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

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

You are being ridiculous. Which races allow the humans to take Lasix?

I'm saying that Exercise-Induced Pulmonary Hemorrhage is not a problem only of horses.

Maybe 93% show "some" bleeding, but of that percentage, how many can race without side effects and really need it to be successful? I'm guessing it is a MUCH smaller number.

How do you define "successful"? Earning money?

Because I'm sure the horse would much prefer to have air in his alveolar sacs during running, instead of blood and hemosiderophages. It makes oxygenation easier.

After all, we had racing for a century before it was deemed necessary for so many horses.

A century ago, we didn't have the modern medical capability we have now. Medical advancement in health care of the horse is a good thing. We didn't have penicillin during World War one. Does that mean we shouldn't have used it in Viet Nam?

And we've raced horses for much longer than a century.

Plain and simple, it was abused because many felt it was a performance enhancer and that those that actually did need it were getting an advantage. So, they started searching for easier and easier ways to get Lasix for the horse. That is what got us where we are today.

But today we have modern medicine, and research, and we are far more educated on the extent and complications of EIPH in race horses. We are completely familiar with the pharmacology of lasix. We haven't had a problem with lasix diluting drug samples for over 20 years.

So now, with our increased education and knowledge, the veterinary world is advising the horse racing world to allow one drug - lasix - to continue to be used as a therapeutic medication on race day, for the health and welfare of the horse.

But those that control racing are making a stupid, ignorant choice to do the opposite, based upon outdated and no longer valid "reasons and knowledge" from literally decades ago.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Riot

I'm saying that Exercise-Induced Pulmonary Hemorrhage is not a problem only of horses.

And yet, life goes on without Lasix outside of horse racing in athletic competition.

I'm starting the think the stupid, ignorant choice that was made was allowing Lasix in the first place.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

And yet, life goes on without Lasix outside of horse racing in athletic competition.

And those horses suffer worse from EIPH than race horses.

I'm starting the think the stupid, ignorant choice that was made was allowing Lasix in the first place.

Who cares what was done 50 years ago? When I was a child, I was taught to drench colic horses with a mixture of turpentine and linseed oil! Now we knows that probably killed alot of horses - yet veterinarians did it!

Medicine advances. Sports medicine advances, in humans and animals. I attended a veterinary conference yesterday on diagnosis and treatment of back and hind end injuries in performance horses, and half the diagnostic techniques, and most of the treatments, were not even available, let alone taught to me, when I graduated veterinary college.

We need to use what we know today. Not pretend we are in the 1800's. Or even the 1990's. It's 2012.

And by the way: several of the recommended treatments are viewed as "race horse trainer cheating" by some lay people because for many years, race horse trainers have abused and misused some things associated with those therapies. Does that make them less valid when used appropriately as a medical treatment? Of course not.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Gary Stevens is going to testify before Congress. Stevens takes a zero-tolerance stance on race-day medication. Stevens must be a terrible guy to take such a stance. He must have some really selfish and negative intentions. It's either that, or he must just be really ignorant on the subject. LOL. Let the attacks on Stevens begin.

http://www.drf.com/news/hovdey-steve...day-medication

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Gary Stevens is going to testify before Congress. Stevens takes a zero-tolerance stance on race-day medication. Stevens must be a terrible guy to take such a stance. He must have some really selfish and negative intentions. It's either that, or he must just be really ignorant on the subject. LOL. Let the attacks on Stevens begin.

http://www.drf.com/news/hovdey-steve...day-medication

Congress are the last people that should be making medical decisions for doctors and their patients, don't you agree?

Veterinarians are quite willing to testify before Congress supporting a complete ban on all possible performance-enhancing drugs on race day in the horse industry. Every major veterinary organization in the country has come out publicly and strongly for that position: see the above position statements.

That doesn't include lasix, however. It does include all race day NSAIDS, and all current "bleeding prevention" adjunct drugs. Why is that? Why only lasix? Hummmm .....

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

Congress are the last people that should be making medical decisions for doctors and their patients, don't you agree?

No, I do not agree. I totally disagree. The horseracing industry has done a horrible job of policing itself. The fox has not done a good job of guarding the hen-house. They've had the last 20 years to clean up the sport and they won't do it.

I think the doctor/patient argument is a horrible analogy here. In general, doctors usually do what is best for their patients. Doctors work for their patients. In horseracing, the vet does not work for his patient (the horse). The vets works for the owner and trainer, both of whom often do not have the best interest of the horse in mind.

If owners and trainers had the best interest of the horse in mind, you wouldn't have the state vet scratching horses the morning of the race. Why does the state vet scratch horses the morning of the race? Because trainers will sometimes attempt to run unsound horses. This proves that some trainers do not have the best interest of the horse in mind.

Anyway, you have a sport where hundreds of millions of dollars are being bet. When you have that much money being bet, there needs to be a governing body that insures integrity. With the stock market, they don't police themselves. You have the SEC that does that.

There needs to be someone there to protect the horses and protect the public. In my opinion, the racing industry has proven time and time again that they are incapable of policing themselves. Any time someone wants to make a significant change, the owners and trainers start dragging their feet. I'd rather have the industry take charge of itself but if they're not going to do it, then I have no problem with the government coming in.

