Compromise – how about using the Flair nasal strip as discussed by Dr Stephen Reed of Root & Riddle at the conference earlier this year. No weight loss so horses that run without it would incur no penalty. We would now know who the bleeders are. Problem solved.

Furosemide, a high-loop diuretic, decreases plasma volume, cardiac output and pulmonary vascular pressures reducing EIPH up to 50% (Kindig et al. 2001a).

The Flair nasal strip decreases EIPH a similar amount by preventing nasal passage narrowing on inspiration thereby lowering airway resistance (Poole et al. 2000; Geor et al. 2001; Kindig et al. 2001a; Holcombe et al. 2002).

“And the people who would like to see racing in North America align itself with the rest of the world when it comes to dealing with this problem are not going to be swayed by veterinarians or scientific studies supporting the use of Lasix…”

Do you know of any scientific studies demonstrating that horses racing in Europe and/or Australia and/or Japan and/or Hong Kong are suffering, or have suffered from the lack of Lasix? I’d like to see such a report.

“There was only one tangential comment, from racing commissioner Alan Leavitt, a standardbred owner and breeder, about what some believe is a far more serious challenge to horse racing integrity: blood-doping agents like EPO.”

That’s a complete, and too oft regurgitated red herring. Not a single supporter of a Lasix ban would argue that illicit drug use is not a serious problem that needs to be dealt with. They are separate issues.

“The science and equine veterinary practitioners tilted heavily toward the continued, regulated race-day administration of Lasix. Their conviction, based on scientific studies, is that some degree of EIPH or internal bleeding in the lungs occurs in nearly every racehorse. To not alleviate that condition with Lasix, the most effective treatment currently available, is inhumane, they say.”

Then why don’t “they” address the fact that two-thirds of the horses compete successfully around the world without race-day Lasix. Why does all of the available evidence suggest that less than 5% of those horses are difficult to manage without Lasix? What is the evidence that the other 95% are suffering?

“It is the same philosophy that leads equine surgeons to artificially straighten the legs of thousands of foals born each year, improving their performance capabilities on the racetrack (and their value in the sale ring).”

What a terrific philosophy. Corrective surgery is an outrageously fraudulent practice. How many end-users (i.e. breeders) have any idea that the “correct” horse they are breeding to (or from) has ahidden confirmation flaw that is likely to be passed on? Glad to se that you addressed this point.

I disagree with distilling the debate down to “helping” the horse vs. helping the breed. One can be anti-Lasix with both views in mind. For me, all you’re doing when “helping” the horse with Lasix is helping him toward a bigger risk of catastophic breakdown by repeated use of a powerful diuretic with a long list of unpleasant and dangerous side effects. Minimal amounts of bleeding do not compromise performance and the South African study showed that Lasix is really only effective on the most severe bleeders anyway. The risks of repeated use far outweigh the rewards, short and long term.

It’s not a compromise issue. Either….MAKE A DECISION….to REVERSE the rules that allow use of medications on race day or don’t. As far as I know, the only meds that you get to have in your horses’ systems (that they test for) are bute/banamine/clenbuterol & lasix. Those seem to be the most widely used, garden variety, therapeutic meds people get fined for overages with. EVERYONE has their OPINIONS about the use of race day meds & their effects on racehorses in both the long & short terms. Unfortunately, the public has little chance of EVER getting full disclosure with regard to horses running on ANY form medication…with the possible exception of Lasix. There are now & will continue to be alternative treatments being administered to active racehorses that will NEVER be disclosed to the public….and can’t be tested for…some of which are currently regulated or supposedly regulated by the tracks….so I don’t believe you’re ever gonna get “cooperation” from horsemen that are lookin’ for an edge to make some money and/or tracks that DON’T want the public to have information that might be negative for THEM. An old example might be why have tracks NEVER disclosed STUCK horses? This is a gambling business…NOT a church!

you are right milo most people dont want to know what the euro”s do to their horses to stop them from bleeding on race day, to replace lasix. if they did they may change their mind. if you think they just put a bridle on them and bring them over you are clueless

The sad truth is that so much time is being wasted debating this topic while there are huge issues that go seemingly unaddressed. Too bad the anti-lasix people dont spend more effort recruiting new owners to invest in the business and lobbying to get better wagering conditions (lower takeout, fair taxation) for our customers.

