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.
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.
posted by rather rapid at
10:43 AM
.jpg)
1 Comments:
Something is wrong with US horse's bones RR: when controlling for surface - i.e. turf vs turf, American horses breakdown 1.7 times per 1,000 starts, and Australians only 0.6.
Australian horses are faster also, at least according to the current Timeform rankings, so they seem to have some pretty firm courses.
While I'm sure there are multiple factors involved; we use Lasix on raceday, and they don't.
I refuse to believe in the entire history of the world that a group of American vets have come up with the only drug possessing ZERO negative side effects.
Drugs are drugs, legalize them all or ban 'em all, I really don't care, but the current methods are half-assed and inefficient.
If one is a trainer/owner/vet who is borderline obese and suffers from hypertension, diabetes, and God knows what else - and he addresses these issues by taking a dozen pills each day from age 40 through death - rather than follow a proper diet and exercise regimen, then I am not surprised to hear these guys extol the virtues of a loop diuretic in a syringe.
Like most humans, they are too lazy to do anything else and want the quick fix, regardless of cost.
You can race all the goddamn drug addled runners that you wish to Mr. Pletcher, etc. - but allowing those colts to enter stud and have 500+ compromised offspring will inevitably come back to haunt the game.
I love these bullshit breeders: "Come to us and you'll get the racing genetics passed down to your purchases" then these same assholes claim that bleeders don't begat bleeders. Sickening.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home