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

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Riot

Overall yes, lasix vastly reduces the incidence of detection of bleeding due to EIPH in horses, including stopping it in some horses.

So the majority of horses treated with lasix do not bleed?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

So the majority of horses treated with lasix do not bleed?

The majority have their previously documented level of bleeding markedly decreased or gone, as evidenced by bronchoscopy clinically and BAL/TTW in research. Lasix does not work in all horses, some are unaffected.

The origins and causes of EIPH are thought to be multifactorial. In the 1990's I worked on the research that first measured actual cardiopulmonary intravascular pressures in horses while galloping at racing speed both on and off lasix. Lasix decreases the exercise-induced increase in cardiac and pulmonary pressures. High blood pressure rupturing fragile capillaries in the lung has always been one suspected cause of EIPH.

Chronic airway inflammation predisposing to capillary failure is another. I'd love to study the lungs of horses that live year-round at Churchill Downs, bordered by highways and under airport plane exhaust.

Another is the physical pounding, and physics: the sheer forces created within the lung tissue as a horse gallops a long time over firm ground carrying weight.

Another is the huge variance in intrapulmonary airway pressures, upper vs lower, during massive air intake of exercise - why the Flair nasal strips which hold the upper airway open decrease EIPH as much as lasix in some horses.

[Riot]

Cannon wrote: I have no doubt that horses treated aggressively with gastrogard for stomach ulcers perform far greater than those who arent treated but because those horses are not designated no one talks about that. Using the logic that some do, Gastrogard would be considered a performance enhancer as well.

That's a very good analogy, actually.

I cannot consider lasix a performance enhancer any more than preventative inhaler asthma meds are for a running athlete who happens to have asthma. Lasix enables a horse to run to their peak, by helping prevent the development of a medical condition that will inhibit running ability by suffocating the horse in it's own blood to a lesser or greater degree.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Riot

Lasix enables a horse to run to their peak, by helping prevent the development of a medical condition that will inhibit running ability by suffocating the horse in it's own blood to a lesser or greater degree.

But doesn't lasix have other systemic effects besides reducing the severity of bleeding that may improve performance? At the same time, does lung bleeding necessarily preclude a horse from performing competitively?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

But doesn't lasix have other systemic effects besides reducing the severity of bleeding that may improve performance?

It can cause a small weight loss via diuresis (causing peeing), but research doesn't seem to support that the weight loss is contributory to any improved performance (there was a study that repeated everything with and without lasix with also replacing the weight lost by the horse due to lasix).

Lasix is the same "water pill" people take who have cardiac problems. Used in a one-time prerace injection, it won't cause a massive weight loss, it doesn't cause massive dehydration, it doesn't cause massive electrolyte problems (unless a trainer is really screwing with stuff by also spiking electrolytes in an excessive manner, or withholding water from the horse for 24 hours, etc)

Its funny - watching Australian racing, the temps there have been hot lately, and horses are literally wringing water off their bodies by the time they get to the post. We don't see that on horses using lasix to that extent (sweating is cooling) - but I'll bet those horses lose 20-30 pounds in water weight, too, before a race.

At the same time, does lung bleeding necessarily preclude a horse from performing competitively?

If your lungs are filled with mucus from a cold, can you breath? Can you do your 2-3 miles of daily roadwork? Can you inhale deeply and oxygenate yourself successfully under maximal physical effort?

Depends upon the amount of stuff down in your smallest airways and alveolar sacs, right?

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Riot

If your lungs are filled with mucus from a cold, can you breath? Can you do your 2-3 miles of daily roadwork? Can you inhale deeply and oxygenate yourself successfully under maximal physical effort?

Depends upon the amount of stuff down in your smallest airways and alveolar sacs, right?

It's hard to believe that a horse suffering a bleeding episode during a race will run to its maximum effort, but that doesn't mean that it can't race competitively all the same, does it? Certainly there have been winners of races found to have bled post-race.

Horses are still bleeding despite the use of lasix, so it's not necessarily a forgone conclusion that lasix is the definitive treatment for bleeding. In fact, in the AVMA link you provided, the organization supported the use of lasix only in the "absence of a more effective treatment...". Hardly a ringing endorsment.

Don't many believe that horses are able to continue to perform even with minor injuries of all types? In fact, what percentage of racehorses, or any type of athlete, are considered to be completely "sound"?

