Racetrack Medication: A Consignor's Perspective

re: Racetrack Medication: A Consignor's Perspective

Susan — Wed, 09 Mar 2011 14:01:18 GMT

I appreciate Mark's concerns regarding cost cutting. Legal race day medication however is one of the least expensive charges on a monthly vet bill.

IMO, there are only two ways to reduce veterinary costs:

1) Conscientious, daily hands-on horsemanship whereby a trainer is allowed to proactively back off on a horse showing signs of problems until the problem resolves.

2) An industry wide change whereby trainers would be given prescriptions from their vets to purchase routinely used pharmaceuticals for their stables in bulk or at wholesale. This is a common practice not only on farms but in the show horse industry. Currently, a trainer is not even allowed to have a bottle of bute tablets or antibiotic powder in his tack room without it being individually labelled for each horse. Most horsemen are well educated in when to use supplies like bute/banamine, antibiotics, antifungual medications, ulcer medications, muscle relaxants, leg paints, throat washes, cough meds, eye ointment, etc. Although there may be some objection to the income loss from the track vets, the reality is that many vets have enormous outstanding receivables each month while the veterinarians' largest monthly expenditure is pharmaceuticals.

re: Racetrack Medication: A Consignor's Perspective

Susan — Wed, 09 Mar 2011 12:42:58 GMT

brogers, a big thank you for statements re medication use in foreign countries. Contrary to the hay, oats & water fantasy perceived as drug free racing, there are an innumerable amount of untestable foreign substances being put into racehorses. Trainers may learn of these substances when a horse is raced in (or bought from) a foreign country or when a vet with foreign connections introduces them.

IMO, lasix is cheap and not at the center of huge vet bills; in fact it reduces vet bills resulting from the complications of bleeding. Nor does proper dosage and use cause any harm to the horses. The public erroneously perceives harm when comparing it to use in humans but this is an invalid comparison as 1) dosage based on weight is extremely small in comparison and 2) diuretics in humans are used in those with serious health conditions like congestive heart failure. I have been around long enough to see horses die of suffocation from EIPH during a race and it is something I hope never to see again.

A much bigger issue is the use of foreign substances currently considered untestable by current testing methods. Two drugs that some believe to be particularly harmful to the integrity of racing are 1) Aicar, which is relatively inexpensive and aka exercise in a pill and 2) the harder to procure ITPP which was created in France in 2005. ITPP causes the hemoglobin in blood to release more oxygen. In the international racing community, these two substances are thought to be potentially even more damaging to racing than epogen. Yet, due to lack of funding, we do not have a test for either. For more info see the link below.

www.harnesslink.com/.../Article.cgi

re: Racetrack Medication: A Consignor's Perspective

Byron Rogers — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 02:29:33 GMT

It does need to be said, and for some (not all) understood, that every racing jurisdiction trains their horses under medication. Go to the training yards in Australia, Japan or Europe and you will see that some (not all) horses are trained on Lasix/Salix or Bute. To think otherwise is a little naive.

The difference is that they adhere to the withholding periods (21 days and 7 days), test their horses before they race and don't turn up to the racetrack with it in their system.

I have had horses in training in Australia, Europe and North America and relatively speaking, vet bills are out of control in North America. You can have Salix & Bute administered on just about every breeze while trainers in Australia and Europe don't use medication like bute and lasix/salix to get a horse fit unless it is really needed. Horses are trained just as hard in Australia as they are here in America and they seem to get along fine.

Maybe banning raceday medication, voiding any claims if the horse bleeds from the nostrils in running, and adding an automatic 90 day race ban on horses that bleed (like they do in Australia) is the first step to get us back to more sensible horse management.

re: Racetrack Medication: A Consignor's Perspective

seb — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 19:17:29 GMT

Vets, who of course endoscope huge number of horses, would say that Exercise Induced Pulmonary Hemorrhage (bleeding) occurs to some degree in almost all racehorses. The question is its severity. Before the endoscope a horse was a known bleeder because blood appeared at the nostril. Now almost any horse is a bleeder because the endoscope can find blood an almost any trachea after exercise.

Other jurisdictions must also have bleeders if almost every horse bleeds somewhat in the lung after exercise. Why is the US the only jurisdiction which needs almost universal Salix to solve the problem?

I'd hate to think that it's because American horsemen are less than their counterparts.

re: Racetrack Medication: A Consignor's Perspective

Jean in Chicago — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 01:52:45 GMT

Great. All racehorses are bleeders and Lasix stops bleeding so all horses perform better on Lasix. Except that Lasix stops/controls bleeding because its a diuretic so it leaves horses dehydrated and with severe electrolyte imbalance (especially bad on a hot, humid day). There's a reason human runners are told to stay hydrated and handed liquids all through a race. As soon as a horse gets back to the barn, he'll be given fluids & electrolytes to get him back to 'normal'.

Jersey Boy: so many horses qualify for Lasix because in most places all it takes to qualify is a trainer saying 'I want to run my horse on Lasix'. The days are long gone when a horse had to actually bleed or be checked with an endoscope.

