Tues. Misc.

"Hamlet, Hamlet..."

"Good my lord, be quiet..."

"Why I will fight with him upon this theme
Until my eyelids will no longer wag."

"...Nay, and thou'lt mouth,
I'll rant as well as thou."

--Hamlet

Act V, Scene I. Possibly literature's penultimate. And so, Pressey's self described"rant" last prior post is hardly new, as ranting goes. And, a comment from Australia. Welcome. We are T.J. Smith and Gai Waterhouse admirers here!

While B. Pressey and myself differ on the lasix , we seems to share the Q of TB training and trainers mostly involving how few of them seem to "get it" in terms of applying exercise physiology to their training.

Being likely a little longer in the tooth than Pressey and therefore through a few likely more years of sitting back in amazement watching well meaning souls "train" horses, I have through the years put all this into my own personal perspective.

For me this all precedes horses and goes back to my basketball years. Exercise science is ignored in human as well as equine sports so that even to this day the Kansas City Royals have a manager and general manager seemingly without any clue how their noodle arm pitchers keep getting hurt. There is little sense e.g. with this management how poorly in general in human athletics that non-weight lifters do against weight lifters--in the case of baseball e.g. the Boston Red Sox with their personal trainers vs. the K.C. Royals.

In my experience maybe 25% of those coaches active in human athletics "get it" in terms of connecting conditioning with performance and injury prevention. At the higher levels competition and weeding out the idiots has expelled the last non-conditioning coaches out of the NFL--and that was Herman Edwards with his pajama party practices right here in KCMO. And, by and large the NBA now has conditioning coaches. Baseball is behind, but you may expect that to change as quickly as the next younger generation comes on board.

With horses there are numerous reasons. I think the primary one is that most horse trainers came to the game because they know how to throw horse feed. Almost none of them are athletes themselves and therefore none have themselves done the conditioning that improves their own athletic performance.

It's an interesting Q, and while it's up there, will continue with a few more opinions, next post.

Training:
Tack work 8/27 and 8/29 with riderless speed work every three days. Will call to Remington tomorrow to check on eligibility. Big phone call.

Sun. Misc.

Without internet last two days. Later. The blog believes Plecher training is just under what's required for fracture resistance. More proof as Hilda's Passion (luckily) crosses finish line with a fracture. Uncle Mo--nice horse. Will be surprised given the training if Mo survived that without an injury.

Farm Report

Concerning lasix will have to agree to disagree with B. Pressey and the other anti-lasixs of various flavors from the mindlessly rabid anti-lasixs there since day one to those having various different and isolated legit reasons but who fail imho with using what's good for the horse as the starting point on the Q. I'm leaving the subject. I'd long ago tired of debating the subject. The proposed ban was new, and urgent for those who train horses. While the drug may wind up banned in some jurisdictions, in areas of humidity it will be there, and imo whatever ban there is will be short lived. The horse racing desk jockeys will figure things out in the end.

Take note that B. Pressy and I agree on widespread questionable training. Interesting that Pressey would report this and agree with my perception of it, and also that this is still the case 4 years after I was last on track at the Woodlands. The disagreement probably arises that this deficient training is the result of lasix availability. My take would be that I doubt any trainer wants to give lasix or that they calculate lasix use into their exercise programs. Trainers in my experience use lasix for treatment and mostly for prevention.

Forgot to call Remington this week to verify our horse is eligible. We're in a critical week, and I have decided unless we get legit speed under tack by first of Sept. I'm giving it up with this horse. Last eve was a typical example that things keep happening. Going out to the track the horse froze up and refused leaving the paddock. They'd seen something in the pasture that scared them. And, sure enough, when I got him out there there was a deer with a full rack standing right on the track 200 yards down. Was thinking the deer would move himself. But, with Murphy's law in full operation as always, the mf just stood there the whole time we were out there. I know better than to work Rodney when he's worried, as our good rider has had at least three serious disasters in this circumstance. Am thinking the large antlers suddenly are new, and its concerning them. I thus only walked the horse under tack over familiar territory for about 10 min.

The other riding factor of late has been the plume of water vapor that's been over KC since mid June and the oppressive humidity that for our old rider turns the legs to jelly and with this wide body horse it is just painful to sit on him. You're legs at the ankles are jacked about a yard apart. One week to get through this to some speed work. Luckily weather forecast cooperates and we're out of having rain here the last 13 out of 18 days.

Training: We've done every other day riderless speed work and some tack work this week. Another nice speed session in excess of several 4f heats on Aug. 24 + walk under tack.

