Lasix

[Flashing Red]

What are people's thoughts and why...

EDIT - for raceday, administered by a veterinarian on course.

[latemail_cam]

What is lasix?

[Zipper]

Hasn't it been introduced already, just with a withholding period? I'm pretty sure I've had a couple of gallopers treated with it, there was just a 7 or 14 day withholding period. Not sure if the same rules apply in harness??

[triplev123]

Abso-freaking-lutely.

[mango]

Vets will tell you 70% of horses bleed at some stage so i can't see why you shouldn't be able to treat them with lasix. Some good horses have had to be retired due to bleeding where if treated they could of kept on racing. The question i have is does it inhance there performance some people say know but i'll go the other way on what of seen. 5yr old mare won about $50k and went 2min around tight half mile tracks she bled so they decided to give her a go on lasix even though you can't race on it and i can tell you that mare improved out of sight went under 2mins at a trial hard held. So it is an interesting subject and i suppose if everyone has access to it go for it.

[DAZZA]

Of course it is performance enhancing. They are going to go better when they dont bleed. Lasix prevents them from bleeding, hence they go better.

[Flashing Red]

Of course it is performance enhancing. They are going to go better when they dont bleed. Lasix prevents them from bleeding, hence they go better.

I draw the distinction between it being performance enhancing - I see it as rather allowing a horse to perform to its natural ability? I have always regarded performance enhancing to mean making a horse go above and beyond its natural ability?? :)

...

Obviously I am pro lasix, but whenever this discussion crops up, there are always one or two that appear and say it is a masking agent (for other drugs). I guess I'm asking because I've never thoroughly researched lasix as a masking agent (but I find the same people say anything and everything can be masking agents anyway, lol!). There have certainly been a swag of positives with lasix horses for other substances in North America...

[DAZZA]

Yeah i agree with you, if its treating a problem a horse has which prevents the horse from running its best than I can see the benefits of it.

[Greg Hando]

I think it should be allowed i could have used it a fortnight ago

[triplev123]

G'day Flashing,
I've dug around on this and related ones for quite a few years now and I've always felt the charge is a little inaccurate in terms of Lasix masking anything.
I don't believe it actually masks, as in covers up, the presence of prohibited substances...however theoretically it may well (via the promoting of a much greater than normal volume of urine expulsion) be responsible for the dilution of the metabolites of said substances in the urine and it might well do so to such a degree that they may not be as easily detected/able to be detected at all in subsequent testing. I have been told a number of times that this is the main reason behind Caffeine positives being so frowned upon. It is not because of the usually suspect stimulative outcome of a few short blacks or a couple of big cans of Red Bull or whatever...but rather because it has a very similar diuretic effect. Perhaps Warney's Mum's tablets were doing a similar job for old mate. Nobody has been able to prove to me that any of this is actually the case however.
I am all for pre race Vet administered Lasix and like yourself I also draw a distinction there, one which virtually any Vet would tell you is a more than reasonable one to draw. Lasix is not performance enhancing, at least not as I and no doubt many others understand the meaning of that term. Rather I believe it allows some horses to race right up to their true/full potential. I say some because as you would know having raced in the US, not all horses will respond to it and even amongst those that do there are varying degrees of success. I firmly believe there should be on course pre race designated Vet administered Lasix allowed for horses that require it.
Further to this I firmly believe that, just as we have established thresholds for TC02 readings, there should be established thresholds for a whole host of therapeutic substances.
Any High School Chemistry student could state with complete & absolute certainty that once they are below certain levels a great many of the drugs that we employ therapeutically will become non-pharmacologically active...and yet their presence on race day in even the most minute, trace and completely non-active of amounts can still see Trainers punted for lengthy holidays and/or fined.

[aussiebreno]

I draw the distinction between it being performance enhancing - I see it as rather allowing a horse to perform to its natural ability? I have always regarded performance enhancing to mean making a horse go above and beyond its natural ability?? :)

...

Obviously I am pro lasix, but whenever this discussion crops up, there are always one or two that appear and say it is a masking agent (for other drugs). I guess I'm asking because I've never thoroughly researched lasix as a masking agent (but I find the same people say anything and everything can be masking agents anyway, lol!). There have certainly been a swag of positives with lasix horses for other substances in North America...
You could argue any performance enhancing drug doesnt make the horse better; just lets it realise its potential

[Gtrain]

You could argue any performance enhancing drug doesnt make the horse better; just lets it realise its potential
Cmon Aussie, surely you can see the point here. Its like a footballer having a local anaesthetic, does it give them more abilty, NO, does it makes them perform longer than normal, NO, it just allows them to perform at their normal ability. It makes sense to allow Lasix. Wont happen though.

