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

[Kasept]

Zorn is the manager of the Castle Village partnership group.

Start here with RMTC studies: http://www.rmtcnet.com/content_research.asp

The study you want is Dr. Sams' Univ. of FL exercise research where 2 dozen racehorses were kept under training conditions..

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Zorn is the manager of the Castle Village partnership group.

Start here with RMTC studies: http://www.rmtcnet.com/content_research.asp

The study you want is Dr. Sams' Univ. of FL exercise research where 2 dozen racehorses were kept under training conditions..

thanks!

[Danzig]

that was interesting, i would hope everyone would read it.

[cmorioles]

The point is pretty simple for me. Horses that use Lasix have a speed advantage over those that don't. I'm not a scientist, I don't know the exact reasons why. I really don't care. I just know it is so. That is how we got where we are today, where horses that don't need Lasix are given it all the time.

We are told now it is preventative. But, that isn't the main reason nearly every horse is given it. It is given to level the playing field. Jerry's idea tries to level the playing field without giving drugs to 95% of the horse population. I think it is a good idea. How can less drugs not be good?

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

The point is pretty simple for me. Horses that use Lasix have a speed advantage over those that don't. I'm not a scientist, I don't know the exact reasons why. I really don't care. I just know it is so. That is how we got where we are today, where horses that don't need Lasix are given it all the time.

We are told now it is preventative. But, that isn't the main reason nearly every horse is given it. It is given to level the playing field. Jerry's idea tries to level the playing field without giving drugs to 95% of the horse population. I think it is a good idea. How can less drugs not be good?

Agreed with most of this. Should we take away ulcer meds like gastroguard or Nsaid's for inflammation? I am sure horses are faster when treated with theses as well.
I would still need Nexium daily if I was a world class tennis player and I would play worse if I was suffering from GERD while trying to beat my opponent. If I twisted my ankle and took an Nsaid for inflammation it would be easier for me to play without as much pain and I would likely play better. I like you know Lasix makes horses run faster then if they don't take it but I am not sure if the playing field is level, and it isn't masking other nefarious drugs, why that is necessarily a bad thing.

I like you dont get why you give a horse lasix if it is not indicated unless its use is so important to prevent bleeding.

I figure in 2 years its out of the game race day anyways

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by freddymo

Agreed with most of this. Should we take away ulcer meds like gastroguard or Nsaid's for inflammation? I am sure horses are faster when treated with theses as well.
I would still need Nexium daily if I was a world class tennis player and I would play worse if I was suffering from GERD while trying to beat my opponent. If I twisted my ankle and took an Nsaid for inflammation it would be easier for me to play without as much pain and I would likely play better. I like you know Lasix makes horses run faster then if they don't take it but I am not sure if the playing field is level, and it isn't masking other nefarious drugs, why that is necessarily a bad thing.

I like you dont get why you give a horse lasix if it is not indicated unless its use is so important to prevent bleeding.

I figure in 2 years its out of the game race day anyways

I don't think those other things make a horse that doesn't need it run faster if administered. I'm sure Lasix does. If Lasix is needed, fine, but it has gotten out of hand. And those that get it should be penalized. Weight is one idea, and seems a pretty good one to me.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I don't think those other things make a horse that doesn't need it run faster if administered. I'm sure Lasix does. If Lasix is needed, fine, but it has gotten out of hand. And those that get it should be penalized. Weight is one idea, and seems a pretty good one to me.

Since vets dont believe Lasix makes them run faster I am sure they will agree with your premise.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

The point is pretty simple for me. Horses that use Lasix have a speed advantage over those that don't. I'm not a scientist, I don't know the exact reasons why. I really don't care. I just know it is so. That is how we got where we are today, where horses that don't need Lasix are given it all the time.

