NYTHA Lasix Primer & Letter to NYS RWB

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

The truth of the matter is that you are not an iota more qualified than anyone else to decide whether lasix is good for racing or not.

The truth of the matter is that I am far more qualified than you. I actually treat animals, including horses, with lasix, I am trained in it's pharmacology and use, I have a license and degree that proves that, and I am a published researcher regarding the pharmacologic effect of lasix in race horses.

You? You're a rude guy on the internet. You're entitled to an opinion on race day medications, but when you start saying false things about lasix to advance an agenda, I call bullsh.i.at. on the lasix lies. Because, yes, I know far more about lasix than you do.

But that is not the question. The question is whether lasix is good for racing or not.

The question is do you think using therapeutic medications that help protect the lungs of race horses should continue to be allowed?

You say no. Good luck with that. I'll fight you and your ilk every step of the way.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

The truth of the matter is that I am far more qualified than you. I actually treat animals, including horses, with lasix, I am trained in it's pharmacology and use, I have a license and degree that proves that, and I am a published researcher regarding the pharmacologic effect of lasix in race horses.

You? You're a rude guy on the internet. You're entitled to an opinion on race day medications, but when you start saying false things about lasix to advance an agenda, I call bullsh.i.at. on the lasix lies. Because, yes, I know far more about lasix than you do.



The question is do you think using therapeutic medications that help protect the lungs of race horses should continue to be allowed?

You say no. Good luck with that. I'll fight you and your ilk every step of the way.

You are more qualified than most to discuss the efficacy of lasix in preventing and/or lessening bleeding.

I've been in the business for 29 years as a bettor, owner, and racing manager. I talk to trainers every day. I talk to vets all the time. I look at our horses several times a week. I've been directly involved with close to 100 horses over the years. Do I know as much about lasix as you? Of course not. But I know enough about it and enough about all aspects of the business to have an informed opinion on the issue.

My opinion isn't necessarily right but it is at least an informed opinion.

You say I'm a "rude guy on the internet". I've posted on this board for several years and I think at least 95% of the posters would disagree with you. I think most people would tell you that I am one of the most polite people on this board.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

You are more qualified than most to discuss the efficacy of lasix in preventing and/or lessening bleeding.

That's right. And when the anti- lasix proponents start lying about the drug, and the science surrounding it, in order to further their agenda, that's when I entered the conversation.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

You are more qualified than most to discuss the efficacy of lasix in preventing and/or lessening bleeding.

I've been in the business for 29 years as a bettor, owner, and racing manager. I talk to trainers every day. I talk to vets all the time. I look at our horses several times a week. I've been directly involved with close to 100 horses over the years. Do I know as much about lasix as you? Of course not. But I know enough about it and enough about all aspects of the business to have an informed opinion on the issue.

My opinion isn't necessarily right but it is at least an informed opinion.

You say I'm a "rude guy on the internet". I've posted on this board for several years and I think at least 95% of the posters would disagree with you. I think most people would tell you that I am one of the most polite people on this board.

You are far more qualified to comment on lasix then a hack vet standing behind 60k other hack vets. Just because you did 8 years of school in Guadalajara doesn't make your opinion more qualified. Rollo just googles the stuff she alleges to know about and rebuts this hack at every turn. CJ points the proliferation of the drug in 99% of the horses, the hack reps they dont all NEED the drug, yet she is OK with horses getting it when it is not indicated. Why? simple she earns on treating horses and while nobody including a hack vet is getting rich sticking horses in the neck with 60 bucks worth of lasix its all the goodies that come with the "therapeutic drug" that such vets are after. It's a job they get paid to fix horses and make them feel better. You think its for the love of the animal these people work? I have nothing against earning and appreciate that some vets love horses, they also have trailer loads of Lubrisol etc to move and bills to pay. Hence 60k think its ok to juice a horse up with anything perceived to me safe.

The Vets are the real stars in todays racing world, not the horses, not the jock and not the trainers.

[Powderfinger]

What if they banned not only lasix but "bleeders" from racing? Say that after every race, the track vet examines the contestants and anyone with more that level 2 bleeding, or whatever, is disqualified from purse money. This certainly would change the picture, wouldn't it? Trainers would not only have to be concerned with how fast the horse is running but whether the horse is hurting himself or not.