The truth is….NOBODY wants to know what the truth is…they’d rather believe BS!

Nasal Strips Banned In New York!

Cape Blanco Came From Overseas Won With Lasix!
Treasure Breach Came From Overseas Won With Lasix!
Ask Aidan O’Brien About Lasix?

You’re all very foolish.

The industry exhibited poor judgement years ago, allowed the breeding pool to be legally compromised, and we are now suffering at the hands of cheats and scoundrels.

Now you wanna change all that?

Milo may be right. If its true eliminating this race-day med means we’re headed back to more unsavory deeds of the past (like those supposedly going on this very day in Europe), maybe we’re better off policing that which we can get a handle. All of which pre-supposes there is no integrity, which at least reduces the nuisance of trying to make the public think otherwise. Gosh, that makes me feel a whole lot better. I have owned (in partnership) of a few t’breds, bet on the horses, worked within it (industry) as a livelihood and the more I witness, the more I’m convinced racing simply can’t get out of its own way.

tonyaz #20 —
If you are old enough you would realize that all sports will continually have drug problems — ALL SPORTS!!
Medication is not a problem in horseracing. The problem is the media, controlled by agenda driven money.
Lasix is a “POLITICAL” problem, NOW, since there are NO verifiable negatives to its usage, NONE!!
Europe is EUROPE; leave them with what they got. The U.S. is the U.S. No international rules or procedures are necessary EXCEPT IN THE MINDS OF “BIG MONEY”. The little guy will get taken advantage of as he did during the BC, this year. Have all the dummies already forgot what the BC did as far as advance tickets. Then I get hassled because I term “gamblers” as losers. You have it good in the U.S. You are not told about the dirty laundry of Europe. It is kept quiet like “internal bleeding” is, although “internal bleeding” “directly” affects you and your wagers in the negative.

Again, “medication strengthens the weak, and weakens the strong.” Which stock would you prefer to run.?

Wesley Ward being held up as an example of “world-class horsemanship skills”?

Right. Getting horses to run their best races in April, May and June of their two-year-old seasons, with their careers almost invariably spiraling downhill from that point.

That there’s some fine horsemanship, all right.

How will vets make a living on the backside if they can’t give lasix on race day?

Tapit, r u kidding? Vets than can sell Succeed paste (oat bran and oil; “It Just Works!” are laughing at your comment.

Equus, you misunderstand, I’m not asserting anything about what goes on in Europe; it was Milo (#8) and Jorge (#9) that I refer. I’m not embarrassed to admit I don’t know what the Euros do or don’t do in absence of Laxis on race day. My point is that both sides of this issue can’t seem to tone down rhetoric long enough to actually listen to what’s being said. This issue is important first because it deals with the well being of an animal bred for economic and pleasurable gain and second because the public seems to think drugs are the MO of the game. There are other issues that deserve attention but they, like this one, can’t get out of the blocks amid this industry’s dysfunctional structure and small thinking. That’s my point.

No…..the point is at least Wesley tries it. I’m not the greatest fan of Wesley Ward but I don’t see any foreigners trying it here…..do you? So I give him credit for that. I HAVE read people saying meds weaken the breed(genetically) ect,ect and I DON’T think there’s ANY proof….you would think that something used so universally(Lasix) for 25-30 years there would be? The ability to differentiate the degree of bleeder on a wide scale…..without being hands-on is not possible…I agree with that.

Because the lasix debate coincides with the Keeneland sale it certainly weakens one of anti lasix proponents arguments.
For those who say it denigrates the breed and makes U.S.horses less appealing to foreign buyers check the Keeneland stable area and the sale results.Most foreign buyers in the history of Keeneland sales.

“You are a nobody, a flake, a misrepresentation of a horseman, a phony of the first degree. You hide behind the misuse of the term Ad Hominem, …”

Frank L. locks up the 2011 Eclipse Award for Unintentional Irony!

