curious

https://www.tabnz.org/strong-boost-projected-tab-nzs-community-distributions

Is it true that Forbury are gifting their lights to the CJC so you can gallop before daylight for the increased fees?

Other than the regular meeting fees for any additional meetings, I don't see how that could be justified, especially since they were supposedly built primarily for training and trialling purposes which are largely expected to be self-funding. So, there is no increase in funding, just a reversion to the pre-covid levels?

So, you think in the US they get prescription drugs without a prescription or them being supplied by a vet?

Isn't that already the case in most jurisdictions?

What is ridiculous about it? You want to allow one tx for EIPH on racedays and not another even though you argue those txs are weakening the breed?

I'm not refusing to acknowledge it although there are anomolies in the figures which for example included Puerto Rico until 2016. I'm saying that there is no evidence that Lasix has much if anything to do with that reduction.

Also see: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11834938_Efficacy_of_nasal_strip_and_furosemide_in_mitigating_EIPH_in_Thoroughbred_horses In conclusion, although both modalities (NS and Fur) were successful in mitigating EIPH, neither abolished EIPH fully as evaluated via BAL. Fur was more effective than NS in constraining the severity of EIPH. The simultaneous use of both interventions appears to offer no further gain with respect to reducing EIPH.

If you mean effectiveness related Freda, most of the research was done in the early 2000s and Flair continue to claim equivalence to Lasix in their advertising primarily based on the below study. "Several investigations have also shown that the nasal strip significantly reduces EIPH severity in galloping horses, presumably by minimizing the negative airway and alvcolar pressures that impinge on the fragile blood gas barrier. In the current study, the reduction in EIPH severity was similar to that seen in previous submaximal and near-maximal exercise studies. This finding is intriguing and several explanations exist as to why the nasal strip appears to maintain its effectiveness over a range of exercise intensities…Thus, the nasal strip appears to be a viable prophylaxis for EIPH during maximal galloping and was at least as effective as furosemide in the present investigation." P. McDonough, et al., "Effect of furosemide and the equine nasal strip on exercise-induced pulmonary haemorrhage and time-to-fatigue in maximally exercising horses,” ECEP, 22:33, pp 1-9, January 2004 Most of the work was done with relatively small numbers and there seems to be quite a bit of individual horse variability but that is true of Lasix as well. I think a fair conclusion is the one from the study below. Kentucky Equine Research, Inc.Eight thoroughbred horses were exercised at 120% maximal oxygen consumption (VO2max) by sprinting on a high-speed treadmill under the following conditions: control (C); wearing FLAIR Equine Nasal Strips (NS); medicated with furosemide (F); wearing FLAIR Equine Nasal Strips and medicated with furosemide (NS+F). Horses treated with furosemide carried weight equal to that causedby fluid loss after furosemide administration. Horses wearing FLAIR Strips showed a significant reduction of EIPH based on analysis of BAL fluid. Horses injected with furosemide showed a greater reduction in EIPH. Both VO2 and CO2 were significantly lowered in the NS and NS + FR trials over control. The researchers concluded that “the external nasal strip appears to lower the metabolic cost of supramaximal exertion in horses. So, I would say definitely effective, maybe not to the same extent as Lasix but without the side effects.

If you are opposed to the use of Lasix on racedays I presume you would support banning the therapeutic use of nasal strips on racedays as well given that both treatments are effective in mitigating EIPH? If so, would you also ban the use of blinkers given they are known to mitigate behavioural issues in some horses?

I don't agree with that writer either that the 6.5% decline between 1950 and 1975 was steady. In fact, it jumped from 10.2 to 11.3 (+11%) between 1950 and 1960 before falling from 11.3 to 10.2 (-10%) the following decade. That article which makes the supposition that the subsequent decline was to do with Lasix also argues that "When used responsibly and ethically, therapeutic medications are in the best interests of horse welfare and are a significant aid to racehorse trainers." This is a view that I do agree with. That author's abuse of the JC data is just as bad as the abuse of therapeutic drugs that he is complaining about and is just as stupid as anyone who blindlybelieves his interpretation like you seem to.

I doubt many would consider a 10% decline "relatively constant". It was relatively constant in the decade from 2009 to 2019 when Lasix was widely used. I remain unclear where there is any evidence that any of that had to do with Lasix use.

