You can look up the horse’s history on Equibase. As I said before, buyers will boycott sellers that they think are doing things to mask problems that will prevent a horse from being successful later on. And how do you explain horses of various ages all of a sudden ONLY having problems at this one track in the entire country, when sale horses are dispersed to all corners of the earth every year, especially from Keeneland?
1 Like
I am also curious about the entire sales history with respect to the breakdowns at Santa Anita and elsewhere recently.
I can respect what some of you are saying… why only at Santa Anita in such a diverse population? I do agree that the extreme weather MUST have played a major role…
HOWEVER… I also think that if bisphosphonate use in terms of prepping very young horses for sale (i.e. 2 year olds and younger) seems to have been a fad (based on anecdotal commentary and reports I have read) and the full negative impact of it could, in fact, be showing up in terms of horrible track accidents when these horses are a few years further along in their performance careers. The meds were approved for use in the US in 2014. Fads take a bit of time to get underway… so you are talking about more widespread use in young horses in 2016 and 2017. Articles sounding an alarm bell began coming out last year… and it seems like if amateurs like me can read these articles and draw conclusions… professionals in the industry must be way ahead and probably have already backed away from using these meds on very young horses just to improve their appearance on x-rays, etc.
With that said… you still have a population of horses who are running now aged 2 to 5 who may or may not have been given bisphosphonates when they were younger.
The tricky thing about these meds is that they linger on the surface of the bone… and each horse or person who gets them is an individual, with their own history. So a rash of terrible breakdowns might not be an obvious thing, happening on every single horse who went through a certain sale at a certain age in a certain state. It might actual just manifest as a sad statistical uptick in breakdowns a few years down the road, in horses aged 2-5 at a few different tracks in a few different states…
So let’s use a HYPOTHETICAL example… a two year old is given bisphosphonate meds before being sold to improve appearance of x-rays in early 2017. They ship from Keeneland to elsewhere in the country… maybe have a light two year old season in the fall… race some at 3. Aren’t a top performer, get sold again, and move to a new trainer. Go to Santa Anita and begin training in January with a new trainer for the onset of their 4 year old season. Some underlying micro fracture in a bone they suffered mid way through their 3 yr old year that no one really knows about… and has healed in the irregular, brittle way described in different medical articles because of the latent impact of bisphosphonate use years prior… well… as the horse is training on a less than optimal track given the weather in Southern California back in January… BOOM. It’s a tragedy, and folks are scratching their heads because the last two trainers the horse has been with are good horsemen, and very respected. And the horse didn’t seem lame or to have had a major injury before this happened.
Again - I’m a total amateur compared to most of you all. If my theory is incorrect on its face, please explain why 
I appreciate learning from knowledgeable people.
What I am trying to convey though, is that it seems like even a brief once or twice use of these meds in a horse two or three years prior… for either faddish, sales related reasons… or because at some time back in 2015-2017 the meds had just recently been approved and there was not yet the amount of discussion about possible dangers related to using them off label that there is now… well… those meds are a bit of a “ticking time bomb” inside a horse. Perhaps the horse is inherently a sound, tough, cookie… and nothing ever happens. I’m sure there are plenty of TBs out there who fit that description, were given bisphosphonates in a reckless manner, and will go about their lives and perform like incredible athletes, and none of us will be the wiser. Thoroughbreds are nothing, if not amazing athletes. But there are also going to be multiple situations when a horse has what seems like a minor injury… seems to have recovered, but underlying bone is problematic in an invisible way… and then 6 to 9 months later that same horse is training or racing on a less than ideal surface, extra stress is applied to bone, and a horrible breakdown happens that might NOT have happened if that bone had healed differently. And if the horse is 4 when this happens, the injury occurred when it was 3, and the bisphosphonate use was a one time thing WAAAYYYY back when it was not quite yet 2 and going through a sale… well… connecting the dots and identifying the bisphosphonate as a factor in that breakdown will be tough. Especially if ownership has changed multiple times, vets have changed, records are incomplete or the bisphosphonate use was entirely undisclosed (likely) and the horse has racing on a track with a problematic surface (like Santa Anita after all the crazy rain) when the breakdown happened.
