lasix

[hunterthepunter]

Lasix should it stay banned in harness racing?? on the box seat some trainers wont it not banned

[Chief Stipe]

I tend to agree with unbanning it.  Studies have shown that the majority of horses racing bleed everytime they race.  It is only in some that it is visible and life threatening.  My understanding of Lasix is that it is very good at preventing this from occurring.

[hunterthepunter]

18 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

I tend to agree with unbanning it.  Studies have shown that the majority of horses racing bleed everytime they race.  It is only in some that it is visible and life threatening.  My understanding of Lasix is that it is very good at preventing this from occurring.

I think should be banned to

[Chief Stipe]

Do you mean "unbanned"?

[hunterthepunter]

4 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Do you mean "unbanned"?

mean it to stay banned

[Chief Stipe]

2 minutes ago, hunterthepunter said:

mean it to stay banned

I lean towards unbanning it.

[hunterthepunter]

3 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

I lean towards unbanning it.

I think ban it as not good for racing and can be only used in usa

[Chief Stipe]

Why isn't it good for racing?  Is it better for horses to bleed?

[hunterthepunter]

4 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

Why isn't it good for racing?  Is it better for horses to bleed?

in usa they say it is a marsking agent so that's why should stay banned

[Richie]

I believe it should be legal to be used as i think it would prolong some horses careers.

It is widely accepted that most horses bleed during racing but some show and some dont.

 

[Mk2_Zephyr]

I find the weirdest thing is how they automatically scratch horses who bang their snout on the gate or whatever, surely this has nothing to do with drugs ...  ?   

Edited May 3, 2018 by Mk2_Zephyr

[Newmarket]

So why is Laxis banned here? 

[Chief Stipe]

10 hours ago, hunterthepunter said:

in usa they say it is a marsking agent so that's why should stay banned

That is correct primarily because it is a strong diuretic.  But the USA have a strict policy around when it can be administered before a race.  See the attached article.

I would have thought that it would be difficult to mask with todays sophisticated testing technology.

[Chief Stipe]

The great Lasix debate - How well is it understood?

Shane Anderson@Globalgallop

8 January, 2015

, (

Racing.com's Senior Racing Journalist Shane Anderson looks at how well the use of Lasix - or Furosemide - is understood by the racing industry.

Lasix.

When you hear the name the immediate response is to think of US racing, for it has long been the drug of choice that differentiates the American’s attitude to medication from other racing jurisdictions around the world.

It is the common name for Furosemide, the anti-bleeding medication that burst into prominence in the 1970s. It is also known as Salix.

Yet, its use in Australian racing, is not widely known – or at least acknowledged. That is likely to change.

With the recent disqualification of Junoob from his victory in the Group 1 The Metropolitan at Randwick in October, and subsequent $30,000 fine to Sydney’s premier trainer Chris Waller for presenting the horse to race with a prohibited substance in his system, it has become apparent that Furosemide is being used in varying degrees throughout the Australian thoroughbred racing industry.

But should it? If the use of Furosemide is banned on race day, then should it be allowed as a medication treatment at all?

Bleeding in the lungs, which is now commonly referred to as Exercise Induced Pulmonary Haemorrhaging (EIPH), has long been an issue that has affected the racing industry. Horses, when placed under pressure during strenuous exercise, may bleed due to raised blood pressure in the lungs. This bleeding may then become present in the nostrils.

The blood pressure leading from the artery on the right side of the heart to the lungs has a four-fold increase in horses during exercise or competition, a trait that would not exist in humans as an example.

This pulmonary pressure increase means that the capillaries in horses’ lungs are prone to rupture.

Dr Brian Stewart, Head of Equine Welfare and Veterinary Services for Racing Victoria, believes that there are a number of other factors that could contribute to bleeding in individual horses.

This includes, the piston effect – the mass of the gut impacting on the diaphragm during galloping; impact forces from galloping on firm surfaces; inflammatory airwaves disease; previous lung damage (including previous episodes of EIPH) which may limit lung expansion; bronchoconstriction and throat conditions.

“It is my opinion that horses that are over-stressed or in chronic pain are more likely to suffer EIPH”, said Stewart.

“This is probably the result of increased blood pressure caused by a stress response and chronically raised adrenaline and cortisol levels.

“Regular scoping after exercise is a good way to identify horses that are not coping with the training and racing regime.”

In Victoria, the incidence of epistaxis – nose bleeding as a result of EIPH – is about 2 incidents per every 1000 runners, a figure that has remained fairly steady. The UK presents similar results, although this is much lower than Asian regions such as Hong Kong and Singapore. While Victoria’s figure is higher (at around double) of the incidence of epistaxis in the US which readily allows the use of Furosemide on race day.

