Lasix enhances performance

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

It might be useful to delve into the side effects of lasix, given that we've been taking for granted that it "causes no harm" in multiple threads now. Lasix effects the hydration status and acid-bace balance of horses about to undergo strenuous exercise. As a result, the potential exists for horses to be exposed to disturbances related to those parameters. These might include "thumps", "tying up", and colic. It would be interesting to know the frequency of these side effects. Though never proven definitely, an adverse reaction to lasix administration was suggested as the cause of Life At Ten's performance at the 2010 Breeder's Cup. Given the public fallout that occurred afterwards, was that an acceptable alternative to a horse bleeding out the nose in front of the grandstands?

i think the fallout had to do with the fact that a lot of bettors lost out on betting a horse who should have been scratched. i know lasix was suggested as a possible reason for her lackluster performance.
now, when i read the other day that there was an 80% reduction in visible bleeding by horses in NY once the lasix ban was lifted....well, what else is there to say? do we really want an 80% increase in bleeders? we already have negative attention because of breakdowns, what will happen if horses start coming by the grandstand with blood coming out of their nostrils? or horses collapsing because of a bad enough hemorrage? and that does happen. i firmly believe that it's better to prevent something than to take a risk-that it's a lesser 'evil' if you will.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i think the fallout had to do with the fact that a lot of bettors lost out on betting a horse who should have been scratched. i know lasix was suggested as a possible reason for her lackluster performance.
now, when i read the other day that there was an 80% reduction in visible bleeding by horses in NY once the lasix ban was lifted....well, what else is there to say? do we really want an 80% increase in bleeders? we already have negative attention because of breakdowns, what will happen if horses start coming by the grandstand with blood coming out of their nostrils? or horses collapsing because of a bad enough hemorrage? and that does happen. i firmly believe that it's better to prevent something than to take a risk-that it's a lesser 'evil' if you will.

You realize if two horse visibly bleed in a week, an "80% reduction" means that now 1.6 do, right? In any case, the is certainly NOT the equivalent of an 80% increase in bleeders.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i think the fallout had to do with the fact that a lot of bettors lost out on betting a horse who should have been scratched. i know lasix was suggested as a possible reason for her lackluster performance.
now, when i read the other day that there was an 80% reduction in visible bleeding by horses in NY once the lasix ban was lifted....well, what else is there to say? do we really want an 80% increase in bleeders? we already have negative attention because of breakdowns, what will happen if horses start coming by the grandstand with blood coming out of their nostrils? or horses collapsing because of a bad enough hemorrage? and that does happen. i firmly believe that it's better to prevent something than to take a risk-that it's a lesser 'evil' if you will.

Your point is well taken, however, we should point out that the incidence of bleeding out the nose is reportedly between 1 and 2% of starters. And even then, that doesn't necessarily mean all episodes are visible to the public (ie some horses don't start bleeding until back at the barn).

I think the numbers you quoted were something in the range of 30+ vs. 70+ for comparable years at NYRA tracks.