[aussiebreno]

Cmon Aussie, surely you can see the point here. Its like a footballer having a local anaesthetic, does it give them more abilty, NO, does it makes them perform longer than normal, NO, it just allows them to perform at their normal ability. It makes sense to allow Lasix. Wont happen though.

Which is pretty much what I said.

Also I didnt say anything about allowing it or disallowing it; but while its a clean sport I say disallow it. It the sport was to allow Lasix, then to be fair it has to be fair game for EPO, snake venom etc (why help one ailment but not another?) ....and if that happens I and many will either leave or scale down interest in the sport

[Flashing Red]

If you give lasix to a horse that isn't bleeding, it (IMHO) isn't going to make a difference to its performance.

If you give EPO to a horse, it will run above and beyond its natural ability, no matter if you have the fittest, healthiest, happiest horse around (ie at its peak). Lasix makes a horse perform as it would if it weren't bleeding (granted, some bleed through it, but that is for another discussion).

Would you still lump lasix therefore with a substance like EPO? There's no right or wrong, but I certainly wouldn't...

[buster]

lasix is quite hard on the horse and it doesnt stop all horses bleeding, i read this in an article posted on the USTA site a while ago

[triplev123]

VERY good point Flashing, exceptionally so...and a classic highlighting of what I believe to be the Grand Canyon like gulf that lies between genuine therapeautic drugs and the substances that are nothing other than performance enhancers.

[Flashing Red]

lasix is quite hard on the horse and it doesnt stop all horses bleeding, i read this in an article posted on the USTA site a while ago

You are right, it doesn't stop all horses bleeding. I had a former Australian horse still hemorrhage through 10cc of lasix. Needless to say I didn't keep him long! :) However, whether it stops horses bleeding or not depends on how long they have been bleeding for. Lung tissue can only tear so much before it begins to be replaced with scar tissue, which is even more incredibly fragile than normal, healthy lung tissue itself. A horse with a large amount of scar tissue is going to bleed no matter what - their lungs are just too fragile for any sort of exertion. However, if a horse is bleeding and is caught early enough (ie before it starts to drastically affect racing performance) lasix will stop them bleeding completely. These same horses, if their bleeding is stopped, can oftern then go off lasix because their lungs have been given a chance to heal, ie not busting open in racing/trackwork.

You are also right in that lasix can be hard on a horses system. It really does however depend on how much is given. In Canada, the limits are between 3mL-5mL. America allows between 3mL-10mL. Both countries require 3mL as the minimum. From what I have observed, the more given the more the diuretic affect. I have also found, through racing and scoping after every race, that after 5-6mL (ie horses that are on 7-10mL of lasix) that extra amount of lasix does not seem to help stem bleeding. All it does is get them severely dehydrated. With severe dehydration combined with hot summer days, many horses can succumb to complaints such as fibulation and thumps. I have also found, however, that smaller doses of lasix (< 6mL), with horses that are hydrated in the days before the race, combined with either over the tongue electrolytes or saline drench the day after the race, never seem to succumb to the potential ill effects of lasix. I know on raceday, some trainers don't like their horses to drink too much after the race, I would always let mine go for gold so to speak, it would be no problem for them drinking 2 buckets immediately after they were washed down. By the next morning their skin pinched good, they were pretty bright (ie no ill effects from the lasix).

I would personally love something similar to Canada adopted here, ie 3-5mL given in course. I think there is no need or place for the larger doses of lasix (6mL+). The only downside with lasix is the time factor. Lasix horses in North America need to be on course 4 hours before the race to receive their lasix or they are scratched. The Southern Hemisphere trainers are very spoilt being allowed to come to the races only 1 hour beforehand, I'm not sure how they would go with 4 hours!! :)

[buster]

I can see the point of using it but I prefer the zero drug tolerance
What are your thoughts on aminoacropic acid then?
And yeah they should be made to get to the races at least 2 hours before the race or longer

[triplev123]

Flashing, it's a damned highlight to read your comments on this issue. Most appreciated.
Now if only our Industry Administrators could be as well informed and if only they could see fit to get their heads out of the arses and take the question of Lasix from the too hard basket and shine a little daylight on it by way of opening it up for genuine debate...that would be a great thing.

[Flashing Red]

I can see the point of using it but I prefer the zero drug tolerance
What are your thoughts on aminoacropic acid then?

Fair enough, I understand the importance some people place on zero drug tolerance. I suppose there is the flood gates argument as well.

I will PM you about my thoughts on Amicar. I can't have things being taken the wrong way on a public forum, especially with Amicar's history in Australia!!

[mango]

I can see the point of using it but I prefer the zero drug tolerance
What are your thoughts on aminoacropic acid then?
And yeah they should be made to get to the races at least 2 hours before the race or longer There would be some trainers not happy with the 2hr on track before races as they could not use there 1.5 hr drench (being sarcastic).