If the general theory is valid… I think the impact of bisphosphonate use and abuse will play out like an “uptick” in breakdowns at several tracks across the country. In a diverse population of horses. Especially if conditions at a given track aren’t good… as seems to have been the case at Santa Anita. I haven’t looked at statistics for last year as I am not familiar with the databases you all are good at perusing. But I would be curious about specific tracks last year that had less than ideal conditions (lots of rain, General concerns about the surface, etc) during major meets. Then look at information on actual horses who broke down… what was their sales history, was there ANY known bisphosphonate use in their veterinary history… any suspected bisphosphonate use based on rumors/reputations related to particular consignors or trainers, or states they were bred in and lived in until 2. Any known prior injuries that might not have healed properly, even though treated in a regular manner? It’s tough… you have multiple variables, and each of them can play a role in an increased likelihood that a horse suffers a REALLY tragic breakdown. But this is also the sort of thing a VERY good statistician can study, and put together a multi variable, regression analysis to look at correlations between a number of factors across the entire population of known racehorses who suffered breakdowns at American tracks over the last few years, and see if something is jumping out that points to one particular factor playing a major role.
Some things are always going to have a high correlation with tragic breakdowns… certain prior known injuries, or poor conditions at a given track. But when you pull together a big data set and try and weed through it to discern the impact of known or suspected bisphosphonate use… you might be able to see that this is the thing that made a bad situation much much worse on a very consistent basis 
Anyway… I hope I have explained what I am trying to get at. In the case of Santa Anita, maybe without underlying issues related to these meds, it would have been a terrible spring anyway, just because of whatever is happening with the track. And breakdowns are an issue with TB racing… sadly always have been. But based on what I have read… I wonder if the number of fatalities would be lower… 10 instead of 22… or even 15 instead of 22… if some of the horses who broke down had not been given these drugs at some earlier point in time.
I have no idea still what the necropsies will, or will not, reveal, or what sort of tests they can do on the horses bones themselves. Especially the bone in and around the immediate location of the fracture that was the cause of the fatal breakdown. Because other bone in the horse might seem healthy and normal… but the bone that repaired the earlier stress fracture or micro fracture will quite possibly be slightly different because of the way bisphosphonates behave in the body on a long term basis. It’s tricky. I hope someone like Paulick Report will do a detailed article on the findings of the nectopsies, and comment on anything that seems to reflect some sort of correlation, above and beyond just the track they all broke down on.
Sorry to be long winded… just trying to be clear.
3 Likes
A recent article on use of bisphosphonates in racehorses… with a link to a study specifically on bucked shins.
https://thehorse.com/168341/off-label-bisphosphonate-use-in-racehorses/
I’m with you - they are not something I would use on any of my own horses.
One frustrating thing I can not seem to find any useful information about is actual analysis of bone samples during necropsy in horses who do have a known history of being given bisphosphonates. I’m curious.
I know in the case of humans taking a different class of bisphosphonates, we do have serious limitations in terms of data available about the long term risks associated with these drugs. Part of the reason is that the drugs have initially been used in people with advanced cancer, or older women with osteoporosis. For these populations… health risks twenty years down the road aren’t a major focus. Similarly in horses… the drugs are approved for horses with advanced navicular disease and older horses with advanced osteoporosis arthritis. So the long term risks are not a significant focus of research.
