http://www.thoroughbreddailynews.com/shared_content.cfm?id=633
The conclusions drawn make me physically ill. They bleed but still run well so who gives a damn. Nice horsemanship.
I thought it was interesting that the horses that were positive ran more times and had longer careers from import to retirement in the Hong Kong study.
[QUOTE=Flash44;7714253]
I thought it was interesting that the horses that were positive ran more times and had longer careers from import to retirement in the Hong Kong study.[/QUOTE]
I thought that was interesting too, and it seemed counter intuitive to me. I wish the authors of the study had offered some insight about why that was.
This article does not make sense to me. Not that I don’t understand it, rather, I do not see it as proof that race day lasix is unecessary…I actualy see it showing the opposite. Also, EIPH is known to have a cummulative effect meaning that it gets a little worse and causes a little more damage each time bleeding occurs…why would anyone want to let that happen? I do believe breeders need to carefully consider EIPH when making breeding decisions, but there will still be horses that bleed running and I think its best to have safe and humane options to protect them…Lasix being one of the options IMO.
I am still amazed that racing folk are so dedicated to their lasix, given that horses ran just fine without it for centuries and the rest of the world clearly manages.
I’m not buying into we do it all for the horse. I do believe that trainers, etc., do it because they believe horses run faster with it (because they weigh less).
First of all, there are many vets that would argue against Lasix being a performance enhancer. It’s just like a human marathon runner with asthma using an enhaler…it does not enhance performance, it allows them to breathe so that they can perform to their best ability. Second, it is not just “racing folk.” Polo ponies, barrel racers etc suffer from EIPH and are treated with Lasix too. Humans also use Lasix for various ailments. Many people that have a negative view of it also don’t understand the mechanisms by which it works. Horses have bled to some extent for centuries too, but science has advanced, so why let it continue happening?
[QUOTE=SportArab;7714712]
I am still amazed that racing folk are so dedicated to their lasix, given that horses ran just fine without it for centuries and the rest of the world clearly manages.
I’m not buying into we do it all for the horse. I do believe that trainers, etc., do it because they believe horses run faster with it (because they weigh less).[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Pegasus5;7714751]
Horses have bled to some extent for centuries too, but science has advanced, so why let it continue happening?[/QUOTE]
THIS ^
[QUOTE=Laurierace;7714207]
The conclusions drawn make me physically ill. They bleed but still run well so who gives a damn. Nice horsemanship.[/QUOTE]
?? The results of the Hong Kong study indicated to me 55% of the population showed EIPH that was very minor and did not affect performance (as compared to other horses running without lasix of course), detectable only by endoscope. 45% showed none whatsoever. Only 4% had blood at the nostrils.
Of the 55% with minor EIPH, I don’t know if there is any evidence that “it becomes worse over time” and they could develop epistaxis. “Over time” for a racehorse is not that long anyway…seems like 2 or 3 years of racing is average.
Seems ridiculous to me to be giving a drug to 99% of a population when only 4% needs it…and even then, you would question the short term suitability of the 4% for the sport and the long term consequences of breeding those horses.
As an aside, I wonder if there is any other sport where the particpants compete while ebing dehydrated? I can’t think of any…
[QUOTE=saratoga;7715818]
?? The results of the Hong Kong study indicated to me 55% of the population showed EIPH that was very minor and did not affect performance (as compared to other horses running without lasix of course), detectable only by endoscope. 45% showed none whatsoever. Only 4% had blood at the nostrils.
Of the 55% with minor EIPH, I don’t know if there is any evidence that “it becomes worse over time” and they could develop epistaxis. “Over time” for a racehorse is not that long anyway…seems like 2 or 3 years of racing is average.
Seems ridiculous to me to be giving a drug to 99% of a population when only 4% needs it…and even then, you would question the short term suitability of the 4% for the sport and the long term consequences of breeding those horses.
As an aside, I wonder if there is any other sport where the particpants compete while ebing dehydrated? I can’t think of any…[/QUOTE]
And don’t forget the lasix effect on calcium recovery. Horses are already pretty fragile critters, racing is very hard on the legs, and one would suspect that anything that disrupts the calcium mechanisms would be more dangerous than not.
