NYTHA Lasix Primer & Letter to NYS RWB

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

What is the source that asserts that European horses are trained on lasix? Even so, does supporting a ban of raceday medication mean that one also must support banning medication for training/therapeutic purposes?

Furthermore, a racehorse's reputation is (or should be) made on raceday, not during training sessions, so a "drug dependent" horse would still have to compete clean to have a shot at entering the breeding population.

as soon as they come up with a way to know beforehand what horses will suffer a bleeding episode and when, i'll fully support removing horses who don't 'need' lasix from using it. until then, i will fully support all efforts to prevent hemorraging during training and racing.

for starters on europe and lasix, there's this pdf from grayson-jockey club:

http://www.grayson-jockeyclub.org/ne...singmatter.pdf

an excerpt:

.'....“Lasix” to race? Yes, these drugs are illegal when racing in Europe, but it is not illegal for a European trainer to administer these drugs to a horse when he is training it.'


and keep in mind, most euros run on lasix when here. i've always found it odd when euro trainers sneer at us for using it, and then use it themselves as soon as they get the chance.

[Danzig]

then there's this:


The Horsemen's Journal: Archive


Medication Committee Corner: Are We Winning the Lasix War?
The Horsemen''''s Journal - Fall 2011
by Kent H. Stirling, National HBPA Medication Committee Chairman

A lot has happened in the last few months dealing generally with race-day medication and specifically with Lasix/Salix, which is used to reduce or prevent Exercise Induced Pulmonary Hemorrhage (EIPH) in racehorses. Lasix (I still can’t bring myself to call it Salix after all these years) is permitted for administration to racehorses three to four hours before post time in all United States racing jurisdictions. It is also legal on race-day in Canada, South America, and Saudi Arabia. Horses train on it in virtually every country in the world with a 50-nanogram threshold in urine or, in other words, don’t work a horse on it within two days of your race or your horse will be “positive” for Lasix. Since EIPH is a progressive condition that gets worse with age and every bleeding incident, one would be well advised to train on Lasix for speed works in those countries that don’t permit its use in racing.


imo, if they use it in training, where a horse seemingly would NOT be at maximum exertion, why would they ban it's use when he would be needing to run his best and hardest? what matter if it's not in the system within 48 hours of an actual race if it's used otherwise? how is that logical?


https://www.nationalhbpa.com/Horseme...n=3&key1=13747

there's the link to the whole article.


and for those who don't read it through, this is toward the end:


Dr. Tobin gave a presentation on the expected increased risk to horse and rider from acute/sudden death EIPH due to the banning of Lasix. This risk was fairly obvious because when New York permitted Lasix in 1995, the incidence of Epistaxis (visibly bleeding from the nostrils) immediately dropped 80 percent!

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

imo, if they use it in training, where a horse seemingly would NOT be at maximum exertion, why would they ban it's use when he would be needing to run his best and hardest? what matter if it's not in the system within 48 hours of an actual race if it's used otherwise? how is that logical?

If I were to guess, I'd say that due to the endless arguments of whether it's a performance-enhancer or not, Europe just decides to dodge the issue and forbid it on race day.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Danzig

for starters on europe and lasix, there's this pdf from grayson-jockey club:

http://www.grayson-jockeyclub.org/ne...singmatter.pdf

an excerpt:

.'....“Lasix” to race? Yes, these drugs are illegal when racing in Europe, but it is not illegal for a European trainer to administer these drugs to a horse when he is training it.'

This is hardly proof that European trainers utilize lasix during training.

Another poster in this thread, when discussing the safety of using lasix, seemed to suggest that even American racehorses only receive lasix for races, not training. So Europeans are allegedly using lasix like hotcakes inbetween races, but their US counterparts wait until only raceday? Seems counterintuitive, and bad practice besides, since a racehorse can suffer bleeding in training (even simply galloping) just as it can in a race.

and keep in mind, most euros run on lasix when here. i've always found it odd when euro trainers sneer at us for using it, and then use it themselves as soon as they get the chance.

It can be argued, as cmorioles has suggested numerous times, that lasix is used by European trainers when racing stateside because it enhances performance or at least "levels the playing field". And this indiscriminate use of drugs in a "pre-race" fashion is the underlying crux of why even therapeutic medications are being targeted for banning by certain elitist-idealists groups within the racing industry.

