Sea Change - By Eric Mitchell

re: Sea Change - By Eric Mitchell

Deltalady — Fri, 08 Aug 2014 16:23:37 GMT

A recent study says careers are not shortened if a horse bleeds below "do not race" levels: 7-29-14 - Study author Stephanie Preston, of the Maxwell H. Gluck Equine Research Center's Equine Soundness and Sports Medicine Program at the University of Kentucky, said her study indicates low level EIPH is common but does not impact performance or the horse's ability to stay in training.

www.bloodhorse.com/.../study-eiph-does-not-shorten-racing-careers

I don't think we would be having this discussion if since Lasix was introduced and accepted by all U.S. racing jurisdictions that those responsible for the health and welfare of the horses would have adopted a policy of using furosemide on only horses that showed some bleeding through the nose. What happened along the way is everyone (trainers mostly) figured out that the big weight loss gave the horse an advantage (like having the favorite in a race give a less accomplished horse 15 or 20 pounds in a handicap race!). No one wanted to be on a one-down position against another horse that was racing with Lasix, so they came up with the endoscope to pick up even the smallest amounts of blood to justify the use of the DRUG on ALL HORSES IN RACING. That is just insane, and everybody knows it! A drug with the huge amount of side effects as does Lasix should never have been approved to be used on ALL horses. The definition of a bleeder overseas has not changed (at least in most racing jurisdictions): a horse that bleeds through the nose. In a presentation in Saratoga preceding the Jockey Club Round Table a couple years ago, a noted veterinarian estimated that if Lasix were to be eliminated, it is likely that 0.2% of North American racehorses would be excluded from racing due to bleeding. I have no idea how many horses are in training in the U.S., but for argument's sake, let's just say 25,000. .2% amounts to 50 horses! Do we really need to treat all horses to help the few who could not race without it?

re: Sea Change - By Eric Mitchell

Bill Rinker — Wed, 06 Aug 2014 14:29:18 GMT

Highly contentious subject with viable credence on both sides of the fence. Whatever the out come, there will be many questions to debate, and many theories' to prove and dispute for sometime. Unfortunately, this subject matter seems somewhat taboo, with an opportunity for initiative somehow standing idle, but plainly before us. It seems obvious that there's more than meets the eye here, and understanding the demographics on why it is so popular may be the first place to begin work. For now, one cost affective analyses would be to start writing Lasix restricted races on each card. Maybe something like one that is Lasix free, one that is first time Lasix only and one that is only for documented bleeders at a predetermined level. If they would fill, (and with persistence perhaps they would) there is little doubt that it would give us some very valuable information for the future? Thanks for the update Eric.

re: Sea Change - By Eric Mitchell

Barry Irwin — Wed, 06 Aug 2014 13:31:58 GMT

This is huge and I applaud the 25 trainers for taking this stance.

re: Sea Change - By Eric Mitchell

Pedigree Ann — Wed, 06 Aug 2014 07:39:41 GMT

I blame the availability of bronchoscopes for the 'craze' for Lasix. Once upon a time, the only horses who 'bled' were those who did so from the nostrils, visibly on the outside. But once everybody had 'scopes, they could look inside - Gasp! He has a few flecks of blood in his trachea or bronchial tubes! He's a bleeder! Run him on Lasix! Newsflash - some horses probably ALWAYS had a few flecks of blood in their lungs after races, just like many human athletes do. It is not a pathology that requires mediation, merely the result of strenuous exercise and causes no long-term damage. True bleeding, on the other hand, is a horrendous event for the horse and requires many months of recovery time while the lung tissue repairs itself. In Australia, six months off is required before a bleeder can return to the track; if he bleeds again, he is banned from racing. This is not to punish the owner but to protect the horse from further harm. A horse who bleeds while racing can still have a useful career at lower speeds, as a hack or a hunter or a school horse.

Vets have to stand up and say, no, this horse hasn't bled therefore I will not treat him for bleeding. Since many horses 'bleed through the Lasix' it doesn't seem to be that great a preventative, either. It isn't required for most horses and has side-effects that can harm them (serious fluid loss).., why is it standard practice, Mr./Ms. Vet?

P. S. Bute is an NSAID and when you take NSAIDs you warned not to take anticoagulants because the NSAIDs are already a blood-thinner. Is it possible that the so-called 'explosion' of bleeding which occurred after some few years of legalized Bute was a result of excess Bute use?

re: Sea Change - By Eric Mitchell

JAJ — Wed, 06 Aug 2014 01:53:28 GMT

I would love to take my horses off Lasix; however, if I do I can't put them back on for 90 days. So, if the experiment fails and they truly need it, I can't race my horses for three months. If the industry wants to phase out Lasix, perhaps the industry should make it easier and less risky for owners like me to try taking their horses off Lasix.

re: Sea Change - By Eric Mitchell

sceptre — Tue, 05 Aug 2014 22:22:56 GMT

Well, Mr. Mitchell, after all this time, and all your articles on this subject, you finally gave away-in your last paragraph- the position you have held all along...Just look at the disparity of thoughts held by these trainers. Many have differing agendas, and none are Vets or scientists. Ignore them, and be guided by what science offers. To do otherwise is simply reckless.

re: Sea Change - By Eric Mitchell

Old Old Cat — Tue, 05 Aug 2014 20:47:12 GMT

I am puzzled. Graham Motion, a former Englishman, and one of the most highly respected trainers in America, is saying that in Europe they use Lasix in the morning while training, but not on raceday. Is Lasix good for horses or bad for horses. If it is good for horses, then allow it everywhere. If it is bad for horses, then ban it everywhere. Don't ban it only on raceday then come across with an "holier than thou" attitude, "We don't use that vile substance".

I realize American racing and European racing are different in substance and style; hard pounding dirt vs soft yielding grass, speed vs distance. But I wonder if American trainers refrain from Lasix in training because they save the horse for the race, while Europeans maybe are stressing their horses during training (with added wind from Lasix) to make the actual races seem easier?