Lasix Finale

"What passes here is hardly new..."
--Mephistopheles in Goethe's Faust

Just read B. Pressey's comment last post. Unable personally to relate EIPH treatment to "starts per horse" where I'd think the effect would be exactly the opposite. Reduction in starts I'd relate primarily to deficient training, questionable campaigning, where trainers are always looking for "the right spot" instead of just racing their animals. But, who knows.

That lasix itself would "reduce" the number of starts would be solely related to lasix use weakening bone structure, which seems highly illogical to me. I'd more relate weak bones to lack of vitamin D and appropriate calcium supplementation combined with inappropriate training. Watching some of these yo yos train, are we really to believe them injuring an entire shedrow in one meet is related to lasix use?

If we're banning EIPH treatment on race day--remembering that's all it is, and that EIPH treatment is going to continue 24/7 during training--I think it prudent for the sport that an exercise physiologist/vet tandem follow some non-lasix volunteers--write a few non-lasix dirt races for these, see what happens to the lungs. Just guessing that over a course of 10 races it will be other than pretty.

I'd respectfully differ that USA racing should play Russian Roulette with our dirt horses in the manner that's being suggested. Lasix was the new wonder drug just a few years back and the last that opposed finally agreed in NY in early '90s. Different crowd, different argument now, but this all is hardly new. Will be interesting to know Bill Pressey's thoughts as he goes on this one. And, btw, and this is strictly personal opinion, those "lower level" horse people ought to be the back bone of this sport. They're the ones that ultimately support the sport, though that's another subject. To wipe them out with a lasix sideshow to me locks up the sport with the deep pockets, what many of them are bucking for, to be sure.

Lasix--Summing It Up

New mantra of the Jockey Club: Medication free racing. A worthy goal, to be sure. And also one promoted by those that have never themselves ridden a horse that suffers EIPH and listened to the coughing or been on the end of the shank of a bleeding horse.

EIPH horses should not be racing, so the mantra goes. Never mind that this eliminates such as BC winner Pleasantly Perfect, and such presently good horses as Pants On Fire etc. etc. etc. Likely the list of accomplished EIPH horses is long. Heck with them, is the argument. There's some greater purpose, as if these jokers already know that it's possible to eliminate EIPH from the breed merely by preventing such horses from racing.

Interestingly, there's also the Q whether horses that can really run should be eliminated from the gene pool solely due to the eminently treatable condition of EIPH.

If they did "know", if such were scientific fact, the anti-lasixs would have an argument, of course. Truth of the matter is they have zero idea, they are using this concept to support their prejudices, and also, the idea is flat out wrong because EIPH is likely caused by the nature of the structures and weight of the animal instead of their being an EIPH gene.

What does concern those of us favoring the continuation of lasix is the % of horses that are subject to the problem. Reports coming out of such stables as Kenneth McPeek are that very few horses have a serious EIPH problem. Never mind, of course that this statistic was got by using lasix. OK--very few horses have serious EIPH on lasix. That's sort of the goal, right?

The only study on this shows that non-lasix horses on dirt track experience significant EIPH. The question is what would a field of 10 horses be like after 10 races regards EIPH. Unknown. We simply don't know.

If you're talking about banning the one drug that will permit a horse to race with EIPH and also prevent the condition--if you are knowledgeable enough to understand the need to prevent the condition, if you're smart enough to know that this sport is unable to withstand trashing a horse on which an owner expended $30-$50,000 in time energy and money--then the lasix question is pretty much a no brainer. This all contrasts with "medication free" racing. Is that possible? Should we find out with appropriate studies before going off half cocked?

Training:
Sun. 8/21--back at it after 4 inches of rain and inability to get the bridle on the horse due to his wound between his ears. 2 x 3f riderless racing. Rodney again gives a wow performance. Hopefully the wound has crusted enough to get a bridle on tonight.

Lasix XI

The final anti-lasix argument I'm able to think of:

Integrity: This involves the lure of "medication free" racing. Sounds good to me. Seriously. Guessing the integrity argument involves the idea of racing without performance enhancers, avoiding turning our racing stock into veterinary pin cushions, and doing questionable and horrible practices to our horses. What's good for the horse and racing in general is to "get the drugs out of racing", huge vet bills, crooked vets in the pre-race stalls, carnival quality trainers applying performance enhancing substances to their stock, getting USA in line with "rest of world" etc.

Counterpoint: Integrity applied to racing would be a huge subject. Just a few thoughts as concept of integrity would apply to lasix and race day meds.

Cheating drug using owners-trainers without a doubt exist although I'd observe in our parts most of them have been drummed out of the sport by tight regulation. Does it surprise at all that in such formerly bush league tracks as Penn National, in the news this week, or the apparently loosely regulated Philadelphia Park have been magnets for this sort of individual. I keep reading about cheating with drugs in racing, and do wonder about the magnitude of the problem. Personally, I doubt its a large problem for the reason that although this ilk are in general fools and horse abusers that should be weeded out, it does take quite a low and nefarious IQ to put your training license and livelihood at risk for winning a single race. Logic would tell us that there are very few around racing for any length of time that would engage in such practices.

