No lasix needed here

[Conrad]

Do we know if he has bled in the past?
He's never run on Lasix and has backed out of it more than a few times.
Admittedly, he hasn't completely caved in like he did in the BrCup, but if he has a history of these problems AND faced a pace that was out of his league the result isn't a total mystery.

I just cannot presume that Lasix would have put him in the picture down the lane...and this comes from a guy that bet him on a few of my tickets.

Looked like he could be a star after beating some top notch runners in his USA debut.

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Conrad

Do we know if he has bled in the past?
He's never run on Lasix and has backed out of it more than a few times.
Admittedly, he hasn't completely caved in like he did in the BrCup, but if he has a history of these problems AND faced a pace that was out of his league the result isn't a total mystery.

I just cannot presume that Lasix would have put him in the picture down the lane...and this comes from a guy that bet him on a few of my tickets.

Looked like he could be a star after beating some top notch runners in his USA debut.

So you have a horse whose finishes have wildly fluctuated overseas without Lasix who is proven to have bled in the Breeders' Cup and your reaction is "well, do we know he's a bleeder?"

It continues to be very strange to me that people who supposedly care about horses and/or horseplayers would be OK with a situation like Rich Tapestry's, where the horse went through unnecessary suffering and unfairly burned people's money because of it.

This is a topic where pretty horsey people to hardcore gamblers and everyone in between should be united and yet, it continues to be incredibly contentious every time it's broached. I don't get it.

[Kitan]

Originally Posted by Conrad

Do we know if he has bled in the past?
He's never run on Lasix and has backed out of it more than a few times.
Admittedly, he hasn't completely caved in like he did in the BrCup, but if he has a history of these problems AND faced a pace that was out of his league the result isn't a total mystery.

I just cannot presume that Lasix would have put him in the picture down the lane...and this comes from a guy that bet him on a few of my tickets.

Looked like he could be a star after beating some top notch runners in his USA debut.

He has had a substantial bleeding history in Hong Kong, which is why this was an issue that was brought up in the first place. It has occurred four times, as per his vet records: http://www.hkjc.com/english/racing/o...p?HorseNo=N011 However, he has a win and a second in two of those four starts starts.

This is the modern day problem, especially here in the Western world. If there is a problem, whether human or animal, let's just fix it with medication. Instead of attempting to fix the problem with other means we will just taper it and mask it with drugs. Maybe if a horse has constant problems bleeding its body is saying that he shouldn't be racing in the first place.

And for those that are complaining about how cessation of Lasix would cause more instances such as this in the future, well that becomes part and parcel of the game. I don't see gamblers in other racing jurisdictions complaining when it happens, and in fact I'd actually be inclined to believe that it actually happens a lot less in those places. I see how fragile the modern day North American thoroughbred is and compare it to England, Australia, HK, etc. They seem to be much more durable there, so clearly they're doing something right.

[ADJMK]

Originally Posted by Kitan

He has had a substantial bleeding history in Hong Kong, which is why this was an issue that was brought up in the first place. It has occurred four times, as per his vet records: http://www.hkjc.com/english/racing/o...p?HorseNo=N011 However, he has a win and a second in two of those four starts starts.

This is the modern day problem, especially here in the Western world. If there is a problem, whether human or animal, let's just fix it with medication. Instead of attempting to fix the problem with other means we will just taper it and mask it with drugs. Maybe if a horse has constant problems bleeding its body is saying that he shouldn't be racing in the first place.

And for those that are complaining about how cessation of Lasix would cause more instances such as this in the future, well that becomes part and parcel of the game. I don't see gamblers in other racing jurisdictions complaining when it happens, and in fact I'd actually be inclined to believe that it actually happens a lot less in those places. I see how fragile the modern day North American thoroughbred is and compare it to England, Australia, HK, etc. They seem to be much more durable there, so clearly they're doing something right.

Just because lasix is illegal overseas doesn't mean that they don't use other methods and other bleeder shots to try to control the problem. In NA when lasix was illegal every vet concucted his own bleeder shot and if he got a fav rep he had a long list of customers and made a fortune.
At least with lasix we know the playing field is almost level.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Kitan

He has had a substantial bleeding history in Hong Kong, which is why this was an issue that was brought up in the first place. It has occurred four times, as per his vet records: http://www.hkjc.com/english/racing/o...p?HorseNo=N011 However, he has a win and a second in two of those four starts starts.