That’s why I like the Industry; it mirrors US Politics so much. This issue is such a no brainer but the people who stand to lose their livelihood (no matter how degenerate it is) will fight tooth and nail ignoring science, facts and good’ol common sense. What do they care they will be dead in 30 yrs.

FLY N CARS???…NOW THAT WOULD BEE REAL PRETTY!!!…ty…

It’s not counterintuitive, David. The fundamental reason is quite simple:

Thoroughbred breeding was originally developed in an effort to refine and improve the breed. It has been, and remains both logical and intuitive to expect that allowing medications to be used on race day has the effect of masking weaknesses which are then likely to be indiscriminately be brought into the breeding pool.

That conclusion wasn’t arrived at recently; it’s been obvious for a very long time.

David –

It has never been a black and white issue. Just because a high percentage of horses bleed at some point during their racing careers does not mean that it isn’t important to distinguish by matter of degrees. Quite the contrary, and that is part of the problem with Lasix.

Under the current system in the U.S. it is virtually impossible to identify bad bleeders, which, as a group, are more likely to pass on an exaggerated form of the weakness. Elsewhere in the world it is highly unlikely that a bad bleeder will compile a successful race record, and so even if their weakness is hidden, they will be far less attractive as breeding stock.

While tangential, the outrageous allowing of “corrective” surgery on foals is a somewhat analogous problem. If you attend a sale in an effort to acquire a horse for breeding purposes, you will be in treacherous waters if you assume that a relatively “correct” horse began its life that way. In other words, it may well have had surgery that in turn masks a defect which may well be passed on to its offspring.

Tinky #47 —
Once again your inexperience trumps your comment. External bleeders (bad bleeders) in the U.S. usually bleed through Lasix. Since less than 5% of horses bleed from the nose (external bleeding), and a percentage of them bleed through Lasix, that leaves a very small percentage unaccounted for.
Note: I am not aware of any study examining the results of Lasix benefiting external bleeders on a “CONTINUAL”, again “continual” basis. I know it does help, BUT, external bleeding is very difficult to control, even with Lasix.
External bleeders are banned from racing in the U.S. after 3 times.
Remember, bad bleeders are rarely bred in the U.S. because their bleeding precludes a reasonable race record to even attract mares. There is a bigger problem in Europe, in that, “internal bleeding”, which can stop a horse as fast as “external bleeding”, is NOT recognized, therefore, NOT aggressively treated.
Note: “Internal bleeders” are regularly bred in Europe, and constant internal bleeding can lead to external bleeding (bleeding from the nose). The fact is, as far as breeding, the U.S. is NO different from the rest of the world, unless one has an agenda to push.
David, please understand that Lasix is NOW a political issue having to do with “international racing”, not U.S. racing. There is absolutely no “proof” that Lasix has hurt the breed in the U.S. Yes, you do have subjective conjecture, and speculation, AREAS IN WHICH TINKY SPECIALIZES IN, but no “factual” proof.
David — look up conjecture, speculation, subjective, and then “fact” to clearly understand what I have stated.

Should have read: “not always true”

In other words, Lasix obviously masks many bad bleeders which do not bleed through the nostrils.

Tinky —
Since you do NOT define what YOU mean by “bad bleeder” your comment falls into your usual misinformation (BUNK). On the “actual” track a bad bleeder IS known as one that bleeds from the nose. If the term “bad bleeder” is used in any OTHER context, that context would be fully explained — which YOU “continually” avoid!! Further, on the racetrack, itself, clarity is of the utmost importance — another area that gives you away as “inexperienced” as far as hands on. You generalize, very rarely being specific, as with this “bad bleeder” example. Why do YOU try to complicate things, if not to confuse, because of lack of hands on knowledge.
Further, if YOU term a “bad bleeder” in other terms other than bleeding from the nose, then, Europe breeds them as well.
Let’s make one thing very clear right now, your comment “that anyone who actually has experience in this business should know that” is another misleading statement, made to indirectly plant the idea that YOU have “actual” hands on experience at the track, which we both know NOT to be true!!
As far as “my nonsense” being exposed many times, yes it has “IN YOUR INEPT MIND”, but NOT “in reality”. We DO deal in reality in this comment section you know? The readers can decide for themselves who/which to believe. I will continue to answer any questions from those who side with you.