The question is what does lasix have to do with all of this? The answer involves nothing but mixing up the perception of performance enhancer use with horse meds. This might easily be sorted out for the general public by somebody getting a back bone and responding to the incessant crying of a few paranoid horse players that keep barking up this tree. Instead, we're talking about banning lasix. It's a side show to the real problem, if there is one.

In the end for me the question of "integrity" applied to lasix begins and ends with what is good for the horse. I'd have a modicum of respect for Stuart Janney and Ed Martin if they'd begin their analysis in that sense. But, it's otherwise. Have you heard any of the USA anti-lasixs begin their spiel with: Well, we've considered this, and what we think is best for horses is as follows.....

If this were the approach I'd be listening. For me in a much more graphic sense the integrity question was all wrapped up into watching that brave filly win one of the Jap Cups a year ago crossing the finish line with blood streaming out of her nose. The camera caught it perfectly.

The Stuart Janney's of course will figure it out true integrity on this Q. I am visualizing racing at Ellis Park in the summer heat and humidity without lasix. It is over the long haul integrity applied to the horse that will right this ship. Sum it up next post.

Training:
4 inches of rain over 2 days. Record breaking. Still tried to ride and failed due to another ridiculous confluence of events.

Lasix VIII

Genetics (continued): Will lasix aided stallions turn the whole gene pool into a bunch of bleeders? Do certain stallions pass on the EIPH gene as per last post. Is there an EIPH gene? Anybody know? Therefore we eliminate lasix due to "genetics".

Counterpoint:
1. There likely are no EIPH stallions that pass on their condition per Bob Baffert. If there are, name them. While we are unable to say with certainty and without statistics that fail to exist, the circumstantial evidence below indicates this premise is another in the fairly large bag of trainer bs.

2. Is there an EIPH gene? I doubt it. Logical analysis indicates EIPH likely is a physical problem initiated by specific pressures on lung capillaries probably in certain weather conditions and exertions. You'd have to think this "gene" developed in this narrow population over a fraction of the normal evolutionary period. But, the question whether EIPH is passed on in certain gene context gets even more absurd. Read on.

3. 95% of the TB racers these days evolved from three stallions--Northern Dancer, Mr. Prospector, Bold Ruler. If you want to trace back further--Native Dancer. And each of these came from Nasrullah. If somebody is passing along a "gene" then are they all, every last one of them.

4. The main (0ld) EIPH study on the % of horses that bleed indicated (if memory serves) that 90% of non-lasix TBs experience some degree of EIPH when racing. If this old study is to be believed, where does that leave the EIPH gene?

5. And, the final nail in the coffin for the "theory": Lasix has been around but 30 years. Are you claiming there has been some genetic adaptation over 2 or three horse generations. And, if you are logical enough to avoid claiming that, where did all these bleeders come from. Answer: the EIPH that there is today was around before lasix ever entered the scene.

That EIPH is inherited at this point without further study would be totally speculative and there's very little that I can think of that would support it. Hilariously, my one serious bleeder derives from my broodmare that was by English Champion Wind and Wuthering. They never produce bleeders over there in Europe, do they?

Training:
Off. Detail the latest disasters next post.

Lasix VII

(Edit--comment for Bill Pressey below)

Genetics: in this regard there's some trouble figuring precisely the anti-lasix argument. Give it a stab.

Best I'm able to fathom--

--Lasix permits EIPH horses to win Grade I races and become stallions.

--EIPH being a heritable trait, these same stallions pass the EIPH gene to their off spring.

--This geometrically increases EIPH in the population.

--This phenomenon occured only after intro of lasix because previously such stallions would fail to make it to the breeding shed due to their EIPH.

With certain commenters there's also that (irrational) undercurrent that the breed has gotten weaker since intro of lasix and thus the culprit is the lasix.

Counterpoint: preface by noting many horse traits indeed seem highly heritable, and also that none other than Bob Baffert claims that certain stallions produce "bleeders".

As it seems with all of the anti-lasix arguments this one need be dismantled brick by brick to see whether any of it is left standing.

If it comes out of Baffert's mouth it must be true? Or is it? Some stallions--compared to other stallions--are passing on EIPH. Let's take note this belief has been around forever. When did I first hear this statement but the very first time I entered a backstretch in 1989. Trainers horse bleeds, it must be the stallion. Dare we think these same beliefs were also around in 1950 and 1925?