[GenuineRisk]

Graham Motion on Lasix (note what he says about Britain)

Team Valor’s Barry Irwin has said he can’t convince you that you don’t need Lasix on raceday. Why is that?
My problem with doing away with Lasix is that we’re going to go back to how it was before in New York (the last state to permit the drug), where everybody is trying to use things under the table that nobody knows about. I honestly don’t believe that in some of these other countries people don’t use alternative medications to Lasix. It’s better the devil you know than the devil you don’t know. Most horses bleed to a degree. Lasix is one medication that we know helps horses that have this hemorrhaging. My feeling is let’s control the administration like they do in Canada. 5 cc’s are to be given by a state veterinarian. If we do away with Lasix, we’d better step up security big time. No one’s going to like that. You cannot tell me that people are not going to use other things.

Are you suggesting the rest of the world should adopt our rules?
That’s a tough point. No, I’m not. In England, everyone gives Lasix up to the race, then they take it away. A lot of it comes to the horsemanship side.

We are so much more proactive over here in scoping our horses. I want to be on top of our horses. When we consider a horse to bleed, it might just have a spot in his lungs. In many places bleeding is only identified if it’s external.

http://www.paulickreport.com/feature...graham-motion/

[Danzig]

ok, from everything i've read here and the other thread, as well as in other discussions, let me see if i have this right:


pro's of removing lasix on race day:

no longer have horses on drugs on race day.


are there any others?

facts on lasix:

not harmful
not proven to enhance performance (note, i said proven-opnion/belief isn't proof)
prevents bleeding and any accompanying lung damage
not a masking agent. (as the study i linked said, with plasma testing, better testing(for what they know what to test for!), lasix can't be considered as a masking agent
used either in training and/or race day in practically every racing jurisdiction on the planet

cons of removing lasix on race day:

bleeders with a history have lost their bleeding prevention, prone to worsening episodes as well as more and more damage.
no way of knowing what horse will have a bleeding episode, or when, or how severe. that in turn means no prevention of lung damage, which can be permanent
an alternative to lasix is removal of water and food for 24-48 hours before racing. (that's some alternative)

or you can force people who currently have something they can use to prevent bleeding to retire a horse instead. wow. can you imagine? dip deep in your pockets, buy a horse. pay for all the training and what comes with it...the horse runs, bleeds, and you have no way to recoup that money. that sounds like a great plan.



and as for the comment about 'since the 70's' this or that has changed...

isn't that about the same time that commercial breeding took off?

Originally Posted by Danzig

ok, from everything i've read here and the other thread, as well as in other discussions, let me see if i have this right:


pro's of removing lasix on race day:

no longer have horses on drugs on race day.


are there any others?

facts on lasix:

not harmful
not proven to enhance performance (note, i said proven-opnion/belief isn't proof)
prevents bleeding and any accompanying lung damage
not a masking agent. (as the study i linked said, with plasma testing, better testing(for what they know what to test for!), lasix can't be considered as a masking agent
used either in training and/or race day in practically every racing jurisdiction on the planet

cons of removing lasix on race day:

bleeders with a history have lost their bleeding prevention, prone to worsening episodes as well as more and more damage.
no way of knowing what horse will have a bleeding episode, or when, or how severe. that in turn means no prevention of lung damage, which can be permanent
an alternative to lasix is removal of water and food for 24-48 hours before racing. (that's some alternative)

or you can force people who currently have something they can use to prevent bleeding to retire a horse instead. wow. can you imagine? dip deep in your pockets, buy a horse. pay for all the training and what comes with it...the horse runs, bleeds, and you have no way to recoup that money. that sounds like a great plan.



and as for the comment about 'since the 70's' this or that has changed...

isn't that about the same time that commercial breeding took off?

It's good for big pharma. It also was initially used to treat forms of heart disease.

If the majority of horses take it then vets should be held accountable and face license suspension if they can't prove the horse has a heart condition.

It's not a good look for the sport when mostly old humans are taking furosemide and it translates to young horses taking it.

Doesn't make your side seem to0 genuine.

Side note: It's clear to me Black Caviar needs it. That poor horse!!

[Danzig]

but like i said, come up with a way to detect who will bleed and the problem is solved.
if it's not harmful, what's the problem? if there's an alternative to lasix to prevent bleeding, present it.

otherwise right now it appears people want to ban it just to say it's been banned.
what about the horse who needs it, or may need it? are we to just cross our fingers and hope horses don't bleed? and some will, what then? people want horses to race longer, constantly decrying early retirements. but older horses become more prone to episodes, what then?


to say just get rid of it is not enough. it's not a solution, other than to say 'ta da, we don't have race day meds'. is that more important than making sure there aren't medical issues? i think this 'cure' is worse than the 'disease'.

if it doesn't cause harm, doesn't enhance performance, and doesn't mask drugs, what's the problem? what potentially costs more, using it, or not using it and having to deal with eiph?


what's best for the horses?