[buster]

well if it was 2 hours then there would time for the pre race blood testing to be completed before they race (as it is in the gallops)

[mango]

Hey Buster

I agree i see know reason why a horse shouldn't be at the track 2hrs prior to the race and if they were to do more pre race testing it would have the shady trainers thinking twice about giving there horse a drench.

[mightymo]

http://www.harnesslink.com/www/Article.cgi?ID=96423

Should we allow this in Aust??

Im not sure...

[Thevoiceofreason]

http://www.harnesslink.com/www/Article.cgi?ID=96423

Should we allow this in Aust??

Im not sure...


The answer is no you should not.

[Triple V]

Most definitely, yes......BUT with the caviat that it is administered at a prescribed pre race arrival time in a designated & controlled area on-track by, in the case of NSW, the appointed HRNSW Vet.
It is a welfare issue and for too long we have stuck our heads in the sand whenever it comes to therapeutics. If we expect our horses to race consistently, perform to the best of their abilities then we need to look at this and other aspects.
Phenylbutazone is another. The fact that 5-6-7 days later trainers can go for a row for trace amounts of it when pharmacologically it has ceased to provide any pain relief somewhere between 12 & 24hrs post administration...is absolutely absurd.
The Industry needs to take a pragmatic view here and I live in hope of same.

[broncobrad]

http://www.harnesslink.com/www/Article.cgi?ID=96423

Should we allow this in Aust??

Im not sure...

Have been following the other thread with your girl in the states at present and now of course she is racing on it.

As an owner Harvey, you must have an opinion yourself. It has been a lifeline for some horses whose racing futures in Australia were cut short.

[geoffkel]

No definitely not. If it was used just for the correct reason maybe so but from experience it can be used for other things as well.

[mightymo]

Have been following the other thread with your girl in the states at present and now of course she is racing on it.

As an owner Harvey, you must have an opinion yourself. It has been a lifeline for some horses whose racing futures in Australia were cut short.

I think there are some obvious benefits for horses that will prolong their careers.

However, I dont know enough about it scientifically from the point of it possibly being used in conjunction with other illegal substances...

[Thevoiceofreason]

No definitely not. If it was used just for the correct reason maybe so but from experience it can be used for other things as well.

This is the reason I am against its use, I agree we as an industry need to find a way to treat EIPH however whilst I know this is considered the easiest I am not sure it is the best.

[Mighty Atom]

If the statistics are correct and EIPH occurs in 90% of racehorses it should definitely be allowed; who would want to risk a bleeding attack if it's preventable? Once it happens the horse rarely returns to its previous ability even with treatment ( I know there are exceptions) but generally not. Wasn't this the problem with I'm Themightyquinn last November?.... scar tissue was discovered. Fortunately the horse doesn't appear to have any side effects at the moment and hopefully wont. The fact that it could be a possible masking agent is basically another matter.

[Thevoiceofreason]

If the statistics are correct and EIPH occurs in 90% of racehorses it should definitely be allowed; who would want to risk a bleeding attack if it's preventable? Once it happens the horse rarely returns to its previous ability even with treatment ( I know there are exceptions) but generally not. Wasn't this the problem with I'm Themightyquinn last November?.... scar tissue was discovered. Fortunately the horse doesn't appear to have any side effects at the moment and hopefully wont. The fact that it could be a possible masking agent is basically another matter.

The fact that it is a masking agent is the most important issue in the debate... so many bang on here about drug cheats the allowed use of Lasix will be the biggest green light in the history of the sport.

[Triple V]

Not quite. That's the official line/excuse right now, but it's rather more simple than that.
It is in fact the current testing regime that has shortcomings & so the horses that genuinely need it duly suffer as a result.
As soon as we reach a stage whereby urine testing is dispensed with and all our pre and post race testing is carried out via blood samples being drawn...all of a sudden nobody will give a fat rat's about whether we use Lasix or not.

[hillbillydeluxe]

N0, N0 & NO I agree with geoffkel as it would be used for other benefits. If the governing body were to put up alot of money for stringent testings there would be more positives and masking agents popping up. too many smarties have the jump on testing in all codes.

Money should be directed too more testings, TAB should hand it over .

[Thevoiceofreason]

Not quite. That's the official line/excuse right now, but it's rather more simple than that.
It is in fact the current testing regime that has shortcomings & so the horses that genuinely need it duly suffer as a result.
As soon as we reach a stage whereby urine testing is dispensed with and all our pre and post race testing is carried out via blood samples being drawn...all of a sudden nobody will give a fat rat's about whether we use Lasix or not.


Let us assume you are right, when blood becomes the preferred option for testing for prohibited substances it will be an entirely different landscape.

All I am saying is until then, NO Lasix or any diuretics for that matter because of the masking effects they have.

