Lasix Adjunct

[banditbeau]

Not much has been said about use of this at the Breeders Cup. A caller to At the Races radio brought it up and had stats showing that while 151 of 234 entrants ran with lasix adjunct, 16/22 winners were \"LA\", and 10 of those 16 winners were first time LA.  Many of the bombs - from Court Vision to Stephanies Kitten, to Drosselmeyer were LA.  The entire superfecta for $47k in the classic was LA.  While I did not cash a ticket in this event or all day either day for that matter, to me the rub is this stuff is only allowed in Kentucky and a few other minor racing states, and how many even knew about it ahead of time?  Not in California or New York so it is moot in the short term.  But long term, on racings biggest stage, don\'t we deserve to know well ahead of time who is getting this stuff if it is not allowed everywhere? Or whether the horse has been a known bleeder even through lasix as this LA has the chance to prevent this and thus be a possible reliable predictor to significant improvement - ie Court Vision etc? Or whether the horse is first time LA? I realize on his best day a horse for instance like Court Vision was  roughly as fast as everyone in the race but Goldi, but sure had not shown it much recently.  Maybe a winner like Hansen improves the 3 lenghts needed to beat Union Rags just by maturity, but without seeing what some of these LA winners ran for numbers, it just does not look like good PR for the sport at best, and does not even come close to passing the smell test to the casual player that shows up that day, much less those follow this closely at worst.  Racing needs every player they can drum up - if these stats are that crucial to picking winners on these days, in this particular state with its unique drug rules, then get them out into the open much more clearly so every bettor knows.  bb

[sighthound]

Lasix adjuncts have zero scientific efficacy.  They don\'t work. Kentucky will be eliminating their race-day use shortly.

This sport has to start paying attention to stuff that matters:  and that wasn\'t steroids, and isn\'t lasix, and most certainly isn\'t lasix adjuncts.

[banditbeau]

Sight - not being a vet, and not researching the adjunct scientific data aside, an interesting study will be then be to compare numbers earned by some of these winners outside of Kentucky to what they earned using it in Kentucky last week. If 1-2 jump up and win - then that is possible,and on the surface you might conclude the LA had no effect.  If a majority of these LA winners all have big jumps, then ?? And if it has no scientific basis, which is very possible, why did so many administer it to their horses? As the vet (Alday)on the radio show alluded to mentioned, the adjunct\"does not enhance performance but the amicor and estrogens DO enhance clotting resulting in less bleeding for horses\", especially known bleeders. That sounds like a politically correct way of saying enhanced performance doesn\'t it??  If they bled through lasix possibly in the past, and this has a chance to prevent it today, but we can\'t do this in Cali, or New York ... My point still remains, racing deserves better than this on their biggest day.  Leave no shadow of doubt for the public who maybe only follow racing on this day to say this is ridiculous as well as goodbye to the sport.  bb

[banditbeau]

\"Lasix adjuncts have zero scientific efficacy. They don\'t work. Kentucky will be eliminating their race-day use shortly.\"

Sight if this were true, would there be a need to ban it? And why would trainers use it to this degree, knowing they could not use it elsewhere?  Kind of makes them look like pretty good Kentucky trainers and maybe not worth their daily fee in the rest of the states doesn\'t it? bb

[gteasy]

Thanks for starting this thread...for horses who bleed through furosemide.. .a  \"first time\" designation HAS to be indicated, doesn\'t it?

gteasy

[sighthound]

Sight - not being a vet, and not researching the adjunct scientific data aside, an interesting study will be then be to compare numbers earned by some of these winners outside of Kentucky to what they earned using it in Kentucky last week.

I would say comparing numbers (which are not objective datum to start with) with so many variables isn\'t a good comparison at all.  Subjectivity isn\'t scientific in the least.

And if it has no scientific basis, which is very possible, why did so many administer it to their horses? As the vet (Alday)on the radio show alluded to mentioned, the adjunct\"does not enhance performance but the amicor and estrogens DO enhance clotting resulting in less bleeding for horses\",

Docs have been saying that for years. Especially for \"Kentucky Red\". That is the idea behind the mechanism of action of these adjuncts.  As I said, however, upon detailed examination, there is no scientific efficacy - examination of horse lungs - to show that it actually works that way in real life.  
 
Many trainers will give anything to their horses.  There are plenty of trainers that will swear that this stuff works. But when you actually, objectively check out horses, it doesn\'t.

If a drug is allowed - like lasix - many trainers perceive those using it to have an advantage, and many trainers will want to use it just because they can.

My point is that the perception or imagination of what these products can do regarding performance is far, far greater than the reality.

[sighthound]

For those that want to wade through some of the scientific stuff:

http://www.reeis.usda.gov/web/crisprojectpages/206104.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2711466/

[sighthound]

Drugs are less banned, than certain drugs are allowed.  The point is that, even if a drug doesn\'t have any ability to change the result of the race, they don\'t want it found in the horses system at detectable levels post-race.  

For example, virtually all the clenbuterol positives trainers get are technical positives, but the drug is present at such low, non-efficacious micro-doses that it couldn\'t possibly affect the race outcome.  Impossible.

[BH]

What needs to happen is a BIG expansion of the database. Kentucky tracks should ask for participants to voluntarily allow security agreed upon by all parties to closely monitor entrants in their own stalls or ship in all expense paid 24 hours pre-race to a barn if not trained at the track and then scope the horses free following the race and record results. That way there is no question of cheating.
Building a database this way of horses on/off lasix, even if only a few hundred horses, would provide good information.
Comment sight?

[sighthound]

Not quite sure what you are trying to prevent regarding lasix, adjunct and \"cheating\"?  A horse can\'t run on lasix or an adjunct if he\'s not on the bleeder list.  

Alot of what you suggest already exists.  There are already vet lists and lists of horses approved to be on lasix, here:

http://khrc.ky.gov/Pages/default.aspx

Medication lists & withdrawal times here: http://khrc.ky.gov/Pages/EquineHealth.aspx

Rules and Regs here:  http://khrc.ky.gov/Pages/regulations.aspx

Stewards and judges rulings here:  http://khrc.ky.gov/Pages/rulings.aspx

There are also rules permitting security checking in the trainers barn in KY (that\'s how they caught Biancone)

Scoping is $70 a horse, and every scope is a risk for trauma or bleeding. I do not agree all horses should be scoped to check and see if they bled post-race (why?) and certainly not that the racing commission should pay for it.

I DO agree that I would like to see a more strict reportage to the stewards of bleeding, medication changes, etc.  

I think the frustration in players is the lack of valid information, be it shoes, med changes, style of riding (on lead or behind), etc.  You might consider that race-day accuracy for those things often lays with the DRF, Bris, etc. rather than the track.

[banditbeau]

\"I think the frustration in players is the lack of valid information, be it shoes, med changes, style of riding (on lead or behind), etc.\"


BINGO Sight! Perception becomes a big part of this. I think this takes a bit of a life of its own.  We all see how these Kentucky track horses run at their local tracks, yet when they go outside of Kentucky to say Saratoga and simply cannot duplicate their form, the perception at least to some is that something fishy is going on?  For the same thing to happen, albeit in reverse to the Saratoga example, on Breeders Cup day just should not occur.  bb