Reallyquiet wrote:The notion that lasix doesnt aid in performance is bs.At the very least,lasix is a diuretic.When administered,a horse could lose anywhere from 30-80 lbs of water weight.This gives any horse,but especially mares in heat,who tend to hold more water,a HUGE temporary edge....
the overwhelming majority of horses lose about 20lbs when administered lasix.
What is exercise-induced pulmonary hemorrhage?
A horse affected by EIPH--a bleeder--suffers from ruptured blood vessels in the lungs during the
stress of training or competing. This condition affects not just
Thoroughbred racehorses, but all equine athletes, including polo ponies,
3-day event horses, barrel racers and steeplechasers.1 The severity of the
condition is determined by the amount of blood in the horse’s trachea,
and graded on a scale of 0 to 4. If a horse is graded as a 4, there is blood
covering the entire trachea and performance is severely affected; if the
horse is off the charts and in crisis, there is blood draining from one or
both nostrils (epistaxis). In those cases, the condition can be critical.
Some 60% of sudden deaths in racing have been attributed to pulmonary
hemorrhage.2 Studies have proven that the vast majority of race horses
will suffer EIPH at some point during their careers, and that even a grade
2 can affect a horse’s performance by as many as six lengths.
First documented in the early 1800s, EIPH had long been suspected to
have a negative impact on a racehorse’s ability to perform at its peak level. But, until the early
1970s, the only symptom of EIPH beyond the subpar performance wasepistaxis. That changed
with the introduction of the fiberoptic endoscope 40 years ago, which, for the first time, allowed
a veterinarian to examine the horse’s upper respiratory system, and determine the origin and
severity of the bleeding. Not only did this ground-breaking advance in diagnostics prove that the
blood originated from the lungs, but also demonstrated that EIPH was prevalent even when
epistaxis was not evident.
Dr. Ken Hinchcliff, the recognized leader in EIPH research, was lead author on studies conducted
in Australia and South Africa, which proved definitively that EIPH affects the majority of
Thoroughbred racehorses. The results from his Australian study, released in 2005, determined
that 55% of horses suffered some level of EIPH, and was the first to clearly demonstrate the
connection between EIPH and poor performance.3 Subsequent studies have found that the
prevalence of EIPH is even higher. If you scope a horse after three successive strenuous workouts,
nearly 100% will be diagnosed with EIPH by the third scope.
Dr. Hinchcliff then set out to determine if the most common treatment for EIPH, the
administration of Lasix, was, in fact, effective. The results of the study, conducted under racing
conditions in South Africa, were published in the
Journal of the American Veterinary Medical
ASSOCIATION in July of 2009.2 Not only was the
study able to quantify the impact on performance
with regard to the severity of the EIPH, but
proved that Lasix was highly effective in
alleviating the condition. A small percentage of
the 152 horses involved in the study evidenced the highest degree of bleeding without Lasix--
grades 3 and 4--but not a single horse evidenced a grade higher than 2 after the administration of
Lasix. Twice as many horshorses were completely unaffected by EIPH when treated with Lasix as
when racing without it.
The scientific evidence is irrefutable. Horses bleed. Lasix works. But, despite this evidence,
many in our industry are staunchly opposed to the use of Lasix. What are the common objections
to using an effective medication to treat a condition that is at minimum uncomfortable and
distressing for the horse, and, at maximum, fatal?
Separating Fact from Conjecture...
1) Racing in the U.S. survived without Lasix for hundreds of years. Why do we need it now?
• Lasix wasn’t even approved for veterinary use until 1967.5 Just a few years later came the
introduction of the fiberoptic endoscope, an equine medical advancement that finally allowed
the definitive diagnosis of EIPH. Anecdotal evidence that Lasix had the potential to treat EIPH led
to clinical trials in the 1970s. States began permitting its therapeutic raceday use that decade.
• There have been many, many advances in medical science, in technology, in the sport of horse
racing, in everyday life, that were not available 50 or 100 or 200 years ago.
• penicillin • women no longer smoke or drink during pregnancy
• the internet • football players wear helmets and pads
• cell phones • wearing seatbelts is mandatory by law
• the starting gate • young children must ride in car seats
• nuclear scintigraphy • daily low-dose aspirin is a common regimen to prevent
etc, etc... heart attacks and strokes
“Because we got along without them,” is no argument for not taking advantage of these
2) They race without Lasix in Europe, in Hong Kong, in Japan. Why do we need it in the U.S.?
• Outside of the United States, the majority of racing jurisdictions still use archaic medical
science when it comes to an official diagnosis of EIPH.6 If a horse does not show evidence of
epistaxis (bleeding from one or both nostrils), they are not considered bleeders. With the modern
technology available to aid in diagnosis, this is the medical equivalent of refusing to use an X-ray
machine to diagnose fractures. It is irresponsible to wait for a horse to be in crisis to make a
• Outside the United States, the majority of racing jurisdictions fail to officially acknowledge the
prevalence of EIPH, despite the incontrovertible
evidence that it affects the majority of horses.
BUT, trainers in Europe and Australia use Lasix
during training on a regular basis. The trainers
acknowledge its effectiveness in treating EIPH--
the ONLY motivation for using Lasix during
morning workouts is the alleviation of EIPH.
European trainers have been known to use adjunct bleeder medications in competition. Nick
Henderson had a positive for Tranexamic Acid in
2009 with a steeplechase horse owned by The
Queen. Henderson’s response to the positive? "I
was very surprised," he told The Guardian. "I didn't
think we had administered anything terribly
illegal...” He told a panel of the Royal College of
Veterinary Services convened to hear the case
that “plenty of trainers” were using the banned
medication, and concluded, “The horse was not
doped. She was given a drug for her own benefit.”
3) Human athletes are not allowed to compete on medication. Why would we race horses on
• This is a complete misconception. Pro
athletes are banned from competing on certain
medications--steroids, human growth hormone
and illegal narcotics top the list of specifically
banned substances. But Quarterback Tony
Romo took pain-killing injections to his ribs
DURING four straight games at the beginning of
the 2011 season.8 When pro tennis player Novak
Djokovic beat Rafael Nadal, in the U.S. Open
final in September, he was popping pain pills
DURING THE MATCH.
Olympic athletes, long perceived as being completely drug free, have a lengthy list of approved
medications from the World Anti-Doping
Agency that can be used on the day of
competition, including: anesthetics such
as novocaine, xylocaine and even
antihistamines; asthma drugs; caffeine; muscle relaxers; pain relievers and anti-inflammatories;
sedatives; and ulcer medications. Even cortisone injections are permitted on the day of
competition. Diuretics can be used if a Therapeutic Use Exemption has been issued to the
athlete.10 (A list of WADA’s approved drugs is attached).
For the whole PDF click on the link.http://www.nytha.com/pdf/the_lasix_question.pdf