This is the modern day problem, especially here in the Western world. If there is a problem, whether human or animal, let's just fix it with medication. Instead of attempting to fix the problem with other means we will just taper it and mask it with drugs. Maybe if a horse has constant problems bleeding its body is saying that he shouldn't be racing in the first place.

And for those that are complaining about how cessation of Lasix would cause more instances such as this in the future, well that becomes part and parcel of the game. I don't see gamblers in other racing jurisdictions complaining when it happens, and in fact I'd actually be inclined to believe that it actually happens a lot less in those places. I see how fragile the modern day North American thoroughbred is and compare it to England, Australia, HK, etc. They seem to be much more durable there, so clearly they're doing something right.

This is not a modern problem; this is the problem of the equine. Vigorous exercise is a high risk for bleeding in the lungs. It's why it's called EIPH. Exercise Induced. For whatever reason, evolution in all its messiness brought about an animal that often bleeds in the lungs during taxing exercise, and for some reason, mild dehydration reduces the chances that will happen. We could stop all horse racing for several dozen millennia while we attempt to selectively evolve the horse past this, because right now, the majority of them do bleed, or we can give them a diuretic before vigorous exercise. One of these two gives us a better chance of seeing a Triple Crown winner again in our lifetimes.

There may eventually come along something better than Lasix, but it's still going to have to be something that takes water away from the lungs. Ultimately, we are asking equine athletes to fight against their own evolution, which was to walk slowly with their heads down for very long periods of time.

(on a soapbox note- and the anti-carriage horse contingent claim carriage work, walking slowly with the head down for long stretches of time, is unnatural? Flying Spaghetti Monster save us.)

I don't see any statistical proof that European horses are more durable than American horses, nor that their top racers have any more starts than ours before being shuttled off to the breeding shed.

[DonGuido]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

This is not a modern problem; this is the problem of the equine. Vigorous exercise is a high risk for bleeding in the lungs. It's why it's called EIPH. Exercise Induced. For whatever reason, evolution in all its messiness brought about an animal that often bleeds in the lungs during taxing exercise, and for some reason, mild dehydration reduces the chances that will happen. We could stop all horse racing for several dozen millennia while we attempt to selectively evolve the horse past this, because right now, the majority of them do bleed, or we can give them a diuretic before vigorous exercise. One of these two gives us a better chance of seeing a Triple Crown winner again in our lifetimes.

There may eventually come along something better than Lasix, but it's still going to have to be something that takes water away from the lungs. Ultimately, we are asking equine athletes to fight against their own evolution, which was to walk slowly with their heads down for very long periods of time.

Wow, I finally read something that makes sense, I understand and agree with regarding Lasix and the real reason behind its necessary use. Great post, thank you . . . and unfortunately it's the horse not the Lasix. The Lasix or any medication would be easy to fix but the horse as you say would take as long to fix for the good as it took for the current state of turning into the bad.

[Kitan]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

This is not a modern problem; this is the problem of the equine. Vigorous exercise is a high risk for bleeding in the lungs. It's why it's called EIPH. Exercise Induced. For whatever reason, evolution in all its messiness brought about an animal that often bleeds in the lungs during taxing exercise, and for some reason, mild dehydration reduces the chances that will happen. We could stop all horse racing for several dozen millennia while we attempt to selectively evolve the horse past this, because right now, the majority of them do bleed, or we can give them a diuretic before vigorous exercise. One of these two gives us a better chance of seeing a Triple Crown winner again in our lifetimes.

I would think that Lasix actually might be part of the problem, and I don't think its a coincidence that there hasn't been a Triple Crown winner since Lasix became popular and legalized. It's not just a diuretic, it's a powerful one. It causes an unnatural amount of water and electrolytes to be excreted, which in turn results in excessive weight loss. More time is needed to put that weight back on in a healthy manner as well as restore proper functioning of the Sodium-Potassium pump. More time to recover = more time to return to peak performance. I'm no vet or equine scientist but that's basic physiology.