There is absolutely no correlation between blood being visible in the nostril and the severity of EIPH. It is akin to sticking your head in the sand. If you can’t see it, it doesn’t exist.
[QUOTE=Pegasus5;7714751]
First of all, there are many vets that would argue against Lasix being a performance enhancer. It’s just like a human marathon runner with asthma using an enhaler…it does not enhance performance, it allows them to breathe so that they can perform to their best ability. Second, it is not just “racing folk.” Polo ponies, barrel racers etc suffer from EIPH and are treated with Lasix too. Humans also use Lasix for various ailments. Many people that have a negative view of it also don’t understand the mechanisms by which it works. Horses have bled to some extent for centuries too, but science has advanced, so why let it continue happening?[/QUOTE]
It is a diuretic and like all diuretics, it comes with side effects, which nobody likes to discuss, not the least of which is that it leaches calcium from the horse’s system.
If it didn’t enhance performance, then people who own horses that haven’t ever shown signs of bleeding wouldn’t be giving it to their horses.
Please explain to me the dire consequences to a horse that doesn’t get lasix.
[QUOTE=Laurierace;7715835]
There is absolutely no correlation between blood being visible in the nostril and the severity of EIPH. It is akin to sticking your head in the sand. If you can’t see it, it doesn’t exist.[/QUOTE]
I don’t think anyone is saying it doesn’t exist. The question is about the “treatment.”
The whole idea that you would take a diuretic before performing (especially in hot weather) is ludicrous.
Well until they come up with a better treatment, it is the best we have. To deny them the best treatment available is ludicrous.
How is the treatment making their lives better, pray tell? And btw, have you ever tried exercising when dehydrated? It’s amazing there haven’t been more problems with overheated horses.
Not having blood in their lungs and the resulting scar tissue. No one is forcing you to give your horses lasix. Assuming you actually have race horses of course.
[QUOTE=saratoga;7715818]
The results of the Hong Kong study indicated to me 55% of the population showed EIPH that was very minor and did not affect performance… Seems ridiculous to me to be giving a drug to 99% of a population… [/QUOTE]
I see both sides of this argument, but horses in most any racing jurisdiction that I am aware of need to be on the Bleeders List to be eligible to receive Lasix (e.g. 44% of the horses in your example would be in trouble 
)
Just throwing that in there; horses need to have documented evidence of EIPH to receive Lasix.
[QUOTE=CrowneDragon;7716093]
I see both sides of this argument, but horses in most any racing jurisdiction that I am aware of need to be on the Bleeders List to be eligible to receive Lasix (e.g. 44% of the horses in your example would be in trouble )
Just throwing that in there; horses need to have documented evidence of EIPH to receive Lasix.[/QUOTE]
Racetrack vets seldom prescribe anything based on actual need, its just what the trainers want and the way things are done
The problem with “need” is every horse bleeds at some point. If you are clairvoyant enough to know they for sure won’t bleed this start then you can skip the lasix.
There are many studies that certainly disprove this study. You have to know the limitations of a study model, the sample population, all possible confounding factors etc to know whether or not a study actually proves or indicates anything. There are entire courses at the graduate level on study design, so do not be misled that just because something is promoted as proof, it is.
Next, Lasix has to be administered by a vet. If your vet gives anything to any horse, get a new one. The risks of Lasix can be pretty easily mitigated with a proper dosage, fluids and electrolytes. Bleeding causes real discomfort to horses and can be fatal in extreme cases. Bleeding causes permanent damage to the lungs…even one episode. And again, racehorses are not the only sport horses that have EIPH.
Lasix is effective as a treatment for EIPH. EIPH is detrimental to the horse, and severely so to some. Why advocate to stop the use of it? Compromising the welfare and health of an animal knowingly, because there is a treatment available, is cruel and ignorant to me. Don’t just argue against, go out and read all the literature…BOTH sides, talk to vets etc.
