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.
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.
posted by rather rapid at
9:53 AM
.jpg)
1 Comments:
Everyone goes off half-cocked RR, just like when we moved to synthetics.
The perception of taking action is weighed much more heavily than the action itself. Such is life in the age of the internet.
Introducing Lasix 2 decades ago curbed the starts/year per horse from 12 to 6 (certainly other factors apply too, admittedly). Can cutting it out really do more damage to this number?
I guess if we come back in 2-4 years and the starts/year per horse is 3, or 9 - then we will have our answer.
No amount of bullshit laboratory testing will satisfy either party to the argument. Throw in the new rules and see what happens in the real world, although I do have sympathies to the lower-end horsemen, but perhaps many are lower-end for a reason? I know several who need to be in another line of work.
By the way, for perhaps the first time I can recall in the 'less is more' age of conditioning, a lady trainer at Emerald Downs has worked a horse racing just 6F over multiple miles in the DRF.
Hollywood Harbor is the gelding in question, trainer is Chris Stenslie and the $20k purchase has earned over $100k while hitting the board 8 out of 9. Interesting.
No one can control bleeding in a horse racing 8F by refusing to breeze him more than 4F. ALL of those will bleed to an extent, and deservedly so. (By 'all' I mean 80%+)
Just as 2-3x breezing in a developing 2yo is ideal for bone remodelling; steadily increasing breeze and gallop distances in an older horse is ideal for capillary development and plasticity of blood vessel walls.
Who on earth dictated that a horse should never gallop over 2 miles and/or breeze every 6 days? The old boys did it best: a fast 3-4F work and a longer, slower 8F in graded stake stock weekly.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home