Capillaries are tiny blood vessels. Blood doesn’t “pour” into the lungs when they tear. As for calcium studies, they have never been debated. And of course Europeans use it when they come here because it affects speed – but at what cost to the horse?
[QUOTE=SportArab;7720028]
Capillaries are tiny blood vessels. Blood doesn’t “pour” into the lungs when they tear. As for calcium studies, they have never been debated. And of course Europeans use it when they come here because it affects speed – but at what cost to the horse?[/QUOTE]
If EIPH is such a benign event as you want to make everyone believe, then why is administering a course of antibiotics the standard treatment for a bleeding episode?
The article states:
“The genetic composition of a horse clearly contributes to the likelihood of its experiencing epistaxis. While the basis of the use of Lasix was originally on welfare grounds evidence that epistaxis is a heritable trait draws this justification into question. The use of medication that masks epitaxis may lead to the promotion of the breeding of horses carrying a genetic susceptibility to this condition. If this is true the combined permissive medication policies of American racing may harm the quality of our breeding stock and decrease the value of our horses in the international market.”
Doesn’t the above statement scare the crap out of anyone? Does HYPP and the American Quarter Horse ring a bell?
Perhaps the Jockey Club (or whatever organization cares about this stuff) should take a hard look and pony up the money for further research.
I guess if, as Laurie says, ALL horses bleed, maybe the cat’s out of the bag and it’s too late to do anything about it.
[QUOTE=On the Farm;7720152]
If EIPH is such a benign event as you want to make everyone believe, then why is administering a course of antibiotics the standard treatment for a bleeding episode?[/QUOTE]
I’m not a vet, so I can’t tell you what their thinking is. But I can say as someone who covers human health, that antibiotics are VASTLY over prescribed even in people. Much worse when it comes to animals.
[QUOTE=Go Fish;7720328]
The article states:
“The genetic composition of a horse clearly contributes to the likelihood of its experiencing epistaxis. While the basis of the use of Lasix was originally on welfare grounds evidence that epistaxis is a heritable trait draws this justification into question. The use of medication that masks epitaxis may lead to the promotion of the breeding of horses carrying a genetic susceptibility to this condition. If this is true the combined permissive medication policies of American racing may harm the quality of our breeding stock and decrease the value of our horses in the international market.”
Doesn’t the above statement scare the crap out of anyone? Does HYPP and the American Quarter Horse ring a bell?
Perhaps the Jockey Club (or whatever organization cares about this stuff) should take a hard look and pony up the money for further research.
I guess if, as Laurie says, ALL horses bleed, maybe the cat’s out of the bag and it’s too late to do anything about it.[/QUOTE]
THIS ^^^^^ has always been my biggest objection to medicating bleeders. If a horse has such a big problem that he/she cannot run without some kind of medication, he/she should not be in the gene pool for racing. What lasix has most likely done is fix this trait into the gene pool. That’s very bad.
And there is a big difference between the vast majority of horses (and humans) who bleed when performing at great exertion and those who bleed so much that it hinders performance.
To reiterate: if it was such a bad thing to bleed then elite human athletes who also do this would be taking diuretics. They don’t.
No they don’t. Go talk to anyone that has spent time in a racing yard. The number of horses in Europe that would train on Lasix is quite small, and they would invariably be elite horses. You guys need to stop repeating this untruth.
Also, many European trainers that ship horses to the US to run, do use Lasix on race day because it is allowed.
Or course they do, because it’s a performance enhancer. Why would you cede that advantage to all your competitors?
I see both sides of this issue. Inherently, I am anti-lasix but the question of horse welfare does weigh on me. That question extends to breeding stock, however.
To me, a compromised solution seems the best fit. Most of the best breeding stock comes from stakes races, so eliminate lasix from all stakes; that way, when you see blacktype on a page it means lasix-free. If you want to go farther, have it tied to purse money offered, and keep lasix out of upper level allowances (say, all races for $75K+?).
Let the claimers keep their lasix, if it’s so vital for them. Then the “working man” horses are protected.