Racing jurisdictions around the world treat bleeding incidents differently. In Australia, a first-time bleeder will receive an automatic three-month ban from racing, with a subsequent bleeding incident resulting in compulsory retirement. New Zealand has the same regulation. Other region’s policies include:

Hong Kong: 1^st incident receives an automatic three-month ban; 2^nd incident receives a regulatory assessment and either a three-month ban or compulsory retirement;

Malaysia/Singapore: 1^st incident receives an automatic three-month ban; 2^nd incident receives an automatic six-month ban; 3^rd incident results in compulsory retirement;

South Africa: 1^st incident receives an automatic three-month ban; 2^nd incident receives an automatic six-month ban; 3^rd incident results in compulsory retirement;

Japan: 1^st incident receives an automatic one-month ban; 2^nd incident receives an automatic two-month ban; 3^rd and subsequent incidents receive a three-month ban;

United Arab Emirates: 1^st incident receives an automatic 21-day ban; 2^nd and subsequent incidents receive an automatic 60-day ban;

Macau: 1^st and subsequent incidents receive an automatic 21-day ban;

UK: No bans

The use of Furosemide, along with the excessive acceptance of race day medications, has often positioned US racing as a global pariah, despite the strong prizemoney that it offers and rich history of creating some of racing’s great champions.

Legal in every racing state since 1995, Furosemide is the most popular form of medication in the country with more than 90% of North American racehorses given the drug before competing.

The US currently allows Furosemide to be administered intravenously on a race day, no later than four hours before a race with a maximum quantity of 500mg.

An immediate effect of the medication is that a treated horse will increase the rate of urine production. A horse, on average, will produce 10 to 15 litres of urine in a day. For a horse treated with Furosemide, that same amount can be passed in the first hour after treatment.

When a horse is treated with Furosemide on race day, they are typically not permitted to drink in the four hours from treatment to the race. The result in water loss through the passing of urine means that the horse will be, on average, 10 kilograms lighter.

There is also a belief that the horse’s blood PH reading becomes slightly higher and less acidic, and that the consequence of water loss may lessen pulmonary blood pressure.

Despite the controversial acceptance of Furosemide as suitable race day medication, the positive is that all racing participants – punter, trainer, owner, and jockey – are aware of what horse has been treated. The use of Furosemide is officially listed in all form.

Furosemide definitely reduces the severity of EIPH and the incidence of epistaxis so it has significant benefits in consideration of equine welfare. But it is the performance enhancement and masking abilities that cause concern from a competition perspective.

“Furosemide definitely enhances racing performances beyond what might be expected by ameliorating EIPH”, said Stewart.

“This is probably related to the loss of 10 to 15kg of excess body fluid, as Furosemide is a diuretic, but it also may be related to clearing mild pulmonary oedema, bronchodilation and by causing an alkalinizing effect similar to sodium bicarbonate.

“There are reports that this performance enhancing effect is most obvious when the drug is used for the first time in racing and that the effect becomes inconsistent.

“Racing analysts have concerns about the use of Furosemide in racing because of potential masking of other prohibited substances; this is the reason that WADA bans furosemide and other diuretics in human sports.”

It’s that concern - of Furosemide being a masking agent - that will make it unlikely that it will ever be allowed as a raceday medication in Australia, especially as the Principal Racing Authorities around the country move consistently to tighten medication rules.

Chris Waller admitted to using Furosemide as part of his training regime as he believes it helps in the longevity of a horse’s career. No doubt, there would be many other trainers around Australia using it as well.

During the Junoob case run by Racing NSW Stewards, Waller stated that he used the medication two hours before a horse is gallop during fast work mornings on the training track.

“It reduces the frequency of bleeding and reduces the chances of a horse bleeding”, said Waller after the Junoob disqualification and fine.

“Every time they bleed they get closer to a major bleed.”

There is also emerging evidence to suggest that EIPH has heritability - it is passed though genetics - and that the use of Furosemide may distort breeding selection criteria, with the result being that there will be an increase in horses genetically susceptible to EIPH within the racing population.

Clearly, the use of medication in racing is not a simple issue – and the use of Furosemide highlights this more than most.

“Careful, veterinary supervised use of Furosemide in training can assist in the management of horses prone to EIPH and minimise cumulative lung damage,” said Stewart.

“However, the thoughtless use of the medication in training can mask an important sign of over-stress which will lead to electrolyte abnormalities.

“Training gallops performed on Furosemide will be influenced by the performance enhancing effects of the drug.

“This is the reason that the Hong Kong Jockey Club does not permit the use of Furosemide in training because customers believe that the recording of training gallops may be misleading if it is influenced by the use of the drug.”

While Australia has a significantly different training structure to Hong Kong, with horses trained from a variety of different locations, the premise of recording Furosemide use makes plenty of sense.

There is clear evidence that suggests the welfare benefits of Furosemide as a medication when used in training. Yet, there is also enough concern that the excessive use of the drug will lead to an increase of horses affected by EIPH throughout the horse population.

Would the knowledge of the use of Furosemide have an impact on a punter’s wagering decision? Similarly, would it affect the trade of racehorses – especially in the breeding industry – of horses that have been treated with the drug or come from a family that has a history of EIPH?

The answer is yes to both questions.

Racing is a game of opinions, and those opinions are based on what is known. It is time that the industry started making this information available for all.

Racing.com

[Newmarket]

Pity we don’t know a vet who could  get involved in a well mannered, calm discussion. ?