Industry Must Move on Race-Day Medications

re: Industry Must Move on Race-Day Medications

JerseyBoy — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 17:32:21 GMT

Sceptre:

Thank you for suggesting what my answer would be.

What makes you think I have not read the full text?

Nice red-herring that line.

My position remains as stated, except that I would add that horses that need a "life-saving" medication to race ought to be retired. That is how concerned I am about " the health and well-being of the horse".

I enjoyed today's races at Goodwood.

I will be brief too.

re: Industry Must Move on Race-Day Medications

sceptre — Wed, 27 Jul 2011 01:29:01 GMT

JerseyBoy:

I'll try to keep this brief. Firstly, where is it written that the "bettors" desires trump the health and well-being of the horse? Even if only 2/3rds of horses are helped (and, this help can sometimes be life-saving), isn't 2/3rds a rather substantial number? Secondly, just as you "cannot tell which ones are helped" (by Lasix), so too you cannot tell which ones have a propensity to "bleed" if none are permitted this race-day medication. If your answer to this is that their "form" will supply the answer, so too will the form supply the answer whether or not Lasix is permitted. Lastly, I suggest you find and read the full text of the S. African study.

re: Industry Must Move on Race-Day Medications

fb0252 — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 21:59:33 GMT

another OP without one single solitary word about what's best for the animal.

re: Industry Must Move on Race-Day Medications

JerseyBoy — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 19:30:01 GMT

Avalyn:

I am a bettor.

What I find disturbing about this subject is the way the facts get twisted depending upon people's agendas.

Reading some reports one would think that a South African study concluded that Lasix prevents bleeding.

To help set matters straight, here are 3 excerpts about the report taken from the Abstract version of

the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association,

July 1, 2009, Vol. 235

1- "Objective—To evaluate the efficacy of furosemide for prevention of exercise-induced pulmonary hemorrhage (EIPH) in Thoroughbred racehorses under typical racing conditions"

2- Results—Horses were substantially more likely to develop EIPH (severity score ≥ 1; odds ratio, 3.3 to 4.4) or moderate to severe EIPH (severity score ≥ 2; odds ratio, 6.9 to 11.0) following administration of saline solution than following administration of furosemide. In addition, 81 of the 120 (67.5%) horses that had EIPH after administration of saline solution had a reduction in EIPH severity score of at least 1 when treated with furosemide"

3-"Conclusions and Clinical Relevance—Results indicated that prerace administration of furosemide decreased the incidence and severity of EIPH in Thoroughbreds racing under typical conditions in South Africa".

What I take from this is that Lasix helps roughly two-thirds of horses with EIPH, but does not help the remaining one-third.

Since I,the bettor, cannot tell which ones are helped, this is enough reason why it should not be used on raceday.

Lasix does not eliminate EIPH. It reduces the incidence.

(Today at Goodwood was entertaining.

None of the horses were aided by the performance-enhancing qualities of the drug).

(saline solution=placebo)

re: Industry Must Move on Race-Day Medications

gotigers1948 — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 15:35:41 GMT

The board can ban race day medications but that won't stop it. How will this be enforced? Cameras in every stall? Who will be allowed to get close to the horse and who will be watching?

As this rule comes closer to becoming a reality, sketchy

trainers are already collaborating with their chemists and vets in an effort to develop extended release medications (performance enhancing drugs) that will not have to be administered on race day.

You can bet on it!

re: Industry Must Move on Race-Day Medications

sceptre — Mon, 25 Jul 2011 23:08:48 GMT

Ms. Hunter,

You are in favor of a race-day ban on furosemide (Salix/Lasix). One could offer many arguments both for and against its race-day use, so I must assume that the three offered (in your piece) were deemed by you to be the most compelling. Even should one grant accuracy/agreement with all three (which I don't), they are woefully insufficient to support your stated position. It is faulty reasoning such as yours (displayed in print) that has clouded and distorted the real issues. Not so unlike what often occurs in political discourse.