Why is the horse's lungs bleeding? Because he's doing something he shouldn't. We've bred this animal to win and try at all costs. If I had an animal act where poodles jumped through a hoop 1000 times a second but , darn, their lungs bleed at the end, I'd be arrested for animal cruelty.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Powderfinger

What if they banned not only lasix but "bleeders" from racing? Say that after every race, the track vet examines the contestants and anyone with more that level 2 bleeding, or whatever, is disqualified from purse money. This certainly would change the picture, wouldn't it? Trainers would not only have to be concerned with how fast the horse is running but whether the horse is hurting himself or not.

Why is the horse's lungs bleeding? Because he's doing something he shouldn't. We've bred this animal to win and try at all costs. If I had an animal act where poodles jumped through a hoop 1000 times a second but , darn, their lungs bleed at the end, I'd be arrested for animal cruelty.

great idea. that would end racing once and for all. wouldn't take long either.

[Powderfinger]

Originally Posted by Danzig

great idea. that would end racing once and for all. wouldn't take long either.

I am curious why you think this? From what I read here only 5% of the current thoroughbred industry's inventory really need lasix. Maybe another 25% should have it.

So we get rid of 30% of the stock. Wouldn't the market eventually adjust and owners/trainers be more careful what they add to their stable?
I am still convinced that if the lungs bleed beyond a certain level, the horse is doing something it shouldn't. And for a vet to allow that animal to compete is borderline criminal. And giving it a shot of lasix is animal cruelty.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Powderfinger

. And giving it a shot of lasix is animal cruelty.

really????????????????

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Powderfinger

I am curious why you think this? From what I read here only 5% of the current thoroughbred industry's inventory really need lasix. Maybe another 25% should have it.

Where are you getting the false statistic that "only 5% of horses need lasix?" That's not been said here at all, even by those that are trying to deny lasix is a therapeutic medication. It is factually false. The incidence of EIPH is documented to be much higher, and that has been repeatedly said here.

Oh: and horses are not inanimate "inventory", they are more properly and objectively labeled "live stock", with "stock" for short, but actually they are living creatures with lungs that bleed at high intensity exercise levels.

I am still convinced that if the lungs bleed beyond a certain level, the horse is doing something it shouldn't. And for a vet to allow that animal to compete is borderline criminal. And giving it a shot of lasix is animal cruelty.

Please read the basic information page about Exercise-Induced Pulmonary Hemorrhage Kasept posted in the first link and first post of this thread, so you learn the basic facts about EIPH before you join the discussion.

EIPH is a horse problem, not a horse racing problem. It is not confined to Thoroughbred horses racing on the flat or over hurdles. It is not confined to North America. It is not confined to the Thoroughbred breed. It is a long-recognized medical problem, for which we have a therapeutic drug that helps.

Accusing vets of criminality for helping horses that suffer EIPH is ridiculous hyperbole, not to mention insulting. You can "believe" whatever you wish, such as dinosaurs walked the earth with humans and vaccinations cause autism, but that doesn't change the facts surrounding EIPH.

Here are some basic facts about Exercise-Induced Pulmonary Hemorrhage:

EIPH in Horses

EIPH has been reported to occur in a variety of race horse breeds including racing Thoroughbreds (both racing on the flat and over jumps) , American Quarter Horses (incidence of 50-75%), Standardbreds (incidence of 40-60%), Arabians, and Appaloosas. EIPH has also been reported in eventers, jumpers, polo ponies, endurance horses, draft horses that pull competitively,[1] and horses taking part in Western speed events such as reining, cutting and barrel racing. EIPH is now considered to be an inevitable consequence of moderate to intense exercise in horses and other athletic animals. The lowest intensities of exercise which have been reported to cause EIPH are intense trotting (40-60% maximal oxygen uptake)[2] and cantering at speeds of 16–19 miles per hour (26–31 km/h).[3]

It occurs less frequently in stallions than mares or geldings,[4] but it is associated with airway inflammation and increasing age.[5]

The affliction occurs when blood enters the air passages of a horse's lung, due to fractured lung capillaries. Blood is sometimes evident discharging from a horse's nostrils (epistaxis), however, epitaxis usually only occurs in 5% of bleeders.[1][6] If a horse does not exhibit epistaxis but is suspected to have EIPH, an endoscopic exam is performed soon after the horse is exercised.

Prevalence of EIPH in Horses

Based on surveys of horses examined endoscopically following racing, around 40 to 70% of horses have been reported to have blood in the trachea following a single post-race examination. One of the more recent and larger studies found an overall prevalence of just under 60%.[7] The time at which the examination is carried out can determine whether or not blood is seen. The usual time for examination is 30–40 minutes following exercise. If examination is carried out too soon after exercise then blood may not have progressed from the dorso-caudal (top and back) of the lung into the trachea. If the examination is carried out too long after exercise then any blood may have moved up the trachea and been swallowed and therefore not be visible at the time of examination. In one study (Birks et al. 2002), when horses were endoscoped on at least three separate occasions following racing, all horses had blood in the trachea on at least one occasion.