I started getting Zometa (a human bisphosphonate) two years ago following breast cancer… but I am not metastatic. And I am still under 40. Zometa was only recently approved for use in people with my diagnosis and profile. So long term health risks ARE something I think about (Im planning on living 40 more years) and are something my doctors have had a REALLY hard time providing me with any good answers about. Bottom line… the potential benefits outweigh the risks for me. But to give you an idea of how long term we are talking about with respect to the way these drugs can behave in the body… I recently had my dentist counsel me about avoiding dental surgery when possible… for the rest of my life. Because of limited bisphosphonate exposure in my late 30’s. Specifically, this is because the meds can cause an unpleasant side effect known as “osteonecrosis” in the jaw in patients who have had their jaw bone exposed at all due to dental issues and receding gums. It’s a known side effect. Once osteonecrosis of the jaw starts in someone with a known history of bisphosphonate use, it is hard to manage, and really awful. So my dentist counseled me last year to avoid ever pulling an infected tooth, much less getting a dental implant. For the foreseeable future… unless data comes out saying I am at reduced risk of jaw osteonecrosis ten or more years after stopping bisphosphonate use. And according to the doctors and the dentist… there simply is no long term safety data available yet. And that’s in relation to an older, well studied, human bisphosphonate. And the dose I am getting is not that high, and finite in duration. These meds can and do simply hang out in the body (one’s bones specifically) for years and years…
2 Likes
Maybe I am hopelessly out of the loop but I read that article and I asked around to see if people I knew in the industry thought this was a huge problem. Not a single one did and no one knew of any specific examples of the drug being used for the purpose described. Perhaps they are all lying to me but I raised sales horses and I never used it. I’ve bought sales horses and been associated with people who have shopped at all the big venues around the country and they told me this isn’t even on their radar.
One of the modern scourges IMO is tabloid journalism which has replaced real journalism in so many areas. Everything has to be dramatic to drive those clicks. I accept that I could naive or just out of touch but this sure has the smell of clickbait to me.
2 Likes
Occam’s Razor comes to mind.
What do all the horses have in common–Santa Anita. What is different about Santa Anita this year from last year–well they had a lot of rain and they have a different track superintendent. Hmmm
It seems to me a lot of people are hearing hoofbeats and thinking zebras instead of horses. Joe Harper (God bless him) gave Stronach the roadmap out of this but it calls for paying a lot of hard cash.
https://www.thoroughbreddailynews.com/lasix-will-be-allowed-at-del-mar-meets/
6 Likes
“Again - I’m a total amateur compared to most of you all. If my theory is incorrect on its face, please explain why I appreciate learning from knowledgeable people.”
@Virginia Horse Mom - Because there is no way that horses of various ages and racing experiences and histories may possibly have been given a drug as a yearling or 2 yo and then all of sudden magically come together at Santa Anita and break down all in the same 2.5 month period of time. And just those horses - no horses anywhere else. Your theory does not fit the facts. You have to use real science and real facts, not just pull things out of thin air. You admittedly know little about racing, yet somehow you think you’ve solved the mystery? That the vets are not looking for any likely culprit specifically evidence of any type of drug use? If there was something affecting the bones of the horses that is causing them to break down, then it would show up on the necroscopy. How does your theory explain Battle of Midway? Do you even know who he is?
1 Like
Hearing hoofbeats and thinking unicorns!
1 Like
Occam’s Razor is a way of choosing between competing theories, not a way of generating theories.
If you were the one charged with solving a life threatening problem, and you had a miniscule amount of time to sort it out, it would make sense to only consider the most likely causes of the problem.
That is not the case here-we are not tasked with solving this, therefore we are under no time constraint.
What people are doing here is brainstorming, and the first rule of brainstorming is that everything is on the table. The value of brainstorming is that allows for fresh view points, and innovation. In this situation it does no harm, so the hostility
to just thinking out loud, or just thinking in general is baffling.
10 Likes
The article that Pronzini cited does quote the blessed Joe Harper as stating that drug use should be addressed. Says something to the effect that anyone with a brain in their head can see that.
The other thing to consider is the logic that states that this cannot be a Lasix issue because other horses at other
tracks run on it and don’t breakdown- by the same logic, other horses run at Santa Anita and don’t breakdown, so it
can’t be the track, yes?
Wow - is it really necessary to be so harsh and nasty? I was simply attempting to have a discussion.
I by no means EVER said I have “solved the mystery.” Nor did I ever mean to imply that these medications alone are responsible for the breakdowns at Santa Anita. But they might be a small factor in certain horses demise. And in the demise of horses at other tracks.
You seem to have implied with what you wrote that no breakdowns happened anywhere else in the US… obviously that’s not true. Obviously your writing was imprecise. So I will be polite and not flame you.
Yes … I am aware of who Battle of Midway was.
As far as “magical theories” about unicorns coming together at Santa Anita… and all breaking down… uhh - no. I actually said a statistical analysis of multiple variables in ALL BREAKDOWNS ACROSS MANY TRACKS, over a period of multiple years would be useful to look at. It’s called a multi-variable regression analysis.