Toast –

“…how long does it take to fix?”

Ah, I see. Your position is that nothing should be done because American horses have been racing on meds for so long, it’s unclear how long it might take to “fix” the problem?

Why does there have to be a finite point? The breed has been degraded (at least in part) through the promiscuous use of medications, so why not reverse the course? Whether it takes 10, 25, or 50 years to develop intrinsically sounder stock doesn’t matter – it should ALWAYS be one of the most important goals of breeders.

“What if the the med horses outrun the clean ones?”

Right, like our horses typically outrun the Europeans? That’s a laugh.

Yes….Unclear! Again…words in my mouth. I’m not saying nothing should be done. I’m asking a question…..and hoping other people might be asking some too! Nobody can predict what might happen. Also when the Euros DO outrun us….aren’t the running on meds? THAT much IS CRYSTAL CLEAR! Good point!

Frank, it’s said that truth is more abrasive than fiction. If proponents have successfully forced the debate in order to expose the real toxic underbelly where jurisdictions aren’t willing to go, the play would be worth it. The KRC (that’s Kentucky Racing Commission, Frank) should have you chair this thing in order to save time and energy as few could stand your “truthful” demeanor for more than a single session. That said, you Frank, need to look up “obnoxious” and “condescending” in order to clearly understand what I have stated.

Frank –

You are lying when, for some reason, you continue to assert that I have no hand-on experience. That is patently false, as I have patiently explained many times. My patience with that repeated lie has run out.

Argue with the substance of my posts, and forget about my irrelevant résumé. Otherwise you will continue to lose whatever shred of credibility you have remaining on this forum.

I have also previously defined “bad bleeder” many times before. All available evidence, gathered from various sources in jurisdictions that do not allow race day medication, suggests that less than 5% of all racehorses are difficult to manage without medication. That rough percentage reflects the group of “bad” bleeders. The percentage of those that bleed externally is, of course, far smaller.

Hey…Jim. Does population genetics apply to what we’re talkin’ about here? Does super selective breeding magnify the results vs. population in general? Does the point….. as brought out by Steve….that we/nobody really knows to what extent a horse/zebra/anteater may have naturally bled…without medication….because they ALL got Lasix for 25 years to STOP them from bleeding….. screw up the works in a genetic theory/study?

Tinky #61 —
Your resume is of great importance in evaluating your posts — that from the standpoint of you understanding what you are posting. Your continued “generalizations” point to a weak resume, as you put it.
Hands on experience is experience gained under license. You avoid revealing in what capacities you were licensed by racetracks, other than owner. Look at the committee meeting being held — not just anybody, but those with approved credentials to speak!!

You have stated that you advised owners, trainers, and racetracks on a variety of issues — BUT, you do not state in what capacity. Further, you would NOT be advising trainers and racetracks unless licensed by the State in some capacity. You have also sated, separately, that you have been a consultant and worked for several major racetracks, again not possible unless licensed by the State in some capacity. You seem to think your licensing is irrelevant, BUT, that line of thought puts all your posts in question, since licensing offers creditability to your claims.

People may think this is NOT important, but it goes to the crux of any discussion — who has the know how, the experience, the credentials, the particular hands on knowledge of the problem being discussed.

People can blab all they want on football, baseball, and basketball sites, BUT, on this site (horse racing) since it affects my living; you had better know what you are talking about — and not from what you read. You can’t train horses from what you read, you can’t run a race track from what you read, you can not race ride from what you read, but stupid comments “CAN” be made from what one reads.