Epistaxis (blood coming from one or both nostrils) is much less common. In a survey of over 220,000 horse starts in UK Flat and National Hunt (jump) racing, 185 cases of epistaxis were identified giving a frequency of 0.83/1000 starts. Similar frequencies have been reported for epistaxis in Japan (1.5 per 1000 starts) and South Africa (1.65 per 1000 starts). However a study of racehorses in Korea reported a much higher frequency (8.4 per 1000 starts).[8]

It is believed that nearly all horses experience EIPH when exposed to strenuous exercise,[9] and it has the potential to decrease lung function over time. However, there are no documented cases of bleeding in wild horses when rounded up[10][unreliable source?] with helicopters from mountain tops in pens miles away.

Exercise-Induced Pulmonary Hemorrhage (EIPH) or bleeding

This occupational disease is a major lower respiratory problem of athletic horses. Horses with EIPH bleed from the lungs during intensive exercise. Usually the hemorrhage is minor but can at times be profuse. Fatalities are extremely rare. The cause of EIPH is unclear but several factors are evident. There is a definite relationship between small airway disease (bronchitis), alterations in the vasculature of the lung in the dorsal-caudal (upper back) tip of the lung field, and EIPH.

Until about 20 years ago, the condition was termed epistaxis (nosebleed) and the hemorrhage was thought to originate somewhere in the head. The introduction of the fiberoptic endoscope to equine veterinary practice in the early 1970s allowed the safe and effective visualization of the upper respiratory tract of horses for the first time. It showed that the blood actually originated from the lungs. Furthermore, less than one horse in 20 which has EIPH has blood at the nostrils. University studies indicate a significant percentage of racehorses, as high as 85% in one study, experience EIPH to some degree at one time or another. There are no indications to suggest that the incidence of EIPH has increased in recent times as the incidence of epistaxis (bleeding from the nostrils) has remained essentially constant over the last century. Only the diagnostic capabilities have improved.

Again: if people want to eliminate all medication on race day, both illegal, legal and abused, and therapeutic, that's their choice.

But lying about the facts surround EIPH and furosemide simply to meet a political agenda is absurd, and factual lies should and will be called out by those that know better.

The astounding reveal of the factually-bereft position of the anti-lasix crew is that they have not once mentioned banning aminocaproic acid, carbazochrome, tranexamic acid, and conjugated estrogens that are given to try and stop bleeding. If you want to "ban" medications given for bleeding, why have you not mentioned these?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Powderfinger

I am curious why you think this? From what I read here only 5% of the current thoroughbred industry's inventory really need lasix. Maybe another 25% should have it.

So we get rid of 30% of the stock. Wouldn't the market eventually adjust and owners/trainers be more careful what they add to their stable?
I am still convinced that if the lungs bleed beyond a certain level, the horse is doing something it shouldn't. And for a vet to allow that animal to compete is borderline criminal. And giving it a shot of lasix is animal cruelty.

Reading your posts amounts to people cruelty

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Powderfinger

I am curious why you think this? From what I read here only 5% of the current thoroughbred industry's inventory really need lasix. Maybe another 25% should have it.

So we get rid of 30% of the stock. Wouldn't the market eventually adjust and owners/trainers be more careful what they add to their stable?
I am still convinced that if the lungs bleed beyond a certain level, the horse is doing something it shouldn't. And for a vet to allow that animal to compete is borderline criminal. And giving it a shot of lasix is animal cruelty.

If you want to know what cruelty really feels like go read Riot's 12,000 plus posts.

[Honu]

Originally Posted by Powderfinger

What if they banned not only lasix but "bleeders" from racing? Say that after every race, the track vet examines the contestants and anyone with more that level 2 bleeding, or whatever, is disqualified from purse money. This certainly would change the picture, wouldn't it? Trainers would not only have to be concerned with how fast the horse is running but whether the horse is hurting himself or not.

Why is the horse's lungs bleeding? Because he's doing something he shouldn't. We've bred this animal to win and try at all costs. If I had an animal act where poodles jumped through a hoop 1000 times a second but , darn, their lungs bleed at the end, I'd be arrested for animal cruelty.