Do you even know what a multi-variable regression analysis is? Take an advanced course in statistics? Or why someone would use that method to study something like this?
The Jockey Club’s EID Report is a start on some sort of statistical analysis of breakdowns at different tracks, on different surfaces, of different aged horses. But if it were possible to gather more data about each incident and horse who broke down, it would be helpful. Necropsy results. Medication and injury history (when possible). Condition of the track at the time of breakdown. What was the horse’s sales history. There probably are more things I am not knowledgeable about. Anyway, someone could then look at that information, plug it into a statistical model, and see if anything became more clear in terms of specific highly correlated factors in breakdowns across MULTIPLE TRACKS and HORSES OF DIFFERENT AGES.
Some things certainly will. Fewer breakdowns on turf regardless of track. A serious spike in breakdowns at Santa Anita recently (looking at the EID database there have been much smaller spikes at other tracks… and I don’t believe that database reliably tracks breskdowns that occurred during training). Anyway… factors such as medication history might be much more subtle, and not easily identified, because they are simply a small contributing factor in a breakdown, and actually become much more obvious in an analysis like this. Not necessarily the major cause of any breakdown… just a thing that seems to make a risky sport even riskier, and something to talk about when trying to impose reforms.
If no one is collecting info, horses medical records are incomplete and meds are used off label and no one admits that… well… this sort of analysis is next to impossible. Which is pretty much the case right now. And that’s unfortunate and perhaps worth thinking about. And it just seems like collecting better data on medication use and how it relates to breakdowns… then studying it in detail should be the first step in real reform.
Banning Lasix at Santa Anita seems like a clumsy PR move, and not the correct first step in real reform.
But hey - flame me again and explain why I am totally wrong. Maybe there already is detailed collection of veterinary records, and necropsy results across ALL TRACKS in the US collecting that info, and some sort of comprehensive analysis to improve medication regulation in all of US racing.
Or maybe it’s totally fragmented, data is collected sporadically, veterinary records are hard to come by… and no solid analysis is done.
OBVIOUSLY there is an issue with Santa Anita right now… I am in no way disputing that. And looking at the base of the track and not only resurfacing it, but also addressing the base is SERIOUS MONEY. And Belinda Stronach seems much more interested in cutting costs and closing tracks, and remodeling office suites and has to deal with strife with her father and brother… so spending huge dollars to fix the surface st Santa Anita? Unlikely. I got it. Wish it was different, but that’s what it seems like to me.
Regardless… these breakdowns are now in the national news. Breakdowns can happen… and will happen… at other tracks as we move into the spring in the lead up to the Derby. Likely the National news will cover it. Rather than arguing over the wisdom of a phased in Lasix ban at Santa Anita alone, US horse racing would do well to start talking about real reform ASAP. And come up with a plan to collect data so that they can demonstrate a REAL EFFORT to make reform measures as effective as possible in terms of improving safety, health, and the general welfare of horses.
5 Likes
2014 Paulick Report on Levothyroxine in racing: https://www.paulickreport.com/news/r…ing-thyroxine/
Baffert was found to have been giving it as a supplement to all the horses in his barn at the time that he had a rash of sudden deaths in 2013-2014. https://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-rac…oid-medication Maybe California trainers have sworn off using it inappropriately, but maybe not. In America, drugs for race horses are so common that single trees might be lost in the forest.
Laurierace, if Lasix is so beneficial and innocuous, why doesn’t the rest of the world’s racing jurisdictions allow it? The Germans won’t even let a stallion be used for breeding if he’s ever raced on Lasix (or other race day drugs). Their horses are notable for their soundness and stamina.
One of the side effect, albeit short, of Lasix use is disruption of the calcium mechanism in horses. Add a history of Bisphosphonate use to the Lasix effect on calcium, and do some research there.
4 Likes
Interesting discussion! Thanks everyone for posting links.
I dont see this as Osphos/Tilden = break downs at SA.
Two different topics on the table but perhaps the use of these drugs is having an effect. I know they took off in the QH world within the past few years. Not necessarily all off label (lord knows there is plenty of navicular walking around). But it is used casually to see if it can tighten up legs. Little less at stake when your loping vs galloping!