As to the protection of the betting public, does lasix administration guarantee that a horse is being given ample opportunity to run to its best? Don't most jurisdictions allow for a variable dose lasix to be administered on raceday. Who's to stop the connections of a known bleeder (but probably unknown to the public), controlled normally with the maximum allowable amount of lasix, to suddenly drop the dose to the minimum? Would it be simpler and beneficial for the betting public's interest (and not necessarily the horse's health) to prevent this from the outset, by not allowing a licensed veterinarian in the stall on raceday with a needle and syringe and perhaps by banning horses from racing that bleed visibily from the nose?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

It's hard to believe that a horse suffering a bleeding episode during a race will run to its maximum effort, but that doesn't mean that it can't race competitively all the same, does it? Certainly there have been winners of races found to have bled post-race.

Absolutely. We've raced horses since the dawn of time and we see the 1 in 20 that bleed out through their nose, but not the rest.

But now we have more advanced medicine, and we know what bleeding out the nose can mean, and we have a drug that helps the majority of horses not do that and thus not scar their lungs, get infections, suffocate.

Horses are still bleeding despite the use of lasix, so it's not necessarily a forgone conclusion that lasix is the definitive treatment for bleeding. In fact, in the AVMA link you provided, the organization supported the use of lasix only in the "absence of a more effective treatment...". Hardly a ringing endorsment.

You've certainly misread that

As I've pointed out here, the causes of EIPH are thought to be multifactorial, and we know that lasix doesn't work on some horses. That, and FLAIR strips, are the best, and have shown to be most efficacious. Nobody, especially the veterinary world, has declared lasix a "definitive treatment" in the least. Yes, we are always looking to improve upon that. There are multiple other drugs attempted to help EIPH. They don't work. Yes, the AVMA and AAEP is indeed a "ringing endorsement", calling specifically for the use of this one drug on race day against all others, against the current racing establishment. Why? Because it's use protects horse lungs. It protects horses lives, use, and ability to be a racehorse. In spite of every other jurisdiction in the world, including American non-racing equine sports, forbidding lasix use, the AVMA and AAEP are fighting and recommending that lasix only continue to be an allowed race day medication.

http://www.avma.org/issues/policy/an...racehorses.asp

And it's not "to make vets money". That's absurd beyond belief. It's because it works and helps horses.

BTW: where is the betting public's outrage against the use of FLAIR nasal strips, which have the same efficacy in decreasing bleeding as lasix?

Don't many believe that horses are able to continue to perform even with minor injuries of all types? In fact, what percentage of racehorses, or any type of athlete, are considered to be completely "sound"?

Why shouldn't we help horses if they are hurting? Why should we not help keep horses from bleeding into their lungs? Getting harmed? That's inhumane.

We domesticated them, we breed them for a single purpose, and we use them for our pleasure, entertainment and income.

The least we can do, if we want horses to be elite athletes, is treat them with the respect and humane care they deserve, and give them the best veterinary care possible.

As to the protection of the betting public, does lasix administration guarantee that a horse is being given ample opportunity to run to its best? Don't most jurisdictions allow for a variable dose lasix to be administered on raceday. Who's to stop the connections of a known bleeder (but probably unknown to the public), controlled normally with the maximum allowable amount of lasix, to suddenly drop the dose to the minimum?

The stewards via current racing rules.

Do you know the influence of giving 6cc versus 10cc of lasix to a 1200-lb racehorse?

What are you afraid lasix will do to a horse that's unfair to the betting public or horse?

Would it be simpler and beneficial for the betting public's interest (and not necessarily the horse's health) to prevent this from the outset, by not allowing a licensed veterinarian in the stall on raceday with a needle and syringe and perhaps by banning horses from racing that bleed visibily from the nose?

Humm ... horse health versus betting public. I'll take horses health, the well-being of these beautiful athletes, every. single. time.

Without the horse, the betting public has nothing. And if the betting public (or an owner or trainer) puts their money against the welfare of the horse, they deserve to get absolutely nothing.

The "vet in the stall with a needle" has been easily remedied by state vets only giving lasix shots pre-race.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

It's hard to believe that a horse suffering a bleeding episode during a race will run to its maximum effort, but that doesn't mean that it can't race competitively all the same, does it? Certainly there have been winners of races found to have bled post-race.

Horses are still bleeding despite the use of lasix, so it's not necessarily a forgone conclusion that lasix is the definitive treatment for bleeding. In fact, in the AVMA link you provided, the organization supported the use of lasix only in the "absence of a more effective treatment...". Hardly a ringing endorsment.