Why is the horse bleeding ??? Dude any horse competing in any sport, jumping, barrel racing or even just log pulling can bleed. Why dont we just ban horse sports period because that seems like where all this B.S. is headed.
Ill say it again Lasix is the least issue to be taking issue with but whatever floats your boat.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Powderfinger

What if they banned not only lasix but "bleeders" from racing? Say that after every race, the track vet examines the contestants and anyone with more that level 2 bleeding, or whatever, is disqualified from purse money. This certainly would change the picture, wouldn't it? Trainers would not only have to be concerned with how fast the horse is running but whether the horse is hurting himself or not.

Why is the horse's lungs bleeding? Because he's doing something he shouldn't. We've bred this animal to win and try at all costs. If I had an animal act where poodles jumped through a hoop 1000 times a second but , darn, their lungs bleed at the end, I'd be arrested for animal cruelty.

This is what Arthur Hancock and George Strawbridge have created with their inane scorched earth policy. A entire group of clueless people who suddenly think they have answers when they dont even know what the question is.

[cmorioles]

Honest question because I really don't know the answer. What happens to horses that bleed through Lasix? I seem to remember horses not being able to enter for a pretty decent amount of time, and even being barred from racing. Has all this changed?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Honest question because I really don't know the answer. What happens to horses that bleed through Lasix? I seem to remember horses not being able to enter for a pretty decent amount of time, and even being barred from racing. Has all this changed?

They are not allowed to race, and if the episode is repeated (they continue to bleed) they are banned from racing. See highlighted section below.

I want to point something out about lasix. It is administered IV (in the vein) four hours before a race. It starts to work in 5 minutes (making a horse urinate), it's peak action is at about 1 hour, and it's half-life is about 2 hours. This means that, when the horse goes on the track for the race, the action of the furosemide (lasix) has been done and over for an hour or two.

It is illegal to administer lasix closer than 4 hours to post time.

From the Kentucky Racing Rules http://www.lrc.state.ky.us/kar/810/001/018.htm (note: adjuncts have been banned, this has not been updated on their website)

Section 6. Furosemide and Adjunct Bleeder Medication; Use on Race Day. (1) Furosemide may be administered, in accordance with this section, to a horse that is entered to compete in a race.

(2) Furosemide may be used under the following circumstances:

(a) Furosemide shall be administered at a location under the jurisdiction of the commission, by a single intravenous injection, not less than four (4) hours prior to post time for the race in which the horse is entered.

(b) The syringe employed in the injection shall be provided immediately to the commission veterinarian, steward, or commission employee, if requested, to determine if there has been a violation of this administrative regulation.

(c) The furosemide dosage administered shall not exceed 500 mg, nor be less than 150 mg.

(d) The specific gravity of a post-race urine sample shall not be below 1.010. If the specific gravity of the post-race urine sample is determined to be below 1.010, a quantification of furosemide in serum or plasma shall be performed. Concentrations above 100 nanograms of furosemide per milliliter of serum or plasma shall constitute a violation of this section.

(e) A horse eligible to receive furosemide pursuant to Section 7 of this administrative regulation that does not show a detectable concentration of the drug in the post-race urine, plasma, or serum shall be in violation of this administrative regulation.

(3) Up to two (2) of the following adjunct bleeder medications may be administered to a horse not less than four (4) hours prior to post time for the race in which the horse is entered:

(a) Aminocaproic acid:

(b) Carbazochrome:

(c) Conjugated estrogens; and

(d) Tranexamic acid.



Section 7. Furosemide Eligibility. (1)(a) A horse shall be eligible to race with furosemide if the licensed trainer or licensed veterinarian determines that it would be in the horse's best interests to race with furosemide.

(b) Horses eligible for furosemide and entered to start may be monitored by an commission-approved representative during the four (4) hour period prior to post time of the race in which the horse is entered.

(2) A horse eligible for furosemide shall receive furosemide unless the licensed trainer or licensed veterinarian submits a written request to the commission veterinarian to no longer administer furosemide to the horse. The request shall be on the form "Certificate of Termination of Lasix KHRA 100-5 (8-06)", incorporated by reference in 811 KAR 1:090, and shall be submitted to the commission-approved representative not later than time of entry.

(3)(a) After a horse has been determined by the commission veterinarian to no longer be required to receive furosemide, the horse shall not be eligible to receive furosemide for a period of sixty (60) calendar days unless it is determined by the trainer or veterinarian, in consultation with the commission veterinarian, that it is detrimental to the welfare of the horse to not be on furosemide.

(b) If a horse is determined by the commission veterinarian to be ineligible to receive furosemide a second time in a three hundred sixty-five day period, the horse shall not be eligible to receive furosemide for a period of ninety (90) calendar days.