Poormansracehorse is right. It doesn't take a genius to decide to send a mare to a non-bleeder stud over a bleeder or a buyer to skip a yearling whose pedigree is filled with bleeders. If horses run without meds, that information might actually be known.

re: Racetrack Medication: A Consignor's Perspective

JerseyBoy — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 19:36:05 GMT

fb0252:

You wrote:

"nearly all horses on American tracks bleed without lasix".

If this is true, you have given me one more reason why I should stop betting on horses. I thank you.

re: Racetrack Medication: A Consignor's Perspective

Pat — Tue, 25 Jan 2011 07:20:50 GMT

The majority of comments here reflect why horse-racing as a sport is dying... The number one concern is about economics and not the horse. The American public is becoming more and more concerned about the well being

( before and after racing) of the horse. When you have a Trainer of the Year award going to a man convicted of illegally doping his horses, it's easy to understand why racetrack attendance is declinig, and will continue to do so.

re: Racetrack Medication: A Consignor's Perspective

JAJ — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:36:37 GMT

Bill,

Do a lung wash on all your adequately-trained European horses--you'll find evidence of bleeding.

Horses have always bled--it isn't a new phenomenon.

re: Racetrack Medication: A Consignor's Perspective

fb0252 — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 17:28:54 GMT

the degree of ignorance of racing horses in the OP reaches the level of phenomenal. nearly all horses on American tracks bleed without lasix. therefore, "to save vet expense", we let them bleed, run them bleeding, create lung lesions, continue to race and train increasing their degree of lung damag. and still, Mr. Taylor leaves hanging, what does the owner of the millions dollar (or $2000.00) yearling do with their bleeding horse? colossal ignorance.

re: Racetrack Medication: A Consignor's Perspective

Bill — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 13:29:44 GMT

ALL horses do not bleed, only those that are trained inadequately with 4F breezes every 10 days then asked to race 6F plus once a month. ALL horses do not bleed in Japan or Dubai.

re: Racetrack Medication: A Consignor's Perspective

goodwin — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 03:32:11 GMT

Back to horsemanship? Take the "corporate model" out of the game?

Thank God!!!!

re: Racetrack Medication: A Consignor's Perspective

MikeM — Mon, 24 Jan 2011 00:55:33 GMT

For horses that are "runners" meds work and as long as thats the case they will continue to be used.For horses that arent, no amount of meds help.

re: Racetrack Medication: A Consignor's Perspective

JerseyBoy — Sun, 23 Jan 2011 13:01:18 GMT

I have never owned a horse. I just bet on them.

I think raceday medication should be banned because there seems to be some element of abuse of medication. For example, today at Gulfstream there are 108 entries. Only one horse is scheduled to run without Lasix. How can this be when American horses seem to perform well overseas without medication?.

Is this medication truly being used to keep the horses from bleeding? How come so many horses qualify for Lasix?

re: Racetrack Medication: A Consignor's Perspective

Bet Twice — Sat, 22 Jan 2011 19:01:02 GMT

Banning race day medication makes sense on so many levels. Better for the horse, less expensive for the owners, encourages breeders to breed for soundness, simplifies the rules for the trainers and cleans up a very messy issue for the fans and the betting public.

re: Racetrack Medication: A Consignor's Perspective

Dan — Sat, 22 Jan 2011 15:59:22 GMT

We have pre vet sales exams for the consignor with pre purchase exams for the buyer. We have vets all over the sales grounds, race track and the average start per horse goes down. You would believe that with all of this we would weed out the unsound race horse. Go figure. It sounds too simple but have the vets only see sick horses. We will then breed horses that promote soundness and not those that respond to whatever someone gives them. This should have a positive response from the public who believe all horses are doped. Additionally, it will increase ownership as your costs go down dramatically. No injections 72 hours prior to race day is the answer.

re: Racetrack Medication: A Consignor's Perspective

annie — Sat, 22 Jan 2011 15:06:08 GMT

Yes, it is a problem, but they can't fill races now.

re: Racetrack Medication: A Consignor's Perspective

tbpartnerperson43 — Sat, 22 Jan 2011 14:58:37 GMT

What do you think the profit was on a horse that won $76,000 in ten months, with 11 starts? Not much with vet bills that hit $2500 a month with additional trainer meds around $450. As a partner, I was not allowed to see copies of the vet bills. Horsemen are few and far between and the stables of some are so big that there is no way they really understand the needs of their charges. I'm still in the game, but I'm not so naive now.

re: Racetrack Medication: A Consignor's Perspective

TM — Sat, 22 Jan 2011 14:04:59 GMT

Horsemenship is great and vet bills at many tracks are to high but buying a million dollar yearling and spending thousands more to get him to the track and then he bleeds and you can't treat him, thats an economic failure. That would lead to more contraction of racing and breeding.

re: Racetrack Medication: A Consignor's Perspective

Rachel — Sat, 22 Jan 2011 13:48:58 GMT

No horse that would be sore without medication should be forced to run with medication...that's what "lay-up time" is for, for true healing.