Don't many believe that horses are able to continue to perform even with minor injuries of all types? In fact, what percentage of racehorses, or any type of athlete, are considered to be completely "sound"?

As to the protection of the betting public, does lasix administration guarantee that a horse is being given ample opportunity to run to its best? Don't most jurisdictions allow for a variable dose lasix to be administered on raceday. Who's to stop the connections of a known bleeder (but probably unknown to the public), controlled normally with the maximum allowable amount of lasix, to suddenly drop the dose to the minimum? Would it be simpler and beneficial for the betting public's interest (and not necessarily the horse's health) to prevent this from the outset, by not allowing a licensed veterinarian in the stall on raceday with a needle and syringe and perhaps by banning horses from racing that bleed visibily from the nose?

After a race, trainers will often times have their vet scope the horse to see if the horse bled. If the horse did bleed, the vet will usually rate the severity of the bleeding on a scale of 1-5. If they tell you that the horse bled and the severity was a "3", you can assume that the bleeding probably affected the horse's performance negatively. But if the vet tells you that the horse barely bled (just a drop) and the severity wasn't even a "1", the vet will usually tell you that the bleeding had no effect on the horse's performance.

As Riot said, it is normal for racehorses to bleed. I think she said that 93% of horses will show trace amounts of blood if you scope them. A trace amount of blood is not going to affect their performance. It doesn't mean that you shouldn't take it seriously or that you shouldn't stay on top of it. If it starts to get worse, it could become a problem.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Riot

That's a very good analogy, actually.

I cannot consider lasix a performance enhancer any more than preventative inhaler asthma meds are for a running athlete who happens to have asthma. Lasix enables a horse to run to their peak, by helping prevent the development of a medical condition that will inhibit running ability by suffocating the horse in it's own blood to a lesser or greater degree.

I would buy that if it wasn't used so liberally. I'll just never believe that every horse in North America needs it, yet they get it anyway. Since it isn't free, it seems a lot of trainers feel they need it to level the playing field, i.e. it enhances performance.

Many of the European horses that don't need it ship for the BC and they get it anyway. Why is that? European trainers seem to think it is a performance enhancer. Are they just uneducated? The ones that don't get it rarely run to their odds. Just coincidence?

[Riot]

Anyone can poke around at www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Use EIPH and race horse as your search terms

I found these with EIPH furosemide speed as the search terms

J Am Vet Med Assoc. 1999 Sep 1;215(5):670-5.

Effect of furosemide on performance of Thoroughbreds racing in the United States and Canada.

Gross DK, Morley PS, Hinchcliff KW, Wittum TE.
Source

Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus 43210, USA.
Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of furosemide on performance of Thoroughbreds racing on dirt surfaces at tracks in the United States and Canada.

DESIGN: Cross-sectional study.

ANIMALS: All Thoroughbreds (n = 22,589) that finished a race on dirt surfaces at tracks in the United States and Canada between June 28 and July 13, 1997 in jurisdictions that allowed the use of furosemide.

PROCEDURE: Race records were analyzed by use of multivariable ANOVA procedures and logistic regression analyses to determine the effect of furosemide on estimated 6-furlong race time, estimated racing speed, race earnings, and finish position. Principal component analysis was used to create orthogonal scores from multiple collinear variables for inclusion in the models.

RESULTS: Furosemide was administered to 16,761 (74.2%) horses. Horses that received furosemide raced faster, earned more money, and were more likely to win or finish in the top 3 positions than horses that did not. The magnitude of the effect of furosemide on estimated 6-furlong race time varied with sex, with the greatest effect in males.

When comparing horses of the same sex, horses receiving furosemide had an estimated 6-furlong race time that ranged from 0.56 +/- 0.04 seconds (least-squares mean +/- SE) to 1.09 +/- 0.07 seconds less than that for horses not receiving furosemide, a difference equivalent to 3 to 5.5 lengths.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE:

Because of the pervasive use of furosemide and its apparent association with superior performance in Thoroughbred racehorses, further consideration of the use of furosemide and investigation of its effects in horses is warranted.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10476714

Am J Vet Res. 1990 May;51(5):772-8.

Effects of furosemide on the racing times of Thoroughbreds.

Sweeney CR, Soma LR, Maxson AD, Thompson JE, Holcombe SJ, Spencer PA.
Source

Department of Clinical Studies, New Bolton Center, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Kennett Square 19348.
Abstract

The effects of furosemide on the racing times of 79 horses without exercise-induced pulmonary hemorrhage (EIPH) and 52 horses with EIPH were investigated.