We are told now it is preventative. But, that isn't the main reason nearly every horse is given it. It is given to level the playing field. Jerry's idea tries to level the playing field without giving drugs to 95% of the horse population. I think it is a good idea. How can less drugs not be good?

when reading the report on the study, they said that a horse doesn't improve due to lasix, but they are able to run to their level because they don't have the bleeding issue. did you read the study? did you see the percentage of horses affected by bleeding?
if people don't wish to use it on their horses, they don't have to. but it is helpful to many horses, and should be allowed.

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I don't think those other things make a horse that doesn't need it run faster if administered. I'm sure Lasix does. If Lasix is needed, fine, but it has gotten out of hand. And those that get it should be penalized. Weight is one idea, and seems a pretty good one to me.

lasix doesn't make a horse 'run faster'.
horses may not bleed for some time, and then suddenly they do. that's why people use lasix, they have no way of knowing when it'll happen to a horse.
read the study, seriously.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Danzig

when reading the report on the study, they said that a horse doesn't improve due to lasix, but they are able to run to their level because they don't have the bleeding issue. did you read the study? did you see the percentage of horses affected by bleeding?
if people don't wish to use it on their horses, they don't have to. but it is helpful to many horses, and should be allowed.



lasix doesn't make a horse 'run faster'.
horses may not bleed for some time, and then suddenly they do. that's why people use lasix, they have no way of knowing when it'll happen to a horse.
read the study, seriously.

I've read it, I just disagree. There are studies out there showing just the opposite that have been posted here before. I've been doing this a long time. I know how to measure horse speed, and I know that horses run faster with it than without.

There is ample evidence if people bother to look. As a bettor, I can quantify it. Horses that don't bleed run faster with Lasix than without. It isn't even really debatable. Of course horses are individuals and the effect isn't the same on all of them, and a scant few run worse. But by and large, it improves performance.

As for the preventative aspect, wasn't a study just released that purported to prove only a very few really need Lasix long term, and that bleeding doesn't hinder long term performance?

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...six-not-needed

I take them all with a grain of salt because everyone has an agenda. My agenda is to make money betting. It may be selfish, but it isn't slanted to one cause or the other. I look at it objectively.

Here is an example that won't happen because I think Goldencents is going in the BC Mile. If he met Rich Tapestry again, after his trip last time, I'd bet him in a second over Rich Tapestry. But, if Rich Tapestry were to add Lasix, I'd bet him. I've been doing this long enough to know Lasix makes a difference, and the difference is not heads or noses but lengths.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I've read it, I just disagree. There are studies out there showing just the opposite that have been posted here before. I've been doing this a long time. I know how to measure horse speed, and I know that horses run faster with it than without.

There is ample evidence if people bother to look. As a bettor, I can quantify it. Horses that don't bleed run faster with Lasix than without. It isn't even really debatable. Of course horses are individuals and the effect isn't the same on all of them, and a scant few run worse. But by and large, it improves performance.

As for the preventative aspect, wasn't a study just released that purported to prove only a very few really need Lasix long term, and that bleeding doesn't hinder long term performance?

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...six-not-needed

I take them all with a grain of salt because everyone has an agenda. My agenda is to make money betting. It may be selfish, but it isn't slanted to one cause or the other. I look at it objectively.

Here is an example that won't happen because I think Goldencents is going in the BC Mile. If he met Rich Tapestry again, after his trip last time, I'd bet him in a second over Rich Tapestry. But, if Rich Tapestry were to add Lasix, I'd bet him. I've been doing this long enough to know Lasix makes a difference, and the difference is not heads or noses but lengths.

but unlike other studies, this was actually done under racing conditions. now, it wasn't done to detect whether it made horses faster, but it most definitely showed that it helps regarding EIPH-which is the reason for its use. unless and until a better anti-bleeder comes along, I don't see a reason to stop using it. many horses bleed, the bleeding is lessened by using Lasix. are horses improved due to lessening instances and severity of bleeding? i would think that it was what you're seeing when you say it makes them faster. they are running without hindrance. and seeing in the report how often horses suffer from it, I'd hate to see it taken away because of a perception or belief that it is a performance enhancer. removing the hindrance of bleeding isn't an enhancer-it allows the horse to race at optimal levels.