Common sense should immediately on hearing this argument produce some healthy skepticism. Other than saying "it ain't true". After all, if D.W. Lukas, Baffert and company believe it there's something to it, right? Let's take a closer look.

Something else I've noted is that the particular "stallions" in question are never named. There's never been any research. I'd bet my last coin that neither the stallion owner nor breeding farm have any belief in Baffert's remark. And, as food for thought for anyone that's taken a close look at numerous stallion stats as I have, albeit some time ago in the mid 1990s--stallion stats tend to be very consistent across the breed. While this or that stallion occasionally excels or falls flat in slight degrees, almost all of the them produce 70-80% runners and 50-60% winners. If u bother to look at the stats you'll see very little difference between $5000 stallions that have been around a while and $50,000 stallions in this regard.

But, Baffert et. al. (entire training community) have us believe that for the trait of EIPH this is relegated to some few. Let's take a note of some more info that we do understand. Trainers are the biggest excuse makers going. Your horse fails to run well, something happens to your horse? Is it ever the trainer's fault? Never been in my history. Instead, there's always some other reason besides the training and handling. Trainer's horse bleeds--is the "stallion" the most convenient excuse for explaining this bad event to the owner? That's the one thing nascent owner will never question. The trainer must know, right?

While anybody that's been around awhile snorts coffee through your nose reading such nonsense, let's conclude this by leaving the question open. Nobody knows if certain stallions pass on EIPH more than other stallions. It's supposition at best. Maybe true, maybe untrue. Likely untrue, in view of what will be considered next.

Training:
Wed. 8/17: riderless speed work.
Thurs. 8/18 4 times up and down the hill, walk-trot-gallop. The bridle came just to the edge of the wound he has between the ears. Phew. Dodged a bullet there as that will take about 3 weeks to heal.

((Edit--Bill--txs. again for comment--hoping to get to a Lexington sale and meet u one of these days! expect by time u get to symposium u will be converted to my way of thinking :) :). Did the running experiment way back when but purposefully,and drank no water at all from about 6 p.m. to the run at 9:00 a.m. During the run I took note of zero performance declines although unmeasured, of course. I was at least slightly dehydrated at the time, and failed to feel any differences in the way I normally felt during the same run. Certainly this should be looked at and measured--my whole point at my conclusion.)

Lasix VI

To sum up my opinion--probably many appropriately trained, appropriately warmed up horses with adequate precautions that involve avoiding speed work in adverse weather conditions, taking note of slight EIPH developments and when they occur to tip toe intelligently through training etc. can race without lasix through long careers.

The fly in the ointment is the number of perfectly good athletes that would be lost along the way from the malady of EIPH. What %--it is unknown, we can only guess. My guess is 25-50% depending on the luck of the particular year. The % is high enough to be ridiculous. No matter for those uninvolved on the horse side. For owners and trainers disaster for many.

This leaves the following as anti-lasix arguments:

1. Detriments resulting from lasix shots.

2. Genetics.

3. Integrity.

All three are nearly absurd arguments that fail to pass close and fair analysis.

1. Detriment resulting from administration of lasix: The argument is that lasix is so detrimental to certain aspects of horse physiology that it should be, combined with other arguments, banned. The negative side effects are contained in that lengthy list of lasix evils that Tom Ivers published in his books that has been around forever. There are but two of those that should be of any concern whatsoever:

1. Dehydration, and

2. Demineralization.

Counterpoints:

Dehydration: I have tried to mimic the dehydration effects of lasix by doing my 6 mile runs after a night of urination without ingesting any water before hand. While I never consider running in this situation as ideal, frankly there is zero effect. While my blood pressure undoubtedly is a little reduced, exercising in this situation gives me the nagging feeling that the blood may be a little more sludgy. Bottom line analysis of this is that the thoughts are likely primarily psychological. Try it. Hydration is an insignificant problem. Why--urinations produce only mild instead of serious dehydration. The argument-- considering the alternatives-- has zero weight.

Demineralization: This is the fairly absurd argument that a couple of lasix shots a month are detrimental to bones. A properly supplemented horse is not going to experience bone mineral loss, period. I doubt it needs further discussion. BUT, if it does, then consider that the lasix ban is for "race day". Needless to say a lasix ban will likely produce far more lasix use than previously because trainers will have heightened concern re EIPH and will use lasix in breezing at every opportunity. This does not happen now, particularly in light breezing. The argument utterly fails imo.

On to genetics, next post.

Training:
8/16: Off.
8/17: Riderless, another, got to get this horse to the race track workout. Rodney in the last two riderless workouts is flashing flat out sprinting speed. This is happening because the older horse is racing with him again. Its fun, and lazy Rod is into it. Do my eyes deceive me? Last night big Rodney galloped another half mile after the w/o concluded. I am dreaming, possibly.