NEXT — you have never defined what you mean by bad bleeder. Your continued avoidance of answering specific questions about your generalizations, and misrepresentations, only supports your lack of hands on experience. Yes, less than 5% of racehorses are difficult to manage without medication, and that 5% reflects external bleeders (bleeding from the nose). When viewing reports that reflect European racing “internal bleeding” is NEVER referenced with respect to bleeding. With respect to U.S. reports the differentiation is always specified to avoid confusion.
Again, how do YOU define “bad bleeder” in the context YOU used it. Define it today, in NO uncertain terms. You can’t without looking like a fool!!

David #64 —
I am angry because ignorance is ruining my profession.
You need to re-read the post which you are commenting on. I don’t know what you are talking about when you talk about generations — I said generalizations!! That can be excused because everybody reads a comment incorrectly at times, if that, in fact, is what you did?

“Yes, less than 5% of racehorses are difficult to manage without medication, and that 5% reflects external bleeders (bleeding from the nose).”

No, Frank, it DOES NOT. Do you seriously believe that one out of twenty horses racing abroad bleed visibly? Nowhere near that percentage does. In fact, the true number is less than 1%.

For purposes of the Lasix debate, further specificity is not required. Roughly 5% of all racehorses are difficult to manage without medication. That group should be considered “bad” bleeders. The other 95% – the vast majority – are obviously NOT bad bleeders, given that they race successfully around the world without any race day medication.

Those two, basic numbers are all that is necessary to intelligently discuss the matter.

Tired of ‘playin Frank, I’ll leave to others with the time and appetite. Generation or generalizations, if you can’t make an interpretation on toxic underbelly, you’re a big part of the problem for the industry you claim infested with idiots. Ta ta

Hi Toast, It is axiomatic in selective breeding that intensive selection for given traits selects against all others not linked to the given ones, which is why cautious breeders often use indexed scores on multiple traits to keep from painting themselves into a corner. If racing on numerous metabolic agents were not associated with damage to everything from soundness to fertility, no one would care. I’m not about to blame all this on the profligate use of Lasix, there are too many other potent endocrine disrupters, etc in play for a well reasoned guess; however the weight loss from lasix is about what a healty horse might drink. Anyway, despite considerable mitigation from the gene pools bell curve, the contemporary bloodhorse is being bred to run on lots of drugs which confuses deliberate selection for all other desirable traits.

So Jim….We’re pretty much totally screwed unless we were hands-on with the horse it’s entire life & KNOW everything that went into him/her. The science doesn’t work if you don’t know what your starting out with. So really the race-day meds debate is irrelevant to the final goal….elevating the quality of the breed in general…..because there’s too many other drugs being given throughout the horse’s life.

76 when i say train on lasix i am talking breeze days and or vigerous workout days. if you run the way you say you are in a great minority. the euro’s take food and water away up to and maybe over 24 hours before a race on a bad bleeder. that is what tinki calls managing a bleeder

and lets add, the ones they cant stop bleeding or the one suited for big money races , they send to the states and instruct the new trainer to put them on lasix

Jorge, I understand exactly what you mean when you say “train on lasix” and I’m saying you’re wrong. The majority of trainers here do NOT use Lasix to breeze or gallop – we also breeze and gallop our horses far more often than you do in America, so if we used Lasix every time, we’d kill them very quickly indeed!

82…Why do you care what they do in Europe? Unless you are planning to have skin in the game there? 81…Why do you care what we do in the US? Are you planning to have skin in the game here? I’m sure guys that run lots of horses…and win lots of races… over there like Fabre & Dupre…are not gonna tell anybody what their programs are any more than Pletcher, Baffert & Assmussen are over here!

Larry I took a look at the quote and figured it was from a couple of years ago, and would have thought it was in direct connection to steroids. Anabolics that used to be allowable could take up to 160 days for them to entirely leave a horse, so his comment would make sense in that realm.

Problem with the quote is that its apperently from just earlier this year. With that being the case I have absolutely no idea what the heck he could be talking about. The vast majority of “drugs” are out of a horses system in a couple of days to possibly weeks at the longest like a 30 day tranq (reserpine). Some of the blood doping agents (epo); however, can hang around for months before they show their effects and that’s the only thing I could attribute his comment too. There wouldn’t be any 90 day effects from the use of Salix on the horse that’s for sure.

Obviously this is only my opinion.