TDN OP-ED: Jerry Brown on missing Lasix discussion point

[Danzig]

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

• Much has been made of the effects of weight
loss on an athlete’s performance. The weight loss
effect of Lasix is
comparable to the weight
loss a horse might
experience if denied hay
and water for 24 to 48
hours before a race, as was often the practice before the advent of Lasix.
While Lasix use is strictly controlled, there is no oversight for if or when a
trainer takes away a horse's nutrients. Will this necessitate the
introduction of security to ensure that all trainers observe the same
protocol? Will it lead to headlines proclaiming, “Horses Starved and
Dehydrated Before They Race”?

• Lasix does not allow a horse to perform beyond
its peak natural ability. It alleviates, but does not
eliminate, a condition that hampers peak
performance. Anecdotally, historically and
scientifically, it has been demonstrated clearly
that EIPH adversely affects performance. Horses run slower when they bleed. Anecdotally,
historically and scientifically, it has been demonstrated clearly that Lasix is significantly effective
in minimizing EIPH. The refusal to connect these dots is the height of, “Don’t confuse us with the
facts.”

6) Does Lasix mask other medications?
• During the International Summit on Race Day Medication, EIPH and the Racehorse,
Dr. Richard Sams, PhD, director of HFL Sport
Science Inc. in Lexington, stated that, after the
American Association of Equine Practitioners
came up with a universally accepted standard of
practice for Lasix in 1983--recommending that it
be administered intravenously and at a time four
hours prior to a race--the concern that Lasix
could affect the detectability of other
medications was addressed. “That concern is
largely eliminated when [Lasix] is administered in
a tightly controlled environment, as it is in the
United States,” Dr. Sams said. He concluded, “I
don’t refer to [Lasix] as a masking agent. It’s
impact on post-race testing is not very
significant.”
17
• In an article in Daily Racing Form, Steven Crist said, “The whole issue of whether Lasix can
mask other drugs was a valid concern a generation ago--perhaps the best reason to oppose its
use--but from all veterinary accounts this is now a non-issue. The vastly increased precision of
testing, and a greater reliance on plasma rather than urine tests, has made this a moot point.”

[Danzig]

2) They race without Lasix in Europe, in Hong Kong, in Japan. Why do we need it in the U.S.?
• Outside of the United States, the majority of racing jurisdictions still use archaic medical
science when it comes to an official diagnosis of EIPH.6 If a horse does not show evidence of
epistaxis (bleeding from one or both nostrils), they are not considered bleeders. With the modern
technology available to aid in diagnosis, this is the medical equivalent of refusing to use an X-ray
machine to diagnose fractures. It is irresponsible to wait for a horse to be in crisis to make a
diagnosis.
• Outside the United States, the majority of racing jurisdictions fail to officially acknowledge the
prevalence of EIPH, despite the incontrovertible
evidence that it affects the majority of horses.
BUT, trainers in Europe and Australia use Lasix
during training on a regular basis. The trainers
acknowledge its effectiveness in treating EIPH--
the ONLY motivation for using Lasix during
morning workouts is the alleviation of EIPH.

[King Glorious]

Except cmorioles hasn't said that he'd rather see it not given. Not from what I've been reading anyway. He said he would just rather there be a penalty given to those that use it. The horse that just came to my mind is Smarty Jones. If memory serves me right, John Servis did exactly as cmorioles is talking about here. He felt forced to take it to make sure his horse was competing on an even playing field even though his horse wasn't a bleeder. If there was a weight penalty in place instead, perhaps Servis doesn't add the drug because the penalty would have the effect of leveling the playing field.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Except cmorioles hasn't said that he'd rather see it not given. Not from what I've been reading anyway. He said he would just rather there be a penalty given to those that use it. The horse that just came to my mind is Smarty Jones. If memory serves me right, John Servis did exactly as cmorioles is talking about here. He felt forced to take it to make sure his horse was competing on an even playing field even though his horse wasn't a bleeder. If there was a weight penalty in place instead, perhaps Servis doesn't add the drug because the penalty would have the effect of leveling the playing field.

Exactly, and to be clear, this was Jerry Brown's idea. I just think it is a good compromise to what we have now. Anything is better than drugging every horse "just in case".

[cmorioles]

I'd love to hear how known bleeder Rich Tapestry was able to come over here and win a G1 without Lasix? How is it possible that he can run at all after all his documented episodes of EPIH? Shouldn't he be deteriorating to the point he can't run as well any longer? Or is he just a miracle horse?

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I'd love to hear how known bleeder Rich Tapestry was able to come over here and win a G1 without Lasix? How is it possible that he can run at all after all his documented episodes of EPIH? Shouldn't he be deteriorating to the point he can't run as well any longer? Or is he just a miracle horse?

You mean Rich Tapestry that's only run twice since December of last year? That Rich Tapestry?

If the argument is that Lasix makes them run less frequently, he's not helping prove that point. He had six months off before that race he just won.

[GenuineRisk]

The problem with adding a weight penalty is then trainers are going to weigh the chances of an EIPH episode with the chances of a weight break. And that puts the horse's safety and the safety of everyone else in the race at risk if, god forbid, the horse drops mid-race from an EIPH episode.

It's not an advantage if every horse may use it. It doesn't make a horse run faster than they can; it gives them a better chance to run to the best of their ability because they are less likely to be running with blood in their lungs. If minimizing the effects of a horse's natural physical shortcomings is giving an unfair advantage we should also ban any sort of corrective surgery, whether for crooked legs or flipped palates. Bone chips? They're out of racing for good.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Except cmorioles hasn't said that he'd rather see it not given. Not from what I've been reading anyway. He said he would just rather there be a penalty given to those that use it. The horse that just came to my mind is Smarty Jones. If memory serves me right, John Servis did exactly as cmorioles is talking about here. He felt forced to take it to make sure his horse was competing on an even playing field even though his horse wasn't a bleeder. If there was a weight penalty in place instead, perhaps Servis doesn't add the drug because the penalty would have the effect of leveling the playing field.

Trainers aren't veterinarians. Their job is to give the horse what they feel is the best opportunity to win a race, and they aren't necessarily going to do everything based on evidence. There have been plenty of trends that turn out to not be supported by science later, but that in the meantime people practice. Trainers used to tie copper around their horses' tails in an attempt to minimize EIPH? Wut? But they did it. Hell, millions of people use glucosamine even though there actually isn't any solid evidence that it works. Doctors will even recommend it (and they should know better).

So I get why Servis, on the eve of the biggest race in the country, thought, "well, just in case." But it doesn't mean it actually was performance-enhancing, or that Smarty would have lost the race had he not been on it.