[Triple V]

That's right. In the interim however, Lasix is not and never has been the Boogey Man it is so often made out to be. Rather the current testing is not as cutting edge as it really should be. In this day and age why we are still taking urine samples to be tested is beyond me.
This should have been addressed well before now. If it had been we might well have been on 100% blood testing already.
Judging by what I understand to be the current rate/speed of developments in that area I reckon it is about 2-3 years away. Can't come quick enough for mine. As I said before, up until then horses that do really need to use it for legitimate reasons are unable to do so.

[Danno]

Not quite. That's the official line/excuse right now, but it's rather more simple than that.
It is in fact the current testing regime that has shortcomings & so the horses that genuinely need it duly suffer as a result.
As soon as we reach a stage whereby urine testing is dispensed with and all our pre and post race testing is carried out via blood samples being drawn...all of a sudden nobody will give a fat rat's about whether we use Lasix or not.

G'day Jamie,
I know this is one of your favourite subjects, so for the rest of us, can you explain the differences in the shortcomings of the current test methods and the methods that will overcome these?

There has also been purported evidence that Lasix can/has lead to horses suffering from it's ongoing use, is this true or is it populist myth?

Some people say that 90% of horses should be on Lasix, do you reckon thats a fair figure?

Cheers,
Dan

[Thevoiceofreason]

G'day Jamie,
I know this is one of your favourite subjects, so for the rest of us, can you explain the differences in the shortcomings of the current test methods and the methods that will overcome these?

There has also been purported evidence that Lasix can/has lead to horses suffering from it's ongoing use, is this true or is it populist myth?

Some people say that 90% of horses should be on Lasix, do you reckon thats a fair figure?

Cheers,
Dan

I am not sure that 90% need Lasix but about 90% suffer EIPH to some degree and Lasix is at this time considered the best treatment for EIPH.

I hate agreeing with Jamie on this but he is right but just before his time, I think we are about 10 years away from testing being done primarily on plasma, without going into all the chemist stuff which in honesty is beyond me anyway I will try to expalin.

In urine the chemists can find metabolites of the drug as it is breaking down in the system, this puts you in breach of the rules, there is a lot of work being done internationally to set levels so everybody plays under the same rules.

When blood is used, as they improve the testing, it will be the parent drug they are searching for, in simple terms if it is still in the blood then it is still in the horse.

This is the kindergarten explanation, not because I do not think you could understand a deeper one ..... I just know I could not

[Triple V]

G'day Dan,

VOR has covered it very nicely there. I believe the initial push for the phasing out of Urine Testing came from honest NSW Trainers & Drivers & that it raised its head back around the middle of 2011......by way of them petitioning HRNSW to turn all on-course Stale Stalls into race day Offices for Messrs. Bentley & O'Toole. :eek:

[Triple V]

http://www.harnesslink.com/www/Article.cgi?ID=97434&fullcomment=1#comments-9056

[mightymo]

An excellent article on Lasix and its pros/cons

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/aug/31/lasix-drug-debate-bleeding-horse-racing

[Triple V]

"Horses are not like fruit flies that hatch and reach reproductive maturity in only 10 days – there are multiple years involved in the generation time. And so, when you think about the distribution of several deleterious genetic changes through most of the thoroughbred population, it would take much longer than the 30 to 50 years that people are saying there’s been this profound drop in racehorse durability. As such, you cannot explain the drop in the number of starts strictly on a genetic model – the math just doesn’t work out.”

>>VVV>> AMEN! Beautifully put.

[Triple V]

The greatest irony of all is that the substance Geoff Small was crucified for using (amicar) is shaping up to be by far and away the best/most effective/kindest anti-bleeder medication there is. I've been privvy to a couple of private studies into its use in equine athletes and they both strongly indicate amicar has ALL of the medicinal/therapeutic 'punch' of Lasix BUT without the associated possible intereference in drug testing by way of the 'dilution' of drug metabolites present in the horse's urine.

[Messenger]

Thanks Harvey.
This is a cuppa and a couple of biscuits length read.
It certainly covers the issue of bleeders comprehensively and leaves it to you to decide your position

ps The comments make good reading too

[HISGEN65]

Thanks Harvey..great read

[Messenger]

A simple explanation of bleeding

https://horseracingsense.com/why-race-horses-bleed-nose-running/

Lasix is surely contentious

[Messenger]

I have combined several threads on Lasix and moved the above recent post from another thread so that we can find posts on the same topic in just one place

Lasix is very much in the news again as the USTA are campaigning against being included in HISA - the Horseracing Safety and Integrity Act, which would include banning the raceday use of lasix
They have just released this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sB03twflIQ4

[Messenger]

I don't know whether I could continue to follow harness racing if our national body was opposed to being part of a Horseracing Safety and Integrity Act