Lasix V

Amid the milieu and inconvenient details to the anti-lasix argument particularly regards the Q what % of non-lasix dirt horses bleed is our wide eyed year 2011 auction buyer bidding her horse up to a cool $30,000 with the old fashion notion if some particular malady would overcome that horse on its way to earning a small fortune-- such as e.g. EIPH --we'll as in days of old have to take it back in the woods to be shot.

This absurd, ridiculous notion is called the "go on to the next one" theory that has prevailed at our race tracks from the year 1900 and certainly is still the practice in every single one of our noted stables. The malady involved can be anything, but how ridiculous is it when the problem is EIPH that can be treated?

There's more to the argument. Let's continue. Secretariat and company proved that a horse could have a long career without lasix. How can this be so?

Unknown to me exactly, and I feel sure also this is an unanswered Q. However, experienced horse people probably have quite a few clues. How does EIPH happen in the first place? Is it physical or is it genetic as Bob Baffert would have us believe?

How does mild EIPH get started in a horse's lungs? I'd guess there are three major causes.

1. The young horse is asked to do more than it has been trained for in a particular speed workout.

2. The speed workout or race happens by chance to occur on a day of high humidity/low air pressure combo.

3. By chance or accident where one lung capillary bursts, no one knows, and the horse is taken out too soon afterward for more work that aggravates the problem.

So, the argument, Secretariat avoided all of these???

One more thing to note in this regard. I strongly suspect, but unknown, that sprinters--horses doing 6F sprints are geometrically more prone to develop EIPH than route horses. Why? Two reasons:
1. Sprinters are trained less, they breeze less. Their cardiovascular systems are in worse condition than route horses due to the manner of training, and

2. 2f in :21 and change as opposed to 2f in :24 is also going put geometrically greater pressure on the lung capillaries.

Thus the route horses, the Secretariats of old, with a little help from their trainers in terms of drawing, concoctions and blind luck make it through, and never mind for the anti-lasix crowd how many casualties on the way to that accomplishment.

For persons knowledgeable in running TBs, most answers are provided above. Would these points hold through research? Should we find out before mindlessly banning the drug?

But, there's much more. Genetics, next post.

Training: Two days off. Nasty cut on poll between ears. Ok in Preston Burch training. Recommence tonight.

Lasix IV

Txs to Bill Pressey for taking time to make anti-lasix argument in the comment. Sort of discussion that should be had, imho.

My Q posed last post--is logical step by step analysis that separates the many myths and incorrect suppositions possible without knowing % of non-lasix USA dirt horses that would experience EIPH? Why, e.g. per Pressey, would u discuss non-lasix for graded races if the % where high. Answer will be stud book-long term benefit of breed--but, read on.

What % bleed (continued):Secretariat and his predecessors had long careers without lasix. If 90% have EIPH, how is this possible?

Counterpoint: This is something else that is unknown. Personally, I wish some of the old timers would speak up, but fact of matter is they're probably all dead or long out of horse racing and unaware of the debate. So, we speculate, as follows:

1. There likely was an early and continuing process of selection. In those days horses with EIPH initially or anywhere along the way were likely merely separated out. In an environment of much less racing, much fewer tracks, and racing conducted primarily by deep pockets, investigation would probably reveal that --similar to T.J. Smith in Australia, all the stables had a pool of horses with the non-survivors simply being eliminated. T. J. Smith (see Ross Staaden) would start with 100 and consider himself lucky if 30 raced, if u read between the lines. I feel fairly sure this was a wide spread process with EIPH in the old days considered merely another malady and cause for the horse to be shot.

2. Drawing horses mimics lasix. Lasix works because it reduces blood pressure. Drawing horses does also, and by my understanding, while drawing fails to "hold" EIPH to the degree of 5ccc of lasix, it produces roughly the equivalent of 2ccc. (Drawing means depriving horse of feed and water 24 hrs. before race).

3. Concoctions--everybody on the back stretch has various concoctions that reduce bleeding while breezing. And, I mean "everybody". Anyone believe they never had those 25 years and more ago?

Nevertheless, in the old days many horses raced frequently without lasix: I agree with this. And, what it means likely is that it is possible for the non-EIPH horse to engage in a succession of races and appropriate training without lasix.

Counterpoint: While this seems true, how valid is this part of the argument if that result is got by (a) leaving behind for slaughter 50% to get 50% that fail to bleed, and (b) drawing the horse???

Conclude that when you get to the crux of the matter an the rubber hits the road how many horses will be able to sustain racing without anti-bleeder meds is unknown. There will be drawing of horses, and desperate trainers will use non-testing concoctions. Here is my guess:

1 race--1 out of 8 will experience serious EIP

10 races will result in 10 horses out. Based on 10 horse field by 10 races 10 out of 100 will be retired due to EIPH. I think this is a fairly safe and very conservative guess. The real % is might be much closer to 20-25% AND you'll have another 25% by then struggling with lower grade EIPH. In the old days they'd merely bring on the next set.