Racing times were adjusted to 1-mile equivalent racing times by 2 speed handicapping methods, and analysis of covariance was used to adjust actual racing times by winning time and distance for each race.

All 3 methods of determining racing time indicated that geldings without EIPH had significantly faster racing times (P less than 0.05) when given furosemide before racing than when furosemide was not given before racing.

Females and colts without EIPH were determined to have faster racing times when furosemide was given before racing, but the difference was not significant.

Geldings with EIPH had significantly faster racing times (P = 0.0231) when given furosemide before racing, as determined by one of the speed handicapping methods.

There was a strong correlation (range 0.9314 to 0.9751) between the 1-mile equivalent racing times, as determined by the 2 speed handicapping methods for horses with and without EIPH.

Furosemide failed to prevent the development of EIPH in many horses that were previously considered to be EIPH-negative.

When given furosemide, 62 (25.3%) of 235 EIPH-negative horses were EIPH-positive after racing.

Furosemide had questionable efficacy for prevention of EIPH in known EIPH-positive horses.

Thirty-two (61.5%) of 52 EIPH-positive horses given furosemide before a race remained EIPH-positive after that race.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2337276

Am J Vet Res. 1980 Aug;41(8):1183-9.

Effects of furosemide on cardiovascular function and performance when given prior to simulated races: a double-blind study.

Milne DW, Gabel AA, Muir WW, Skarda RT, Hamlin RL, Pipers FS.
Abstract

In a double-blind study under simulated racing conditions, six Standardbred horses, which had been trained for 12 weeks, were given 1 mg of furosemide/kg of body weight or saline solution IV 15 minutes before the first of two warm-up workouts (1.6 km at 60-minute intervals).

Sixty minutes later, 135 minutes after drug or placebo injection, these horses were driven 1.6 km at maximum speed.

Heart rate, respiratory rate, cardiac output, pulmonary trunk pressure, body temperature, PCV, arterial oxygen, and plasma lactic acid were recorded during and after the first warm-up workout and after a simulated race (1.6 km).

Values increased compared with values determined at rest whether saline solution or furosemide was given.

There were decreases in arterial CO2 and pH. When furosemide was given, the pulmonary trunk pressure was significantly lower (P < 0.05) during the first warm-up workout (1.6 km). There were no significant differences in the other values.

The average times of the simulated races were not significantly (P < 0.05) different after the use of furosemide compared with average times after use of saline solution.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6778267

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I would buy that if it wasn't used so liberally. I'll just never believe that every horse in North America needs it, yet they get it anyway. Since it isn't free, it seems a lot of trainers feel they need it to level the playing field, i.e. it enhances performance.

Many of the European horses that don't need it ship for the BC and they get it anyway. Why is that? European trainers seem to think it is a performance enhancer. Are they just uneducated? The ones that don't get it rarely run to their odds. Just coincidence?

but aren't many using it because of what it prevents? horses can have an episode without having given a previous warning. i know some horses have had a significant amount of bleeding and have never bled before.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Danzig

but aren't many using it because of what it prevents? horses can have an episode without having given a previous warning. i know some horses have had a significant amount of bleeding and have never bled before.

And isn't it the crux of the issue? Was Lasix originally legalized as a preventative measure for non-bleeders? Of course not, it was used to try to cure those that had bled.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

And isn't it the crux of the issue? Was Lasix originally legalized as a preventative measure for non-bleeders? Of course not, it was used to try to cure those that had bled.

And if they had known then that it would be a preventative for the issue that they were trying to cure what makes you think that they wouldn't have allowed it?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

And isn't it the crux of the issue? Was Lasix originally legalized as a preventative measure for non-bleeders? Of course not, it was used to try to cure those that had bled.

it's to prevent bleeding as well. if you don't know when it'll strike, it seems treating after is not nearly as good an outcome as prevention would be. if you can keep a horse from bleeding, for some severely, why wouldn't you? other countries don't allow horses who have had bleeding episodes to breed-so they send any who end up bleeding out of country to race before they get too many episodes. the fact they still have bleeders with those rules points to the fact that it may not be just genetic, if they're trying to weed them out, yet still get them.
i know if i could take medications that would prevent illness and damage, i would. i wouldn't wait til i had an episode-a bit late then, isn't it?

[Bill K]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

And isn't it the crux of the issue? Was Lasix originally legalized as a preventative measure for non-bleeders? Of course not, it was used to try to cure those that had bled.