1 Like
Multiple-variable regression analysis is a very useful tool for determining cause & effect. Example: I look at your tie and think it’s ugly - I throw up. Did the tie make me throw up or was it something else? It’s sort of like how we tend to think a change in the weather means there’s going to be an earthquake. It’s totally not true - but, “earthquake weather” remains a term here.
My take so far, as an observer of racing, is the Lasix ban was more about PR. Question: is there a racing advantage for a horse to drop 20 lbs or so of water weight before a race? If so, could that be why it’s become so widespread in use?
Another question: If Lasix is banned in Europe, do they just not race horses that tend to bleed? If they don’t, would that be like a natural selection to breed next-generations that also don’t bleed? I think someone upthread said it wasn’t genetic. I don’t understand why not.
Yet another question: The use of diuretics in humans causes a drop of potassium. If not supplemented, that can lead to muscle weakness. Is it all possible there could be a similar effect in horses that contributes to the breakdowns? Seems unlikely but I throw it out there anyway.
It still boils down to the track for me. Reading this thread tells me that is likely the most expensive correction that would have to be made. Therefore, it’s likely going to be the last change that occurs. All else that has been raised here seems like part of the ongoing debates within racing - and just about any sport human or animal - as to how to limit drugs that are used for an advantage. Here in initiative happy CA - you don’t want a proposal on the ballot that would play to the sympathies of the uninformed and not truly require changes that would improve safety for the horses. That would cost a lot more than a new track.
1 Like
I don’t even think it is so much about the expense about putting in a new track as it is the uncertainty. If you don’t know what is wrong with the current track how do you know you won’t have the same problem with the new one? If whatever the as of now unknown problem is something deep underground then that wouldn’t be fixed with a new track. I don’t envy their predicament.
4 Likes
IME “brainstorming” really only works when the things thrown on the table are done so judiciously by people who have a grasp of the problem to be solved.
Then spinning it around and looking at it from different angles makes some sense. But brainstorming should not involve interjecting someone’s favorite hobbyhorse as a way to get what they want in the chaos.
“Horses are dying at Santa Anita”
“They used Lasix didn’t they”
“You’re right -let’s get rid of Lasix-I never liked it anyway.”
or if you’re management -“Let’s get rid of Lasix. People will love us for it and that won’t cost $5 million”
Something to keep in mind about Lasix. Humans on Lasix usually have significant health issues that make a diuretic necessary. They take the medication on a daily basis. Racehorses on Lasix are given very periodic shots. Typically those shots coincide with races. I have had horses need a shot before a work but that’s not usual. My horses in training have typically received one dose a month.
Racing in Europe differs from racing in the US in some very key ways. Typically US tracks run their races on flat dirt turning left–no rolling hills or right turns (Except for Santa Anita’s downhill) The shape of the race tends to be very different. In the US, horses jump out of the gate and the race is on. Grass races tend to gallop and then go into sprint mode a quarter to half mile before the finish on a surface that by its nature has a little bounce to it.
Bottom line–US horses run hard most of the race. Also, at least in Europe, a lot of the courses are in places it rains a lot and the humidity is higher.
Doesn’t all of that have to be part of the brainstorming before there is a knee jerk reaction just to ban Lasix?
3 Likes
Gunmetal Gray off the Derby Trail after suffering a condylar fracture at SA. Had surgery today. I said it before, I wouldn’t train a maiden claimer there let alone a potential derby horse.
3 Likes
Sure did honey, in grad school. I do risk management and insurance stuff. So I know better than to fix on biophosphates as the cause of the breakdowns at Santa Anita. It’s going to be the news thing for the next week or so and then everyone will forget about it. Like @Pronzini , I’ve never seen it at the track or heard of anyone even thinking about using it on a racehorse. But since the fatality rate has steady dropped and seems to be hovering around the same level for the past few years, I doubt it’s being used and doubt it’s having any impact on racing. The only statistic that is significant is the track surface. Synthetic and dirt are safer.
Yes, lighter horses run faster. In Europe they will pull water 18 hours before a race etc to dehydrate them. Great, huh?
Probably no Lasix, probably no whip, and still broke down.