Continue next post.

Training:
Mon. 8/15: I show up and there are drops of blood on his face. Cut right at the poll in the hair between the ears. Looks like he struck a branch. Not too bad. I'll know more today. Off.

Lasix III

Continuing right on. Anti-lasix argument:

Genetics: For clarity defer this till after the next.

The percentage of horses suffering serious bleeding is small: Call this the "Kenny McPeek theory". McPeek pontificated recently that few of his horses experience serious bleeding, and that--to sum up his ridiculous comments--he could live with a lasix ban and sending his horses out there with mild EIPH. The jist of this argument is that there are too few horses with serious EIPH to justify lasix for the entire field in the race. Or, stated as the usual anti-lasix generalization--horse racing will survive just fine without lasix.

Counterpoint: Consider this point by point for in the lasix debate the one legit Q that I can think of is the Q of how many or what % of horses do need lasix to race. If e.g. it's 1% or even 10% the argument to ban the drug becomes strong. However, let us put this in perspective for baby brains such as that of Kenneth McPeek who tells us that "in his experience"...

The first Q for Mr. McPeek would be--how many of those horses have you raced without lasix? The answer to that Q of course makes McPeek's "experience" totally irrelevant to the debate. If there were an American dirt trainer racing a sizable stable without lasix making the same statement that would be significant. Some idiot racing his horses on lasix making that comment...does it need further discussion?

Presumably we know the answer of the extent of EIPH for non-lasix horses racing on U.S.A. dirt tracks because there was an extensive veterinary study that has to be at least 25 years old on the subject. I've never seen or read this study. Unknown to me how many horses involved but I recall reading it was a fair number. Unknown how many races involved which would be crucial info. I do remember that the study showed about 90% of non-lasix horses experiencing some EIPH, about 60% Grade II. I fail to recall how many at the highest grade but that it was fairly small--10 to 20% something like that.

While imho there should be a new study, for sake of argument this study has been widely accepted in the Vet community and so presume it correct.

First, by this study the % of horses experiencing EIPH is anything but small. It is instead huge and leaves only the argument that non-lasix horses with low grade EIPH can race or can be managed. Deal with that one below. But first:

Do horses with Grade 1 EIPH or mild bleeding episodes heal? My experience with my first winner Jeckimba Bay who bled initially as a 5 yr old at LA Downs in his first breeze there is that if you catch it immediately and it is mild, and you give the horse enough time off right after the episode, the EIPH can heal and fail to recur. In this first EIPH episode in my stable I panicked and basically took the horse out of commission for 3 months. JB raced quite a bit after without lasix and without bleeding.

However, a functioning stable simply is unable for economics to do this with mild bleeders. Moreover if you keep working the horse and exercising my horse I believe it is fairly well established that the EIPH will get worse, lung lesions will develop, and you then have a bleeder.

And so--is the % of serious EIPH cases small? Put this together next post.

Training:
Sun. 8/14: 4 x trot-gallop up and down hill.
Mon. 8/15: Another wow riderless w/o for our boy--got to get him to the race track + 4 x trot gallop up and down hill.

Lasix II

Was it Ralph Waldo Emerson 1803-1882 writing that there is nothing common about common sense? In this regard sharpen the lasix issues a little:

(edit--note to B. Pressey--txs. for comment. Respond later!)

The old debate: longstanding. Going on since I came into the horse business generally by some rabid anti-lasix person convinced of the evils from that list of 30 detriments somebody typed up once upon a time. Tom Ivers said the way around EIPH was training. I, frankly, tired after a while in these irrelevant arguments in stating and restating the position over and over again. The occasional anti-lasix gadfly possessed the same moxy as the anti-abortionists, logic and common sense irrelevant. Unknown why, but lasix is an emotional thing with some folks. Avoid analyses♦.

The new debate: It's been only since about February 2011 that the debate has taken up new direction likely crystallized by the proposed Udall legislation. I associate the name Udall with conservation and environmentalism and kudos to that. Where this Rep. Udall got involved with horse racing, who knows, but obviously he knows little to nothing about the sport. Since that bill we have something new in the debate for never previously had it been conducted with the idea of banning lasix.

The anti lasix argument: Three of them that I can think of, ignoring all the irrational paranoid horse player stuff:

1. Getting USA medication rules in line with rest of world: This argument is of course pushed by that small cabal wanting to capture USA racing for their own profit in some sort of international league. This group will be with us, and they know who they are. Unfortunately most in the sport have yet to be aware of the attempt at NASCARization of horse racing. All I can say about this group of people is--for most of us in the sport--beware.

