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.