Unfortunately lasix has never been proved to prevent EPIH. If it doesn't prevent why the nearly 100% use in USA racing?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I would buy that if it wasn't used so liberally. I'll just never believe that every horse in North America needs it, yet they get it anyway. Since it isn't free, it seems a lot of trainers feel they need it to level the playing field, i.e. it enhances performance.

Many of the European horses that don't need it ship for the BC and they get it anyway. Why is that? European trainers seem to think it is a performance enhancer. Are they just uneducated? The ones that don't get it rarely run to their odds. Just coincidence?

Dont take offense but you are just guessing here. How can anyone determine what horses need or dont need lasix unless you can accurately pinpoint when a horse may have a bleeding episode? Trainers use it because it is a cheap, easy way to help your horse NOT bleed and with those who have bled before to try to prevent another episode. I'm sure you will counter with they can still bleed through lasix or it isnt proven to prevent bleeding (though I dont know how you could prove that given you rarely have any clue when your horse may bleed) but it is still a pretty effective, easy to use medication with few side effects. It isn't unlike wearing a seatbelt. A seatbelt might not save your life in a car wreck everytime but you sure do increase your chances with one.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

It isn't unlike wearing a seatbelt. A seatbelt might not save your life in a car wreck everytime but you sure do increase your chances with one.

Except, of course, that it is still a drug. You can't convince me that every horse needs a drug to run. The reason every horse gets is because trainers also believe it is a performance enhancer. I've heard many say as much.

[Fearless Leader]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Except, of course, that it is still a drug. You can't convince me that every horse needs a drug to run. The reason every horse gets is because trainers also believe it is a performance enhancer. I've heard many say as much.

It would probably be in your best interest to find some different trainers to associate with. I suggest looking for a few that actually know what they are talking about.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

The majority have their previously documented level of bleeding markedly decreased or gone, as evidenced by bronchoscopy clinically and BAL/TTW in research. Lasix does not work in all horses, some are unaffected.

The origins and causes of EIPH are thought to be multifactorial. In the 1990's I worked on the research that first measured actual cardiopulmonary intravascular pressures in horses while galloping at racing speed both on and off lasix. Lasix decreases the exercise-induced increase in cardiac and pulmonary pressures. High blood pressure rupturing fragile capillaries in the lung has always been one suspected cause of EIPH.

Chronic airway inflammation predisposing to capillary failure is another. I'd love to study the lungs of horses that live year-round at Churchill Downs, bordered by highways and under airport plane exhaust.

Another is the physical pounding, and physics: the sheer forces created within the lung tissue as a horse gallops a long time over firm ground carrying weight.

Another is the huge variance in intrapulmonary airway pressures, upper vs lower, during massive air intake of exercise - why the Flair nasal strips which hold the upper airway open decrease EIPH as much as lasix in some horses.

Speaking of pollution that the horses are breathing, I know that it would be expensive but wouldn't it be much better for the horses' lungs if the barn areas were re-done at all the tracks. At most tracks, the whole barn area is dirt. Why not put grass down everywhere and then pave the paths with that rubber brick stuff. Inside the barns, they could put down that rubber brick surface too.

I would have to think the horses would be less likely to bleed if their lungs weren't filled with all the dust that they breathe in all day in the barn area.

At Oaklawn Park they have a lot of grass in the barn areas. I would have to think that is much better than all that dirt and dust.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Speaking of pollution that the horses are breathing, I know that it would be expensive but wouldn't it be much better for the horses' lungs if the barn areas were re-done at all the tracks. At most tracks, the whole barn area is dirt. Why not put grass down everywhere and then pave the paths with that rubber brick stuff. Inside the barns, they could put down that rubber brick surface too.

I would have to think the horses would be less likely to bleed if their lungs weren't filled with all the dust that they breathe in all day in the barn area.

At Oaklawn Park they have a lot of grass in the barn areas. I would have to think that is much better than all that dirt and dust.

Horse airways are designed to work with the horse's head down in the clean, green grass, grazing.

Most non-racing barns feed hay on the ground for that reason. Tracks determine if a trainer can use straw (can have alot of molds) or shavings to bed. Off track some people use newspaper or simply rubber mats for bedding allergic horses.

Yeah, horses inhaling all that dust from gravel drives and dirt on the track isn't as good as not doing it.

Those pavers are high dollar items.

Hey - for a mere less than 2 million, you can purchase this place next to the TB Training Center in Lexington, and have all your horses out getting grass time daily!

http://www.biedermanbrokerage.com/ (third property down on Paris Pike)