2. Lasix is unnecessary to horse racing because it was carried on for decades without the drug: This is a spacious argument for any of a number of reasons. These combatants have completely forgotten that this same drug was considered a savior of the sport when first introduced, and the only known way to effectively treat EIPH that was sidelining so many horses. Avoid here noting once again the cruel method of "drawing" the horse to prevent EIPH and the various concoctions that were used in those days. When racing was primarily conducted by the barons, certainly it was very little problem to take the bleeding horse back in the woods for execution by shooting. Be assured that was a common practice.

3. Lasix is harmful to the horse: There is a perception by the inexperienced that dehydration and the all the other things on the "detriments" list harm the horse. This is answered simply by dealing with the drug with an actual live horse over the long haul. Go out for a run after a bout of frequent urination and doubt you'll see any difference at all in your physical well being. You won't. I've done it. As to the leaching of minerals--probably should be looked at. However, I am unable to imagine a properly supplemented horse will lose any bone mineralization from an occasional lasix shot. Just can't happen for simple reason that blood stream minerals go first and these are quickly replenished. While there is no permanent harm from lasix that I have observed, I do think it has a psychological effect on the horse that is frequently negative. For that reason alone I'd like to get rid of lasix, but do you have to weigh the alternative pros and cons?

Continue next post.

Training:
Fri. 8/12 15 min walk trot on wet.
Sat. 8/13: Off. Still too wet to do anything.
Sun: 8/14: 4 times walk-trot-gallop up and down the hill.

Lasix

Short post on my position, the statement of which differs from my posts on Paulick report replying to issues raised by others.

Preface with the understanding that everybody on the backstretch would like to get rid of lasix. Its use on race day is perpetual trouble, the 4 hour stall time, waiting for the vet, if u have multiple horses running, etc., and, of course the cost. I'd like nothing better than to be rid of the trouble. Additionally, a lasix ban will be to my advantage. I'll have less trouble than most with EIPH due to the way I train. Of course, in a small stable there's what happens when despite your efforts the horse bleeds. Mike Repole, with all his money, had a good take on that recently.

My views on EIPH strictly developed from my experiences with few horses, and in particular riding them. Most on the ground including the trainers often never know a horse has EIPH because they are never privy to the horse coughing coming back from the race track in the mornings. I had one bleeder and one otherwise, racers both who did a lot of galloping. The non-bleeder would have an occasional mild episode, probably the lowest grade. Both horses always did their speed work at the track with either a mild dose of lasix or anti-bleeder Xantax.

We know very little about EIPH and treatment of the condition. The one study has been around since I have been in racing since 1985, and while I fail to recall the exact percentages of EIPH horses it is high. About the 70% range. We also have the absurd manipulation of this stat by anti-lasix folks claiming horses can race despite EIPH in that these are percentages over one race. I'd suspect, but do not know, that over a course of frequent racing EIPH compromises performance (and is cruel) for at least 50% of horses and probably higher.

The other factor we have is that EIPH has never been looked at with a view to banning lasix. Nobody from the know nothing horse players (on the subject) to those in high places with little direct hands on horse experience has a clue on the effect, and this would also include trainers such as Bob Baffert, always racing with lasix but rarely without it.

And so, the first Q to me is why would you discuss banning this crucial drug without some direct knowledge? Why would you impose a sports wide ban instead of a limited ban that could be studied at some particular race track? There is also the epitome of absurdity by starting the ban with two year olds first who are probably the least conditioned horses and the most subject to EIPH, first episodes. The two year olds are the exact population you'd want to medicate to prevent EIPH.

Too many questions on EIPH without immersing yourself in the subject. What I'm able to contribute is that the person on the ground, as opposed to the rider, has much less sense of the breathing difficulties of all horses, and in particular those experiencing any degree of lung bleeding.

Can you race horses without lasix. Of course. You can do a lot of things to horses and you'll never hear a protest. And, would like to add the idea that lasix leaches calcium is likely quite incorrect. From my knowledge of bones calcium is one of the most omni present substances in the body. There are calcium receptors in almost all of the bodily tissues. The worst that could possibly happen from one lasix shot is calcium loss in the blood stream equivalent to a night of urination. The horse getting some alfalfa is certainly never going to suffer serious mineral loss from an occasional lasix shot.

To me EIPH and banning lasix is a subject for science instead of mindless opinions and prejudices based on twisting incomplete info. Most that daily deal with horses understand the importance of lasix as a preventative (excepting such as Kenneth McPeek, but why would you pay any attention at all to that individual?). Put in all that time, money and energy into a horse and have it bleed, is probably all we need to know on the subject.

