Viney, I am seriously ready to buy you a plane ticket and take you to the backside. You are grasping at straws to try to make a point.
I don’t disagree with you that a continuing education system could be a good thing. I always think continuing education is the answer. I just don’t agree with the areas of education you keep proposing.
Trainers are not ignorant people who do things because that’s how their granddaddy did it. Racing is one of the only reasons we have any equine research and development in this country.
Racing is much smaller in those countries, and the bulk of the horses are concentrated in the hands of the few. Only in the US does everyone have the fantastic opportunity to hang a shingle, pass a test, apply for a couple stalls and call themselves a trainer, with not a huge amount of money up front.
I suppose it must be inconceivable to you that the backside of a track is made up of anything but nitwits.
I am tempted to be sarcastic and say that yes, no one ever understands a thing anyone else says, but you would probably believe me because it supports your “racing people are the scum of the earth” hypothesis.
In truth: virtually every barn at every track is multi-lingual. Some trainers/vets/riders/grooms speak English and Spanish. Some speak English. Some speak Spanish. Plus, you can throw a few other languages into the mix as well. So there is always someone on hand who can translate if translation is needed.
I have never seen anyone be unable to understand or to make themselves understood in a racing barn.
You are ignoring the fact that it has exactly the same function. There have been many who have said that the only bad thing about milkshaking a horse is that it looks bad to the public having to tube a horse on a race day. :rolleyes:
The only similar thing with Blood Buffer and milkshaking is that they are both like the Wild West. The race day Blood Buffer does not list the ingredients, so you do not know what is in there or what it does. There is no evidence that milkshaking does ANYTHING to enhance performance. Or Blood Buffer, for that matter. Anyone who uses either is an idiot.
IMO, race track folks are brainwashed about the value of race day Salix. Furosemide was not approved for medical use in the US until 1964, and one assumes that it would have taken a few years to be widely used for horses–say 1967 at the earliest. Northern Dancer ran on it in 1964, though. It is banned for humans by WADA because it masks other drugs in humans. Apparently it also masks other drugs in horses. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/20…g-horse-racing At 250 mgs per dose, it doesn’t mask other drugs, but the allowed US level is 500 mgs.
Horse racing in its present form is about 400 years old. Horses have raced, even in the US, for about 350 of those years. Horses have been known to bleed for at least that long. Horses in the rest of the world still race without race day furosemide, even though most probably would fit the definition of hidden bleeder.
Think of horses in the US before the availability of furosemide. Think of how much longer and more frequently many of them (hidden bleeders included) ran than horses race today. Triple Crown winners, Jockey Gold Cup winners, champions, all were able to perform most probably with hidden bleeding.
Did it ever occur to the lasix proponents that horses may have evolved to bleed with a built in ability to handle it, even if it reduces their performance in high exertion exercise? If it is a major health risk, the species wouldn’t have survived with a majority of bleeders. Read some of the studies from Australia and South Africa in The Guardian article. Grade 1 bleeders handle racing without performance detriments just as well as non-bleeders. It’s only the ones who bleed at higher grades that show performance effects. And in Australia, in a study of 773 horses, 415 developed EIPH. That means that 358 didn’t. Of the 415 that showed bleeding, 273 ( just over 57%) were grade 1. 613 out of 773 were non bleeders or grade 1 bleeders. That’s 81.63% of the study horses. Which would mean that race day furosemide is useful for performance in less than 20% of horses, if American horses are like Australian ones. One would believe that if a horse’s performance in high exertion exercise is not affected by its bleeding, then its bleeding is not a problem for it.
Australia and GB do allow furosemide in training.
