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.
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.
posted by rather rapid at
10:27 AM
.jpg)
1 Comments:
Where I hope we end up: give all the lower level horses whatever they need to fill races at lower level tracks so that lower level trainers can make payroll - by definition these horses will not breed appreciably so their infirmities will not be passed on to future generations.
We never would have come to this point had Lasix not been legalized in the first place, but you can no longer put the cap back on that vial.
Stop all drug use in graded stake events, phasing it out over 3 years. Of course, testing will need to be stepped up to catch the other currently 'untestable' aids.
Remember how it went down in track and field?
Some disgruntled coach mailed a syringe of the 'clear' from Victor Conte to the drug testing labs with a note saying: "this is what you need to test for."
An owner, vet, trainer, groom, etc. will someday get screwed over and do the same - sending in a vial with EPO, ITPP, that red stuff, etc.
Impossible to test for the new synthetics in every horse in every race - but more manageable if only done in graded events.
Keep in mind, in baseball and track and field: drug use led to more home runs and faster race times - that has not been the case in thoroughbred horse racing, times are no faster than those of the 40s in general.
Standardbreds however are now 12sec faster to the mile and are equine pincushions - who also train quite aggressively. To me, that is the most telling evidence that Lasix is not performance enhancing.
First time Lasix is probably so, but 15th time Lasix is probably not.
The Euros use it when they race here because how else can they get a 30lb weight drop in the 4 hours before a big race?
Hell, Larry Jones complains about 2lbs added to his filly.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home