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.