Edited to add that I just remember reading a scientific paper that I interpreted to have found that bleeders have blood that clots more quickly than non-bleeder blood. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2952972/ So that would be an evolutionary response to bleeding in the horse. It would make bleeding stop faster, thus protecting the horse.
it is a known fact that consuming bicarbonate prior to strenuous exercise reduces lactic acid build up in the BLOOD by increasing the body’s tolerance of it. by doing so, your body does not fatigue or in sever cases tie-up. it helps maintain coordination in tired muscles and in in some cases can help increase strength. When your body does does not fatigue, your muscles to do not feel tired, your performance is inherently better. also, acid buildup from exercise does not just build up in muscles. It builds up in the blood…hence the name blood buffer. When it builds in the blood; this is when you get an exercise-induced fatigue. the natural occurring item in the body that regulates levels (or tries to as long as it can) of acid in the blood is sodium bicarbonate. When this was discovered; the idea for buffering by ingesting Sodbicarb was born. Humans have been using this for quite some time and continue to do so as a performance enhancer.
SodBicarb never reaches the muscle because of membranes that prevent it from having an affect there. The use of SodBicarb is strictly for buffering blood for acid.
There is plenty of scientific research and studies that note the effect of SodBicarb as a performance enhancer. Yes it does work.
The problem and safety of it revolves around administering it to the horse and administering it at proper levels. Because we know there are plenty of idiots out there who would overload a horse to try and get the utmost effect.
“Brainwashed” is a strong term. You are claiming racing professionals are brainwashed because you read an article in The Guardian?
Horse racing in its present form is about 400 years old. Horses have raced, even in the US, for about 350 of those years. Horses have been known to bleed for at least that long. Horses in the rest of the world still race without race day furosemide, even though most probably would fit the definition of hidden bleeder.
You as well as anyone knows that horse racing has changed considerably over the past 400 years.
Think of horses in the US before the availability of furosemide. Think of how much longer and more frequently many of them (hidden bleeders included) ran than horses race today. Triple Crown winners, Jockey Gold Cup winners, champions, all were able to perform most probably with hidden bleeding.
But also think about the fact that there was no drug testing. Lord knows what they were running on. People always want to hold up horses of “the good ol’ days” as these super animals, as if cheaters didn’t exist 100 years ago.
Did it ever occur to the lasix proponents that horses may have evolved to bleed with a built in ability to handle it, even if it reduces their performance in high exertion exercise? If it is a major health risk, the species wouldn’t have survived with a majority of bleeders. Read some of the studies from Australia and South Africa in The Guardian article. Grade 1 bleeders handle racing without performance detriments just as well as non-bleeders. It’s only the ones who bleed at higher grades that show performance effects. And in Australia, in a study of 773 horses, 415 developed EIPH. That means that 358 didn’t. Of the 415 that showed bleeding, 273 ( just over 57%) were grade 1. 613 out of 773 were non bleeders or grade 1 bleeders. That’s 81.63% of the study horses. Which would mean that race day furosemide is useful for performance in less than 20% of horses, if American horses are like Australian ones. One would believe that if a horse’s performance in high exertion exercise is not affected by its bleeding, then its bleeding is not a problem for it.
Australia and GB do allow furosemide in training.
Thoroughbreds have not “evolved,” they are the product of selective breeding. Horses did not “evolve” to run a mile in 1:32 and change. We breed them for the purpose, then we “make” them do it.
It’s easy to look at the numbers manipulate them to suit and argument for or against bleeding. But I feel like you are missing some key points in interpretation: nearly 100% of horses will bleed when worked regularly, strenuously, over time. Horses without Lasix are 7 to 11 times more likely to have a severe bleed (>grade 2). Severe bleeding negatively impacts performance. And any horseman will tell you, severe bleeding negatively impacts the health of the animal, which is a major sticking point the numbers fail to convey.
I would not consider myself part of the “brainwashed” crowd. I have plenty of skepticism about the dependence we have built on Lasix. I’m tight-lipped with some of my personal views because they include a certain phrase that always causes half the racetrackers in the US to jump down my throat. :lol:
But arguments like “none of the rest of the world races on it” or “horses survived before it” are flawed in my opinion. The rest of the world doesn’t have the bulk of their horses paying their way in clm nwx2 conditions.
It’s my understanding that bleeding is not limited to racing thoroughbreds–that it affects all horses who have to perform exercise at maximum exertion. We know more about thoroughbreds because racing is almost always maximum exertion exercise. The horse did evolve. Are you saying that humans have created faster clotting horse blood? The connection between that and bleeding is a sign of evolution at work even if is bred for. And I seriously doubt that any breeders bred for bleeding.