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Danzig

if it's not harmful, what's the problem? if there's an alternative to lasix to prevent bleeding, present it.

Nasal strips have been shown to be just as effective. Riot's answer is that she would use both. Yeah, sure, that makes sense. Pay twice for the same effect. Chuck's answer was "the darn things just don't stick too good." Seemed to stick fine on the Derby winner.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

ok, from everything i've read here and the other thread, as well as in other discussions, let me see if i have this right:


pro's of removing lasix on race day:

no longer have horses on drugs on race day.


are there any others?

facts on lasix:

not harmful
not proven to enhance performance (note, i said proven-opnion/belief isn't proof)
prevents bleeding and any accompanying lung damage
not a masking agent. (as the study i linked said, with plasma testing, better testing(for what they know what to test for!), lasix can't be considered as a masking agent
used either in training and/or race day in practically every racing jurisdiction on the planet

cons of removing lasix on race day:

bleeders with a history have lost their bleeding prevention, prone to worsening episodes as well as more and more damage.
no way of knowing what horse will have a bleeding episode, or when, or how severe. that in turn means no prevention of lung damage, which can be permanent
an alternative to lasix is removal of water and food for 24-48 hours before racing. (that's some alternative)

or you can force people who currently have something they can use to prevent bleeding to retire a horse instead. wow. can you imagine? dip deep in your pockets, buy a horse. pay for all the training and what comes with it...the horse runs, bleeds, and you have no way to recoup that money. that sounds like a great plan.



and as for the comment about 'since the 70's' this or that has changed...

isn't that about the same time that commercial breeding took off?

You have the issues well thought out

You did forget one con, however: the increase in the American racing public starting to see horses bleeding out their nose and in respiratory distress as they come back to be unsaddled.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Riot

You have the issues well thought out

You did forget one con, however: the increase in the American racing public starting to see horses bleeding out their nose and in respiratory distress as they come back to be unsaddled.

Nowhere in that study did it suggest using both. It said both were about equally good at controlling EIPH.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Nowhere in that study did it suggest using both. It said both were about equally good at controlling EIPH.

You are confusing efficacy of the treatment with physiology.

The study you are referring to (there are several, by the way, more than one) wasn't about "should one or both be used", and neither did it say "only one should be used" as you are falsely implying.

They do not have the same "effect". They have a similar therapeutic efficacy. They have different "effects".

As I said: the two different therapies complement each other, not duplicate each other.

FLAIR also has other measured benefits that furosemide does not have regarding - GASP! - straight old "performance enhancing" !!! Why are you not mounting an effort to get FLAIR strips outlawed?

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Danzig

ok, from everything i've read here and the other thread, as well as in other discussions, let me see if i have this right:


pro's of removing lasix on race day:

no longer have horses on drugs on race day.


are there any others?

facts on lasix:

not harmful
not proven to enhance performance (note, i said proven-opnion/belief isn't proof)
prevents bleeding and any accompanying lung damage
not a masking agent. (as the study i linked said, with plasma testing, better testing(for what they know what to test for!), lasix can't be considered as a masking agent
used either in training and/or race day in practically every racing jurisdiction on the planet

cons of removing lasix on race day:

bleeders with a history have lost their bleeding prevention, prone to worsening episodes as well as more and more damage.
no way of knowing what horse will have a bleeding episode, or when, or how severe. that in turn means no prevention of lung damage, which can be permanent
an alternative to lasix is removal of water and food for 24-48 hours before racing. (that's some alternative)

One thing not mentioned was the dose of lasix used on raceday.

One of the reasons behind the banning of "milkshaking" is that horsemen can alter the outercome of a race by employing an "on-and-off" regimen (one race given, one race not given) of bicarbonate.

With lasix, most jurisdictions allow a range of lasix from 150mg to 500mg. Is there room there to alter a horse's performance? If I have a severe bleeder whose bleeding is controlled only with the higher dose of lasix, what happens if I up and decide to give him the bare minimum in his next race?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

One thing not mentioned was the dose of lasix used on raceday.

One of the reasons behind the banning of "milkshaking" is that horsemen can alter the outercome of a race by employing an "on-and-off" regimen (one race given, one race not given) of bicarbonate.