I am all for "no race day medication"...do what Japan does: if you bleed, no racing for 30 days...(i think that's what it is, happy to be corrected)

re: Racetrack Medication: A Consignor's Perspective

Ignorance is bliss — Sat, 22 Jan 2011 11:43:26 GMT

Does anyone really think there was a time no drugs was ever used? Our test have gotten so sophisticated, it can detect the smallest amount. Twenty five years ago and longer they used stuff because there was no way to test for it. I remember a drug coming over from England because it was not showing over there. Drugs are in all sports. Just go back to closing your eyes. Or get really educated and run rounds with a track vet.

PS. Horse bled back then too. Only 3% of the horses bleed out the nose. The rest need a scope. Oh yeah, until the scope, no horses bled?

re: Racetrack Medication: A Consignor's Perspective

chris — Sat, 22 Jan 2011 04:25:45 GMT

The problem has levels of complexity too numerous to include in a comment here...Suffice it to say...lasix is the least of the problems affecting the economics of TB racing...horses suffer episodes of bleeding for a variety of reasons including track condition,fitness level, weather conditions,lameness,and lower airway infections...to name a few...with the demands we put on horses to meet financial obligations...to fill race cards...to satisfy owners...it is nice to be able to offer them some protection against preventable pulmonary hemorrhage

re: Racetrack Medication: A Consignor's Perspective

seb — Sat, 22 Jan 2011 00:02:29 GMT

Thank you for your reporting Ms Biles. This series of quotes sure illustrates in a nutshell the thinking of the commercial side of the horse production wing of our industry.

Mr. Taylor and his family have been among those at the forefront of production for the commercial marketplace. He is thinking first of his clients and customers who race horses. But in suggesting that the game may be better off without raceday medications his reasons stress managing costs rather than managing risks, as with his example about the expensive bleeder.

Whether it is more beneficial to minimize the chance of bad luck hindering a decent return on investment with raceday meds or minimize the price of getting a horse to the gate without them, Mr. Taylor is clearly dedicated to structuring the game so that his (and others') clients can make the most of their investments.

This consistent outlook speaks well of Mr. Taylor’s integrity as a salesman. It, however, suggests that a consigner’s view—even one as well versed in horses as Mr. Taylor—has no incentive to think about the impact of skewing the game by trying to cushion one guy’s (even one very rich guy’s) bad luck. As the industry has moved to depend more and more on the revenue of selling horses by individual lot at sales, all involved parties have added cushioning to mitigate the risks that buying a horse in this way raises. As a sport we’ve changed the rules of racing to permit a compromise with the industry by allowing for raceday medications. And by helping clients in this way, we help owners maintain the value of their stock at all levels by keeping more animals viable for racing. At the top end, this has allowed talented stock that is genetically predisposed to unsoundness in wind to proliferate that problem.

Just like it is the case that not every bleeder breeds bleeders, it is hard to make an open and shut case against allowing horses with talent their best opportunity to reward their owners by winning purse money. Still, when the sport allowed raceday medication it privileged the individual owner over the whole body of owners, whose chances of owning a bleeder are no better or no worse than any other owner’s chances.

(Though there is the suggestion that it is slightly inappropriate that veterinarians to reap the bulk of the benefits or legal raceday meds 30 years on from their introduction, this misses the point. Vets are benefiting from our attempts to cushion the risks of buying young stock. If you want to control for risk, there is always a cost somewhere—and those costs may change over longer terms.)

What has been harmed by raceday medication is the overall soundness and robustness of thoroughbred breeding stock. But the North American thoroughbred herd is not an owner, pays no commissions, and can’t ever be the source of return business. In the short term any harm the herd bears seems negligible—even progressive. The breed we have now reflects the long-term impact of raceday meds. In truth these are just the costs of our cushioning the risks of an uncertain and demanding sport at last coming back to the pocketbooks of those for whose benefit the cushion was originally provided.

re: Racetrack Medication: A Consignor's Perspective

Robin from Maryland — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 23:32:28 GMT

I agree with all of the bloggers. Lets get back to basics. Just how good is a racehorse if they're all "doped up?" If a horse needs meds because their sore - fine. Use the meds and rest the horse. If, after time off they still come up sore after a work, than maybe it's too much and another career should be investigated. It's time to take a firm stand on this issue.

re: Racetrack Medication: A Consignor's Perspective

DawnStorm — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 23:18:14 GMT

Amen PoorMansRacehorse!

re: Racetrack Medication: A Consignor's Perspective

Jean in Chicago — Fri, 21 Jan 2011 23:06:08 GMT

Absolutely!! If a horse isn't sound enough to run without meds, he isn't sound enough to run. Those genes should be weeded out of the gene pool. I remember the days when it was noted in a racing program that a horse was running on Lasix. As far as I can tell now everybody is always running on Lasix ('just in case') and who knows what else. Isn't 'a bad reaction to Lasix injection' one of the possible reasons given for Life At Ten's horrible run in the BC?

If it takes a financial reason of saving money on vet bills to push toward breeding stronger, healthier horses that's fine with me. Maybe it will counteract the attitude of 'it cost a lot to get a horse ready for a race and we'll lose money if we scratch him'.

(Natural--your English is fine.)