Training:
Fri. 8/12 back at it in the rain. Trot-walk up and down the hill for 15 min.

Lost Week

My horses have primarily been on vacation this week. Low horse mojo unable to compete with distractions and being engrossed in the office. + the recent 240 mile trip, little help in visualizing fall racing in OK City yet another 110 miles down the road.

Feeling a little better today. My own enthusiasm for racing tends to be related to my horses doing well in their breeze work. For Rodney speed work under tack has yet to happen. Planning again to start tonight. Certainly last tack work Tues, even at the lope Rod gives the feeling of having a lot of horse under you. Hopefully also the blog will get back on track tomorrow with the interesting subject of performance.

Training: Tues 4 times trot-gallop up and down hill. Wed/Thurs. Off.

Wed. Misc.

Training:
Mon: 8/8: 4 times trot up and down hill.
Mon: 8/8: Off. Rider overdoes road work reinjuring leg.
Tues. 8/9: 4 x up and down hill trot-gallop. Leg a little tweeky, but ok.

$$$$$$$$$

A crisp new one hundred dollar bill to the clerk at Quick Trip leaves the truck 5 gallons short of a fill up. Trip to St. Louis this week drove home twin problems of expense and distance in racing our horse in Oklahoma City early winter a scant 350 miles from KC. Remington Park is really a great scene, by my memory. Easy to get along with Okies, the horse looks to be eligible as a 6 year old maiden, trainers test requirements seem person friendly compared to that abomination of a trainers license rule in Illinois. Everything good to go down there at Remington Park except distance, expense and a personal commitment of time and trouble that has me measuring whether its worth this trouble. For now will continue to feel along with our good horse. Should be into serious speed work at the farm by early Sept.
Training: A week of trainer fatigue. Numerous factors. One tack session of trot where rider left leg almost healed and several riderless sessions with spurts. Tack work commences today.

Tues. Misc.

Training:
Mon. Aug. 1: 10 min riderless with spurts.
Tues. Aug 2: 3 times trot up and down hill. Rider's leg much strong than Sat. Txs. road work.

Getting Around The Race Track

In a perfect world--consider perfect form of horse and rider at left-- we'd train horses like Richard Mandella in "On The Muscle" DVD where Mandella sends his youngsters out in sets of three with hall of fame jocks aboard putting them through their paces.

Riding so in company certainly solves most training problems the easy way. Yet, I'd bet a fair amount of my fortune that even the likes of Mandella is able to schedule sets in this manner only on occasion for the reason that within the system of morning training it's mostly difficult to impossible to get your jock on your horse with any consistency, much less three jocks at once throughout the morning in tandem.

Supposedly this sort of thing happens daily at Newmarket. Let's just say there's a whole lot more cash flowing there to make that happen than most of us have available. If you can do it, if you can find riders dedicated to it, most of the training challenges following below will be a piece of cake. If on the other hand, you have but one rider just congratulate yourself that you can get that one to show up on a consistent basis at a consistent time.

The way I have done this in the past is with cash. For small fry with a little money laying around the strategy is to buy your way onto the race track, and when you get their you purchase the training of your horse. Very early on in my Prairie Meadows days as a lowly owner it quickly dawned on me that the minute you pass that guard shack everybody there has their hand in your back pocket.

My method at the race track generally was 1. to recognize the crucial nature of good riding in terms of injury prevention. If, out of desperation, you wind up with the plentiful supply of idiot riders remind yourself it only takes but one stupidity in flash of a second to put your horse out of commission.

2. To ideally find a young aspiring jock without too many mounts, and then to pay that individual plenty to get on your horse, and, of course, also to actually show up. I have also used the strategy of using jocks near retirement that are losing mounts and need cash.

The young variety you can sometimes find by scouting the various jock agent's third stringers, the problem being in the morning you're often stuck with waiting on that young jock till the agent is through sending the rider in company with the big outfits. The older jocks needing money are more consistent in the time of their appearance, but you're more stuck there with the on-track proclivities of your rider as they grey beards tend to be more quite a bit less receptive to your specific instructions. The ideal is the older jock that naturally does what you want done without asking. I had such a very decent experience for a couple of years with ancient jock Terry McGee, whom can be googled. McGee was 110 lbs., was naturally obsessed with getting leads. All good, except when he got to racing it was heck to get him to warm a horse up. Always something.

Next post, rider hits the track. Then what?

Training:
Sun. July 31 Off. Decided to go next morning in cool.
Mon. Aug. 1: Riderless 10 min with a few spurts. Horses enthusiastic after time away from riderless paddock. I overdid my roadwork last night, and with leg sore and feeling like jelly, declined to get on. Decent w/o!