With lasix, most jurisdictions allow a range of lasix from 150mg to 500mg. Is there room there to alter a horse's performance? If I have a severe bleeder whose bleeding is controlled only with the higher dose of lasix, what happens if I up and decide to give him the bare minimum in his next race?

i don't know, what will happen?


one other question...what benefits do you anticipate if lasix is banned?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i don't know, what will happen?


one other question...what benefits do you anticipate if lasix is banned?

Danzig: these two guys hold medical opinions completely opposite from the consensus white papers of the American Veterinary Medical Association and the American Association of Equine Practitioners.

There's a reason for that.

Bad science and bad logic is nothing more than that. Again, think Jenny McCarthy, vaccination, autuism.

[Calzone Lord]

Originally Posted by Danzig

one other question...what benefits do you anticipate if lasix is banned?

In terms of who benefits...probably the horses who don't need it.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

One thing not mentioned was the dose of lasix used on raceday.

One of the reasons behind the banning of "milkshaking" is that horsemen can alter the outercome of a race by employing an "on-and-off" regimen (one race given, one race not given) of bicarbonate.

With lasix, most jurisdictions allow a range of lasix from 150mg to 500mg. Is there room there to alter a horse's performance? If I have a severe bleeder whose bleeding is controlled only with the higher dose of lasix, what happens if I up and decide to give him the bare minimum in his next race?

The problem with the questions like this is that it is impossible to isolate a single factor in the performance of a horse. More lasix doesnt mean better treatment. The idea that a horseman can turn a horse off and on with milkshakes is silly. The entire premise that we can stop horses with a lower dose of lasix assumes that all other factors are not pertinent. A lot of what you and CJ want is answers that dont exist and will never exist because this is not an exact science regardless of how hard you scrutinize it.

Making a horse bleed before treating them is asinine and irresponsible. Do you wait to have a heart attack before you go on a aspirin regime? Millions of people take a drug everyday and a large percentage of them will never have a heart attack.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The problem with the questions like this is that it is impossible to isolate a single factor in the performance of a horse. The idea that a horseman can turn a horse off and on with milkshakes is silly. The entire premise that we can stop horses with a lower dose of lasix assumes that all other factors are not pertinent. A lot of what you and CJ want is answers that dont exist and will never exist because this is not an exact science regardless of how hard you scrutinize it.

It's not really a question of provability, though, is it? It's a question of intent and opportunity.

If the possiblity exists that bicarbonate loading affects performance, then ideally administering "milkshakes" should be prohibited.

If the possibility exists that altering the dose of lasix affects performance, then ideally the dose of lasix should be standardized (eg, by body weight) at the very least.

More lasix doesnt mean better treatment.

Two scenarios:

1) Your horse receives 150mg of lasix for a race. The horse wins. Post-race, the horse is found to have bled a Grade 3 (scale 0 to 4). Assuming no further complications, how do you treat the horse for its next start, at the same class level?

2) Your horse receives 150mg of lasix for a race. The horse runs poorly. Post-race, the horse is found to have bled a Grade 3. Assuming no further complications, how do you treat the horse for its next start, at the same class level?

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

A lot of what you and CJ want is answers that dont exist and will never exist because this is not an exact science regardless of how hard you scrutinize it.

Sure, it isn't an exact science. However, I have no doubt that a study could be conducted to test if Lasix enhances performance in non-bleeders and bleeders alike. If the sample is large enough, reasonable conclusions could be drawn.

The problem is the people currently doing the testing really have no idea how to measure thoroughbred performance during races, and neither do veterinarians. There are plenty of people that do and could be used as consultants if anyone really had the desire to know. The problem is such an experiment would cost a ton of money and also would require people to let their horses be used in the study.

Outside of that, all I can do is draw conclusions based on the data and experience I've accumulated over the years. I would say with 95 percent certainty that it is a performance enhancer. That is my opinion and I'll stand by it until it is proven otherwise.

One good thing has come out of this finally. You admitted it hasn't been proven that Lasix IS NOT a performance enhancer. I do find it funny that the alleged positives can be tested and proven, yet you claim the single biggest negative can never be tested. Of course it can be tested. It just depends on how badly people want to know the answer.

[Calzone Lord]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

My problem with doing away with Lasix is that we’re going to go back to how it was before in New York (the last state to permit the drug), where everybody is trying to use things under the table that nobody knows about. I honestly don’t believe that in some of these other countries people don’t use alternative medications to Lasix. It’s better the devil you know than the devil you don’t know.

This is basically the obvious reason why I don't care one way or another about the lasix issue and would probably prefer it doesn't get banned.