot of lasix is "drugging" them then pretty much all of us (with the notable exception of Indian Charlie) are drugging ourselves every day as well.

The perception of this sport has very little to do with lasix.

We are? All of us are getting injections? I have a herniated disc, so I have had a few this year, but not so I could compete. I would say a very small percentage are getting injections, and of that, how many are doing it to compete in sports?

The evidence that the general public gives a damn about anything we do in this sport is flimsy. For those which are ardent followers of the sport I can think of many better ways to address the perception issue than elimnating raceday lasix (in other words for the majority of people, taking the L in the program away). This sport has a lot of huge issues staring it in the face and lasix usage or lack there of is hardly going to solve any of them.

Well, it's hard to argue against your made up, imaginary guesses when you pretend they are fact.

The lasix haters need to face the truth: lasix isn't a nasty performance enhancing drug, it's an excellent therapeutic drug that prevents a common, rampant bleeding problem in horses lungs. It's a medical problem that is a horse problem, not a racing problem.

Some in the industry have done a good job brainwashing the non-reasoning believers otherwise, based upon old and now-proven-false information from decades ago. This purposeful blindness, while ignoring the real drug problems in this sport, using the silly straw men of steroids and lasix, is a direct threat to the continued existence of this industry due to their purposeful ignorance. Let alone the health and welfare of the horse.

And my statement as zero to do with getting every single illegal and performance-enhancing drug out of the sport - which is exactly what the veterinary community wants to do, and is trying to do. And I agree with that stance of zero tolerance for performance-enhancing drugs completely.

So all those diabetics that give themselves shots are druggies because they use a needle to treat their disease? Lasix comes in many forms including pills, would it make you feel better if we gave them pills? What difference does it make what delivery system you are using? We give electrolytes and fluids to horses using catheters and no one is against them.

Refusing to acknowledge that lasix is a preventative measure clouds your entire argument.

Excuse me. Nonsense. I have pointed out repeatedly to you on this thread that research shows that an average of 93% of race horses have evidence of microscopic bleeding in their lungs. Stop blinding ignoring that and saying differently.

The veterinary world has shown we have definitive proof, over the years, that 93% of horses bleed, and the "veterinary world" strongly advises lasix's continued use as a therapeutic medication on race day due to proven medical benefits of the drug in attenuating the severity and incidence of EIPH. Stop ignoring that essential truth.

:tro:

There is a whole list of approved therapeutic medications that can be used in horse competitions internationally, (and humans, too) at the Olympic level, etc. All while there is zero tolerance for illegal drugs, and/or excessive levels of therapeutic drugs, with far more aggressive and restrictive - and further advanced - testing and detection procedures than the American horse racing industry.

The American racing industry should stop being a club of old rich but rather ignorant men, harrumping and grunting about lasix and steroids and thinking they are making a difference, and start stepping up into the 21st century like the rest of the world.

It would be good to reflect upon why the racing industry isn't embracing what's common in other elite performance horse sports in the rest of the world, and continues to cry about ... lasix? Seriously? All the problems in racing, and they are setting fire to the straw man of lasix?

is there a way to know beforehand whether a horse will bleed at any given time? are there warnings, advanced notice? any way to know if it'll be a minor or a major episode? since i've read that major bleeding can cause permanent damage that can lesser a horses ability in future, is there a way to know ahead of time what horses need lasix? or can it occur at any time to any horse? i've read in the past that a horse has bled in a race and had never done so before.

so, if you want to cut down on giving lasix, how do you go about doing that? and when one bleeds, do you just say 'oops' to the owner, the jock and the bettors?

Unfortunately, no.

Bleeding into the lungs is detectable in all race horse horses post-exercise:

5% of the time by waiting for blood to bubble up out of the lungs, up through the trachea, and gush from nostrils

75% of the time by using an endoscope to look for evidence of frank blood in the trachea

93% of the time by doing a transtracheal wash or broncheoalvelar lavage and seeing blood cells that have ruptured into the alveoli (air sacs).

The location of scarring is the capillary-aveolar sac interface.

On the track, horses don't get approved for lasix use until a vet documents a bleeding episode via endoscopy.

The solution to bad "perception" is not to choose to undermine the health care of the horse in favor of supporting and giving in to public ignorance about drugs.

The solution is educating the ignorance away.

That's proven to be really difficult in some.

I don't think most people really care that much about the health of horses. Out of sight, out of mind.

Oh they claim they do because who would admit the not caring but this entire debate is not about the health of horses. Most people just havent come to that realization yet.

Faithful pawns are useful for maintaining power. Burn a straw man, it's as good as solving a real problem to those pawns that like fire, rather than substance.