Take for example the fourth place finisher of the Melbourne Cup this past week, Signoff. These are his starts this season:
Aug 30th 7f
Sept 13 8.5f
Sept 26 10f
Oct 11 12f
Oct 18 10f
Nov 1 10.5f
Nov 4 16f

In a span of 9 and a half weeks he ran 7 times, five at group level. This is, as you may know, an extremely common occurrence down there. I cannot recall ANY horse at that level in North America running that many times in a short period of time, never mind the consistency. Add Lasix to these horses and the weeks between starts would slowly add up because they need a longer time to recover in between races.

For the record, I am not for or against Lasix. I just think it's important to consider the dynamics of the drug, rather than say it's just a simple diuretic that somehow decreases pulmonary hemorrhaging.

The majority of horses do bleed, but not at a level severe enough to affect performance. So instead of waiting a million years to selectively evolve, why not just use artificial selection as a method to simply decrease the chance of bleeding and the potential severity of it? Genetic traits can be tracked, you know.

And from a gambling perspective, how often would bleeding affect performance? In a quarter of a percent of all starters? Judging by our posts in the playalong threads, I'd be more worried about other circumstances causing a ticket to be ripped up.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Kitan

I would think that Lasix actually might be part of the problem, and I don't think its a coincidence that there hasn't been a Triple Crown winner since Lasix became popular and legalized. It's not just a diuretic, it's a powerful one. It causes an unnatural amount of water and electrolytes to be excreted, which in turn results in excessive weight loss. More time is needed to put that weight back on in a healthy manner as well as restore proper functioning of the Sodium-Potassium pump. More time to recover = more time to return to peak performance. I'm no vet or equine scientist but that's basic physiology.

Take for example the fourth place finisher of the Melbourne Cup this past week, Signoff. These are his starts this season:
Aug 30th 7f
Sept 13 8.5f
Sept 26 10f
Oct 11 12f
Oct 18 10f
Nov 1 10.5f
Nov 4 16f

In a span of 9 and a half weeks he ran 7 times, five at group level. This is, as you may know, an extremely common occurrence down there. I cannot recall ANY horse at that level in North America running that many times in a short period of time, never mind the consistency. Add Lasix to these horses and the weeks between starts would slowly add up because they need a longer time to recover in between races.

For the record, I am not for or against Lasix. I just think it's important to consider the dynamics of the drug, rather than say it's just a simple diuretic that somehow decreases pulmonary hemorrhaging.

The majority of horses do bleed, but not at a level severe enough to affect performance. So instead of waiting a million years to selectively evolve, why not just use artificial selection as a method to simply decrease the chance of bleeding and the potential severity of it? Genetic traits can be tracked, you know.

And from a gambling perspective, how often would bleeding affect performance? In a quarter of a percent of all starters? Judging by our posts in the playalong threads, I'd be more worried about other circumstances causing a ticket to be ripped up.

Correlation is not causation. There are soooo many factors that can be pointed to as a possible cause for the reduced number of starts in the US- more 6f races, focus on Ragozin numbers as a training guide, breeding becoming a commercial enterprise, lack of suitable races being written. We know we have a lot less grass racing, but we also have a drier climate than Europe, so that's not going to change. Any of these things could be pointed to as a cause of reduced starts. We obsess about Lasix because our society has had it drummed into us for decades that drugs are bad, mmmkay.

And you can't breed for a reduction in bleeding because there is just no way of telling if a horse is going to bleed. Yeah, the majority of horses won't suffer long-term damage, but what about the one who does, drops during a race and kills himself, his jockey and takes out half the field behind him? That's the problem- we do not know if a horse is going to bleed or not in a race. We have no way of knowing. Lasix is a preventive. It's not perfect; no preventive is, but it reduces the chance of EIPH and reduces its severity. Most people aren't going to be in a serious car accident; it doesn't mean wearing a seat belt every time you get into a car isn't still a good idea.

Without Lasix horses will still go to the post dehydrated; they'll just have been denied water for 2 days before the race. Which is not as effective as Lasix.

We're American; it's our nature to want a one-size-fits-all solution, but very few things in life are one-size-fits-all. Oddly, Lasix comes about as close as one can get, to a problem that is a part of the equine's evolutionary makeup. It's not going to make a slow horse fast, but it will reduce the chance of the horse breathing blood while he runs. Again, the Euros train on it, even if they aren't allowed it on race day. Why would they do that, unless they felt it was beneficial to the horse's health?

And believe me, I was very anti-Lasix for years, but you do enough digging on a subject, and sometimes the evidence is just too persuasive.