Will some good horses still bleed and suffer? Yes, and I don’t like that. I don’t like the possibility of a Derby favorite finishing up the track dripping blood from his nose on national TV. But thinking longterm, at least there may be some awareness of the problem in certain individuals and perhaps some attempt to manage the genetic weakness a little better. We can’t quit breeding bleeders if we don’t know who they are.
There was a South African study a few years ago that linked EIPH to genetics. It doesn’t seem to have made much impact on America.
Epistaxis is the term used for horses that visibly bleed through the nostrils, not those horses when bleeding can only be detected via a scope.
But being visible in the nostrils in no way corresponds with the severity of the bleed. I had a horse bleed a 10 out of 10 with nothing visible on the outside.
Because antibiotics are not be applicable.
[QUOTE=SportArab;7720378]
I’m not a vet, so I can’t tell you what their thinking is. But I can say as someone who covers human health, that antibiotics are VASTLY over prescribed even in people. Much worse when it comes to animals.[/QUOTE]
Couldn’t agree more. Both for myself and my horses. A horse gets a scratch and people run to medicine cabinet for the bottle of SMZs. Ridiculous.
I think vets constantly “Prescribe” to cover their butts. I use them judiciously regardless of what my vet may recommend.
The over use of antibiotics and the grave consequences for humans is well documented. No reason to believe that it is not the same for horses.
[QUOTE=Drvmb1ggl3;7720599]
No they don’t. Go talk to anyone that has spent time in a racing yard. The number of horses in Europe that would train on Lasix is quite small, and they would invariably be elite horses. You guys need to stop repeating this untruth.
Or course they do, because it’s a performance enhancer. Why would you cede that advantage to all your competitors?[/QUOTE]
Thank you for saving me the time to type out the same. I couldn’t have said it better.
[QUOTE=EventerAJ;7720638]
I see both sides of this issue. Inherently, I am anti-lasix but the question of horse welfare does weigh on me. That question extends to breeding stock, however.
To me, a compromised solution seems the best fit. Most of the best breeding stock comes from stakes races, so eliminate lasix from all stakes; that way, when you see blacktype on a page it means lasix-free. If you want to go farther, have it tied to purse money offered, and keep lasix out of upper level allowances (say, all races for $75K+?).
Let the claimers keep their lasix, if it’s so vital for them. Then the “working man” horses are protected.
Will some good horses still bleed and suffer? Yes, and I don’t like that. I don’t like the possibility of a Derby favorite finishing up the track dripping blood from his nose on national TV. But thinking longterm, at least there may be some awareness of the problem in certain individuals and perhaps some attempt to manage the genetic weakness a little better. We can’t quit breeding bleeders if we don’t know who they are.[/QUOTE]
I and others have suggested for years in industry forums and directly to the “powers that be” that races should be written that are only open to horses that run without Lasix. But could never get an answer as to why this would be so difficult.
Starting next year Gulfstream Park is going to start writing these type of restricted races. Hopefully offering higher prize money also. So this maybe the beginning of an interesting “acid test”.
The only way I can see “culling” of breeding stock that are only capable of running competitively is with Lasix would be to have them reported by the attending vet to a central data base which would be included in their pedigree information. Much the same as “black type” denotes stakes quality. And let breeders decide if they want that “type” of mare and or stallion in their breeding program.
All horses “bleed” to a certain extent when subjected to extreme exertion. Be it on the racecourse or an Event course. I don’t believe Eventers are routinely scoped as a matter of course as a lot of us do after our horses run. A standing scope grading of 1-2 is of little concern, a 3 depending on how often, a 4 is very troubling a 5 IMO should be retired unless it is a one oft.
This is not just my opinion but of that of the experts. And yes most of the ones I have trained and worked with directly are scoped when they have been free of Lasix.
[QUOTE=vineyridge;7720880]
There was a South African study a few years ago that linked EIPH to genetics. It doesn’t seem to have made much impact on America.[/QUOTE]
The often quoted and or referenced “South African” study has been under peer review since it came out. And though it contains some useful information it is considered flawed.
As far EIPH and its inheritably the SF study only ‘suggests’ a link. ‘Suggests’ being the operative word. As it is in most horse “studies”. I don’t think it takes a PHD in genetics to make this statement.