As for your last statement, maybe the racing establishment in the US should consider giving up claiming and its conditions and going to handicapping.
Maximum exertion is not naturally demanded in “wild” horses as a species. They don’t race, they don’t barrel race, they don’t run 5* events. These types of maximum efforts are human-created events. I doubt if you scope stampeding mustangs (as you suggested earlier), that you’d find evidence of EIPH. It’s not the same type of exertion.
No, I am not saying humans created faster clotting horse blood. I don’t know how you leapt to that conclusion. Humans created a situation where horses have to run as fast as they can for an extended period of time, then bred for increasingly faster horses who stress their lungs more than their less-exercised counterparts. We created a situation that brings on EIPH. Hence that “E” in the acronym.
I do not understand your statement: “The connection between that and bleeding is a sign of evolution at work even if it is bred for.” Can you please elaborate?
“Giving up claiming and its conditions and going to handicapping” is a big statement. From your posts, I don’t think you have enough experience with North American racing to appreciate how big of a statement that is.
Good post. Adding to it - horses evolved to flee 1/8 - 1/4 mile from a predator. A predator that has to run at top speed for over 1/4 mile is going to be too tired to kill the horse, so usually the horse is safe at that point. We’ve also greatly increased the size of horses, so modern horses are running 3x or more farther and are much heavier than whatever not modern horses are called.
A bit of racing trivia here: In the early 1970s a friend and I attended a horseman’s conference in Seattle. Among the speakers was trainer Elliott Burch (very impressive, BTW). During his speech about training racehorses he mentioned the introduction of a new drug that was going to be very promising in reducing bleeding in horses. That, of course, was Lasix. For some reason I’ve never forgotten that all these years, although I’ve never been involved in the racing industry except as a spectator. Other speakers included Tom Gentry and Don Birch, a Western/English judge, and someone else whose name I cannot remember…
I’ve just found a paper on the prevalence of bleeding in Criollo Polo Ponies. It’s about 10%. I’ve also found several other papers on blood differences between TBs that bleed and TBs that don’t, including faster clotting blood. How can that be explained except in the context of adaptation to bleeding?
I also just discovered a study that concluded that furosemide injections increase the CO@ plasma blood level “to near the threshold value used to identify the pre-race administration of alkalinizing agents”. Yet another reason that furosemide is a performance enhancement drug. The study was sponsored by the Indiana Racing Commission and performed at Purdue.
Found another one that states that pre loading with bicarbonate of soda did not improve performance but tubing with a salt solution with high amounts of either sodium chloride or potassium chloride was observed to lead to longer run times to fatigue.
Found another one that asserted that long term use of furosemide has not been well researched for its effects on “mineral balance and soundness”.
Found a couple of papers suggesting that the internal movement of organs during galloping, a feature of horse anatomy, may contribute to bleeding.
I’m sure the AAEP members make a lot of money off furosemide prescriptions.
The price for race day Lasix in nominal compared to other expenses involved with race horse care. To add, that $20 shot on race day (2013 prices, not sure what it is now) may save an owner thousand of dollars in vet bills and lost training time. Given the time and distraction involved in driving around the backstretch for a timed shot, locating and identifying a horse or horses, and giving the injection (needles, syringes, some vets have an assistant to add to their expenses,) vets may make money, but I don’t think anyone of them will retire just on giving Lasix.
The argument that horses evolved to only run at high speed for 1/4 mile and thus wild horses wouldn’t bleed doesn’t make sense, since barrel horses and racing quarter horses also bleed.
Besides, what is a horse race but a controlled stampede? An I/8 of a mile is less than 200 meters. A quarter of a mile is about 400 meters. I would bet my life that once a herd goes into flight mode, it doesn’t stop in 200 or 400 meters.
Race day administration of Lasix/Salix is regulated in most states. In Kentucky, for example, it can only be administered by KHRC vets. So the everyday track vets aren’t making anything from prescribing it.
