You Be the Judge

I've owned 6 pirates with no bleeders that I know of but other injuries plenty - my first horse made his debut at 4 (I had bought him as a yearling) so I know the frustration of unsound horses(He did win on debut but the cost could never be recuperated and I gave up on ownership for almost ten years because of that). My concern more than anything is the fact that horses that were know bleeders collapsed or were fatigued after getting a dose of Lasix(these horses did not do so on other occasions it seems) Would you race a horse on Lasix Pirates?

Only one of the horses I have been involved in so far was a bleeder; so I guess I am one of the fortunate ones; it was treated with Lasix, but still bled in work, so we had to give up on him.

Have to say that the pro's seem to outweigh the con's with regards to treating a bleeder with furosemide, and I also don't really get the point of the stud book being affected. The horses that collapsed during the trials is a cause for concern though imo.

Mad Mike brings up an interesting point asking for bleeders to be shown as such in the catalogue; imo this will never happen as the breeders make sure that as much as possible only the 'good points' are shown on the page. However, I believe that a prospective buyer should be able to find this information 'somewhere' - perhaps I will join the RA again if they can provide this information to members - they are afterall supposed to be 'looking after the owner'?

I'm fully awake and entitled to my own views MM - I am honest when I say I would not know what to do if my horse was a bleeder which is my right as I would not like to see him collapse after the race(or during the race)

Lasix is not a magic bullet, but on a balance I would go with it. We had a horse that was knocking on the door to win a race drop dead after suffering a massive bleed at the Vaal a few months ago. He returned to the parade ring, collapsed, and died, having suffocated on his own blood. The jockey reckoned that going through the 400m mark he thought he would just about win, before the horse started to feel something and dropped back.

I would try almost anything that makes a repeat scenario less likely, but it's not a decision to be jumped at lightly. There must be a reason why the overwhelming majority of racing nations don't allow it.

i am all for lasix mr hawaai. the sooner the better because the suspensions are driving owners out the game..your horse comes back to the ring with a trickle of blood and its off for 3 months ..some horses that race are so cripple that they need crutches but they never get suspended..as you heard on the show some horses have bled on the thursday and won on the saturday..

The whole issue of the 3 months - 6 months - permanent suspension system which we blindly enforce in SA needs to be looked at, in addition to the question of Lasix. For a start, it makes no distinction between a trickle of blood in one nostril and buckets of the stuff coming out of both nostrils.

I am no vet, but to me that seems similar to treating a stubbed toe the same as a broken leg.

Valid points and such a difficult issue. I understand Bruss's points too because I have a breed of dogs that are prone to genetic problems and my first litter was riddled with birth defects and I took the decision to spay the bitch rather than promulgate these problems. I'm glad i'm not the person/s that have to make this call

Lasix is legal and part of the game in the US, i don't see why not here. a horse can sometimes improve in performance after lasix (so they say, never owned one) but that is a good thing is or isn't???

I call the two groups of peoples

the haves and the have nots.

The haves always win. But the have nots are always right.

Magic that is such a sad story mate..I hate it when that kinda thing happens and its so avoidable.

I must add though that the results of the study will place the administrators in a difficult position as it would be interesting to see how they would justify now for furosemide to remain a banned substance.

As I am not a member of the forum I shall pass on the information to you.
All bleeders(EIPH) at the races are recorded in the NHA's registration calendar.
The late Hein Weideman, a NHA stipendiary steward in Cape Town, did a study of EIPH. One such article is available in the internet as: A genetic analysis of epistaxis as associated with EIPH in the Southern African Thoroughbred."Weideman,Schoeman and Jordaan"
He also had an article in the Parade Magazine.
Thank you

Christiane

If "objective science" is to assist in formulating policy, then there are still unanswered questions.

Would the results have been different at lower altitudes or sea level, where the majority of tracks are, compared to the rarified highveld atmosphere (not to mention the acid-laden polluted Vaal air)? Probable answer is we don't know, so would have to repeat trial at coast to give objective scientific evidence.

What is the longer-term effect on horse of racing on Lasix? (apart fom the already demonstrated short term effect of chronic dehydration caused by heavy physical exertion under treatment with a poweful diuretic).

Why are attitudes to racing in Lasix changing in USA (according to a recent NY times article)?

How can anyone suggest that Lasix does not enhance peformance when studies by some of the vets involved in the Lasix trial revealed the opposite?

If legalised, how many trainers will consider administering the drug to non-bleeders or "potential bleeders", to "level the playing field" with lasix-laced racers? At what cost to the owner??

Are human athletes permitted to participate in drug-controlled sports using Lasix?

etc