It may or may not be congenital it certainly wouldn’t be a stretch to think it is.
[QUOTE=Laurierace;7721242]
But being visible in the nostrils in no way corresponds with the severity of the bleed. I had a horse bleed a 10 out of 10 with nothing visible on the outside.[/QUOTE]
That’s interesting considering the standard scale for the industry is 1-5. At least that’s how the many horses I have had scoped after a race are graded. At a number of different race tracks around the country.
I agree that a horse experiencing an extreme episode will not necessarily “bleed threw the nose”.
I was a groom pre-Lasix and only had one horse that I “picked up” after a race that experienced Epistaxis. That’s not to say that there weren’t others, scoping as a matter of course was not the “norm” in the early 70’s. The scopes were pretty crude in those days.
I spend A LOT of time at the races everyday on the Mid-Atlantic circuit in those days. It was rare to see a horse “bleed”. And in those days the only way to get on the “bleeders list” and be allowed the use of Lasix once it was approved for racing was for a Steward and or Vet to witness a horse experiencing Epistaxis. But considering most then as do today, I included, consider Lasix as a performance enhancer above controlling bleeding a lot more horses were seen bleeding. And it was not because of an “episode”. “Man made”.
[QUOTE=gumtree;7721345]
That’s interesting considering the standard scale for the industry is 1-5. At least that’s how the many horses I have had scoped after a race are graded. At a number of different race tracks around the country.
I agree that a horse experiencing an extreme episode will not necessarily “bleed threw the nose”.
I was a groom pre-Lasix and only had one horse that I “picked up” after a race that experienced Epistaxis. That’s not to say that there weren’t others, scoping as a matter of course was not the “norm” in the early 70’s. The scopes were pretty crude in those days.
I spend A LOT of time at the races everyday on the Mid-Atlantic circuit in those days. It was rare to see a horse “bleed”. And in those days the only way to get on the “bleeders list” and be allowed the use of Lasix once it was approved for racing was for a Steward and or Vet to witness a horse experiencing Epistaxis. But considering most then as do today, I included, consider Lasix as a performance enhancer above controlling bleeding a lot more horses were seen bleeding. And it was not because of an “episode”. “Man made”.[/QUOTE]
It is still rare to see epistaxis. But trust me, you can find blood on pretty much all of them. In my equine research days we did BAL after exercise and if they ran fast enough, you could detect RBC’s in all of them. Some, the BAL fluid was bright red… personally, I think there is ample evidence that we have bred horses to run at the edge of their physiological capacity. They move a tremendous amount of blood through the lungs during exercise and the capillary pressures are incredibly high. No surprise that they leak and or rupture… Lasix does lower the pulmonary pressure and does lower the level of leakage. It also enhances performance, at least partly due to weight loss…
There are a number of factors that can occur and push the horse over the edge… Horses with severe EIPH likely have one or more other confounding factors… some are likely to be genetic.
[QUOTE=rcloisonne;7716697]
Then how is it every other country racing TBs gets along fine without it? I’ve not seen this question answered satisfactorily on this board.
Funny how many of the top trainers in the US are supporting elimination of this drug starting in 2015. If there are any “credible” studies showing lasix is beneficial to racehorses I’d like to see them.
Have any of the proponents here ever wondered how much “track jewelry” and fractures can be directly attributed to calcium interference/depletion caused by the drug?[/QUOTE]
There are lots of studies showing performance enhancement (most likely due to the weight issue).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17402434
Also studies showing it works to reduce EIPH.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19566461
And evidence it impairs performance
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16178399
And in agreement with the other mentioned study, long tern performance is not affected with lower levels, but with severe EIPH, there is an issue
I do not understand how one is going to breed this “trait” out of the breed if 99 percent of horses bleed at some point and most horses that race are never used for breeding. Of course I wonder if horses running longer distance races tend to bleed less (less extreme exertion/sprinting?) —remember the old days of the starter handicaps written really long for cheap horses?
I think it would naive to think we could “breed out” this trait when just about every TB extant is descended from, probably 90% of them tail male, a horse called “Bleeding” Childers.