[cmorioles]

Lets keep this simple. Pretend horse racing wasn't legal today. Now, imagine somebody proposed it as a gambling venture nationally. They give all the positives, the money and jobs it can generate, etc. At the end of the proposal, they mention, "Oh, by the way, pretty much every horse is going to be injected with a drug so they don't bleed in the lungs before they race." What do you think the chances are racing would be approved?

I put it at right around 0%, but certainly no higher than 0%.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

No, I do not agree. I totally disagree. The horseracing industry has done a horrible job of policing itself. The fox has not done a good job of guarding the hen-house. They've had the last 20 years to clean up the sport and they won't do it.

I think the doctor/patient argument is a horrible analogy here. In general, doctors usually do what is best for their patients. Doctors work for their patients. In horseracing, the vet does not work for his patient (the horse). The vets works for the owner and trainer, both of whom often do not have the best interest of the horse in mind.

If owners and trainers had the best interest of the horse in mind, you wouldn't have the state vet scratching horses the morning of the race. Why does the state vet scratch horses the morning of the race? Because trainers will sometimes attempt to run unsound horses. This proves that some trainers do not have the best interest of the horse in mind.

Anyway, you have a sport where hundreds of millions of dollars are being bet. When you have that much money being bet, there needs to be a governing body that insures integrity. With the stock market, they don't police themselves. You have the SEC that does that.

There needs to be someone there to protect the horses and protect the public. In my opinion, the racing industry has proven time and time again that they are incapable of policing themselves. Any time someone wants to make a significant change, the owners and trainers start dragging their feet. I'd rather have the industry take charge of itself but if they're not going to do it, then I have no problem with the government coming in.

Horse racing doesnt do a good job of policing itself because it doesnt have the authority to police itself.

And horseracing is far less corrupt than the stock market and its major participants

By the way the government has been supposedly protecting the horses and public for a long time and they obviously do such a poor job it has made guys like you forget that little factoid. The difference between a state racing commission and a national racing commission is the latter will just cost more to operate.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Gary Stevens is going to testify before Congress. Stevens takes a zero-tolerance stance on race-day medication. Stevens must be a terrible guy to take such a stance. He must have some really selfish and negative intentions. It's either that, or he must just be really ignorant on the subject. LOL. Let the attacks on Stevens begin.

http://www.drf.com/news/hovdey-steve...day-medication

Why does anyone care what Gary Stevens thinks about the topic? And why does his own personal experience matter considering he is not only being disingenious about why he kept coming back to ride not to mention because he is not a horse it isnt really relevant.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

... not to mention because he is not a horse it isnt really relevant.

So anything you or your ex-employee say isn't relevant either? I know you aren't a horse, and I don't think Riot is either.

Seriously though Chuck, if racing were trying to be legalized today and one of the stipulations was that virtually every horse had to receive a drug injection before racing, what are the chances it would, in fact, be legalized?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

So anything you or your ex-employee say isn't relevant either? I know you aren't a horse, and I don't think Riot is either.

Seriously though Chuck, if racing were trying to be legalized today and one of the stipulations was that virtually every horse had to receive a drug injection before racing, what are the chances it would, in fact, be legalized?

Gary Stevens is using his own personal medical history as the basis of his argument. That if he has taken time off instead of injecting his knees that he would still be riding. Of course his memory seems to be a bit short as to why he came back (financial issues relating to having too many kids) and that "rest" wasnt really an option. I would also add that jockeys rarely have much idea as to what goes on with individual horses outside of the 15 minutes that they spend on their back but Stevens does have that 3 month training career to fall back on.

As for your speculation I doubt that that issue would be relevant in the legalization as it is still is not required treatment. I undertsand what you are saying but this is being made into a far bigger item than it deserves and because this has become a political correctness battle it is impossible for those in favor of lasix use to win. The real question is what will the fallout be? May not work out so good in the long run.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Why does anyone care what Gary Stevens thinks about the topic? And why does his own personal experience matter considering he is not only being disingenious about why he kept coming back to ride not to mention because he is not a horse it isnt really relevant.

[Danzig]

is there a way to know beforehand whether a horse will bleed at any given time? are there warnings, advanced notice? any way to know if it'll be a minor or a major episode? since i've read that major bleeding can cause permanent damage that can lesser a horses ability in future, is there a way to know ahead of time what horses need lasix? or can it occur at any time to any horse? i've read in the past that a horse has bled in a race and had never done so before.

so, if you want to cut down on giving lasix, how do you go about doing that? and when one bleeds, do you just say 'oops' to the owner, the jock and the bettors?

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by Riot

Who cares what was done 50 years ago? When I was a child, I was taught to drench colic horses with a mixture of turpentine and linseed oil! Now we knows that probably killed alot of horses - yet veterinarians did it!

This is the closest you've ever come to making any sort of sense.

I assure you, in 50 years, they are going to be saying the same kind of thing as what you said about colic.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

This is the closest you've ever come to making any sort of sense.

I assure you, in 50 years, they are going to be saying the same kind of thing as what you said about colic.

LOL - About lasix? Heck no. We know all about the pharmacology of lasix.