(4) A horse that has been placed on a furosemide or bleeder list in another jurisdiction may be eligible to receive furosemide in this jurisdiction.
----------------------

Section 18. Veterinarian's List. (1) The commission veterinarian shall maintain a list of horses determined to be unfit to compete in a race due to illness, physical distress, unsoundness, infirmity, or other medical condition.

(2) A horse may be removed from the veterinarian's list when, in the opinion of the commission veterinarian, the horse is capable of competing in a race.

(3) The commission veterinarian shall maintain a bleeder list of all horses that have demonstrated external evidence of exercise-induced pulmonary hemorrhage during or after a race or workout as observed by the commission veterinarian.

(4) Every horse that is a confirmed bleeder, regardless of age, shall be placed on the bleeder list and be ineligible to race for the following time periods:

(a) First incident - fourteen (14) days;

(b) Second incident within a three hundred sixty-five (365) day period - thirty (30) days;

(c) Third incident within a three hundred sixty-five (365) day period - one hundred eighty (180) days;

(d) Fourth incident within a three hundred sixty-five (365) day period - barred from racing for life.

(5) For the purpose of counting the number of days a horse is ineligible to run, the day after the horse bled externally shall be the first day of the recovery period.

(6) The voluntary administration of furosemide without an external bleeding incident shall not subject a horse to the initial period of ineligibility as defined in this section.

(7) A horse shall be removed from the bleeder list only upon the direction of the commission veterinarian, who shall certify in writing to the stewards the recommendation for removal.

(8) A horse that has been placed on a bleeder list in another jurisdiction may be placed on the bleeder list maintained by the commission veterinarian.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Honest question because I really don't know the answer. What happens to horses that bleed through Lasix? I seem to remember horses not being able to enter for a pretty decent amount of time, and even being barred from racing. Has all this changed?

Depends on a few factors. It used to be that a when you put your horse on lasix initially that was considered to be the first episode and you were prohibited from entering for 14 days. The second time you bled you would get 30 days but only if the state vet visably saw the blood coming from a horses nose and examined them post race to make sure the blood wasnt from a cut in their mouth or another horse. The 3rd time would get you 90 days and any episode after that would get you ruled off for good.

One of the technical issues with the current rules that could be an issue with banning lasix in stakes is that the way the rules read in some places if you take the horse off lasix and put them bak on again you get 30 days and are considered a 2 time bleeder. If this were to happen and a horse unfortunately bled because they happened to hit their head in the gate they would get 90 days and be a step away from being banned. The rules can be changed obviously but the intent was to prevent trainers from putting them on and taking them off indiscriminately so that will have to be addressed.

I am under the impression that eventually lasix will not be allowed on raceday because those who are the adamantly behind the movement are well heeled and hate being told no and will keep fighting until they get their way. If only they felt so strongly about topics which could actually help improve the sport tangibly...

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

This is what Arthur Hancock and George Strawbridge have created with their inane scorched earth policy. A entire group of clueless people who suddenly think they have answers when they dont even know what the question is.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Powderfinger

What if they banned not only lasix but "bleeders" from racing?

We would have to then ban all horse sports across all country. Anything that involved speed: cross-country, harness, barrel racing. EIPH is a horse (and sometimes dog and human problem) not a racing problem.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by freddymo

You are far more qualified to comment on lasix then a hack vet standing behind 60k other hack vets. Just because you did 8 years of school in Guadalajara doesn't make your opinion more qualified. Rollo just googles the stuff she alleges to know about and rebuts this hack at every turn. CJ points the proliferation of the drug in 99% of the horses, the hack reps they dont all NEED the drug, yet she is OK with horses getting it when it is not indicated. Why? simple she earns on treating horses and while nobody including a hack vet is getting rich sticking horses in the neck with 60 bucks worth of lasix its all the goodies that come with the "therapeutic drug" that such vets are after. It's a job they get paid to fix horses and make them feel better. You think its for the love of the animal these people work? I have nothing against earning and appreciate that some vets love horses, they also have trailer loads of Lubrisol etc to move and bills to pay. Hence 60k think its ok to juice a horse up with anything perceived to me safe.

The Vets are the real stars in todays racing world, not the horses, not the jock and not the trainers.

As I said - the ignorant and angry anti-lasix crew trying to destroy veterinarians reputations professionally and ginning up ridiculous conspiracy theories is about all they have left for argument when they don't like what they hear. The scientific world has told them they are wrong about lasix - how dare we!