More bs. The fact is that prior to the legalisation of Lasix in the mid 70s, average starts per horse had dropped from 11.3 in 1960 to 10.2 in 1975 according to Jockey Club records. Never mind the facts Thommo. Suggest you keep up the remedial reading classes though.

And it's also designed to allow for appropriate therapeutic medication within 48 hours of racing.

Well the Act says free from the influence, not free from the presence, so I'd hope that will be the case when it is effected. (b) Considerations in development of program.—In developing the horseracing anti-doping and medication control program, the Authority shall take into consideration the following: (1) Covered horses should compete only when they are free from the influence of medications, other foreign substances, and methods that affect their performance.

The plot thickens...... JUDGE GRANTS JOCKEY CLUB REQUEST IN NYRA, BAFFERT SUITBy Eric Mitchellt @BH_EMitchell A New York district court judge granted The Jockey Club permission June 23 to file an amicus brief in support of the New York Racing Association as part of an ongoing lawsuit between the racing association and trainer Bob Baffert.Judge Carol Bagley Amon granted the request and order the brief must be filed no later than June 30 or it would not be considered, according to documents filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.The Hall of Fame trainer sued NYRA June 14 to block a temporary suspension from him being granted stalls or entering horses at Belmont Park, Saratoga Race Course, and Aqueduct Racetrack. NYRA took its action eight days after it was revealed that Zedan Racing Stables' Medina Spirit, winner of this year's Kentucky Derby Presented by Woodford Reserve (G1) and trained by Baffert, tested positive for the corticosteroid betamethasone, which is not permitted at any level on race day. A split sample later confirmed the medication was in the horse's blood on race day.The Jockey Club requested permission to file the amicus brief to "provide the court with a unique perspective and information to assist in deciding the pending motion for preliminary injunction," stated a court filing from attorney Susan Phillips Read.Because The Jockey Club advocated for passage of the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act of 2020, which would create uniform medication and safety standards nationwide, Read argued the registry has a special interest in "sharing its perspective regarding the deleterious effects of improper drug use on the health of horses, the Thoroughbred racing industry, and public trust in the honesty of competition."NYRA's attorney did consent to The Jockey Club's request, while Baffert's counsel did not. BH

"horses who did experience epistaxis stayed in training for 699 days. That was shorter than horses who experienced lower grades of EIPH. The low-level EIPH-positive group stayed in training an average of 842 days from import to Hong Kong until retirement"

I take it you still haven't completed your remedial reading classes Thommo. The study also concluded that horses diagnosed with higher grades of EIPH are more likely to register higher grades of EIPH in the future. Not surprisingly, horses who experience epistaxis are more likely to be retired for EIPH-related conditions than other EIPH-positive horses.

https://www.sen.com.au/news/2021/06/17/senz-solidifies-commitment-to-racing/

To add to my comment about the WP story though I note that the 74 deaths referred to include deaths from illnesses in addition to breakdowns.

I didn't know we were discussing that review. I thought I commented on the erroneous use and conclusions of the WP article and the data they used. Unfortunately (for you Thommo) the now 8 year old review you are referring to reported: "No prohibited substances were detected" in the 7 cases and concluded: "There is no evidence whatsoever CHRB rules or regulations have been violated or any illicit activity played a part in the 7 sudden deaths" Good attempt to change the subject again though.

I don't think the breed has been weakened overall. I think it is better but there are some downsides. Recent reviews suggest that more speed and earlier maturity are a predictor of increased longevity. I'd like to see the drop in lifetime starts data and how that links to breeding and selection practices please Thommo. E.g., A faster workout time at a two-year-old in-training sale was associated with better short- and long-term racing outcomes [78,79], and starting a race as a two-year-old was a statistically significant predictor of many racing outcomes: more lifetime starts, more wins, more places, higher percentage of placings, more earnings, and a greater number of years raced [78].

Is there a drop?

We are not talking about undetected PEDs here. That's a job for the police to figure out how to detect them. We are talking about detected therapeutic drugs at non-therapeutic levels. Stop changing the subject.

I agree with that but trainers have to deal with and manage the material they have on hand. As a punter, I certainly don't want to be on a horse that had a significant but undetected bleed during a hitout mid-week or one that couldn't be given anti-inflammatories to assist recoveries.