You could argue any performance enhancing drug doesnt make the horse better; just lets it realise its potentialOriginally Posted by Flashing Red
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...
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
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...
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
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.
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!!
Last edited by Flashing Red; 04-18-2011 at 10:29 PM. Reason: Adding one more sentence!
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
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.
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!!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
