Reply With QuoteThe 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.Originally Posted by 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.
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.
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.
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 .
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.
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.
Last edited by Triple V; 03-21-2012 at 07:25 PM.
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
Last edited by Thevoiceofreason; 03-23-2012 at 12:57 PM.
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.
Posting Permissions