Even the Up and Coming Trainers can't always get the administration of Therapeutic Drugs Correct!

[curious]

3 minutes ago, Thomass said:

.was he in contact with Jase's illegal drug supplier and overdosed his horses with non detectable PED's?

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.

[Chief Stipe]

4 minutes ago, curious said:

I agree with that but trainers have to deal with and manage the material they have on hand.

Where are the stat's to support that the drop in number of starts per horse is significant AND relates to breeding rather than other factors such as opportunity and handicapping?

[curious]

2 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Where are the stat's to support that the drop in number of starts per horse is significant AND relates to breeding rather than other factors such as opportunity and handicapping?

Is there a drop?

[Chief Stipe]

3 minutes ago, curious said:

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.

Exactly.  Bafferts latest positive was for a legal therapeutic drug at infinitesimal non therapeutic levels let alone performance enhancing.

Now Thomarse will come back with the "where there's smoke there's fire" masking argument.  Well if the can detect 21 pictograms of a legal medication why can't the detect the same level of something illegal?

[Chief Stipe]

1 minute ago, curious said:

Is there a drop?

Well I was going to ask you that but I thought you were agreeing that the breed has been weakened.  In my opinion the breed hasn't been weakened but we have bred them to go faster and longer doing something that from a physics perspective they aren't designed to do.  

[curious]

7 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Well I was going to ask you that but I thought you were agreeing that the breed has been weakened.  In my opinion the breed hasn't been weakened but we have bred them to go faster and longer doing something that from a physics perspective they aren't designed to do.  

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].

[Chief Stipe]

I tend to agree Curious.  Not that I've seen any data but purely from observation.

When I look at the longevity of some of the elite horses and the times they can run you'd have to say the breed has improved.

However the horse has a fundamental bio-physical-mecahnical issue.  Nature never designed it to run fast for so long.  Two issues - it's pulmonary system and it's legs.  I doubt in 100 years you could breed those flaws out unless you wanted to race Clydesdales.

LOL the modern breed would easily outrun any natural predator from the moment it hit the ground!

[Thomass]

On 24/06/2021 at 12:58 PM, curious said:

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].

The data's been well and truely published wee c...look it up

Until 1975, when the starts per horse remained relatively constant, LASIX was introduced and nek minute...

a DRAMITIC DROP

Of course being a Lasix purveyor....(actually are you the supply agent for the Waller stable and others in the Sth Hem.?)

...you and your boyfriend here continue this nonsensical narrative of 'kind' trainers and their use of 'therapeutics' on an ongoing basis...

...you know horses being kept in work while in pain...on a constant diet of NSAID's...

I say TRAINERS ONLY INTERESTED IN MONEY

HORSE HATERS

HK's use of approved only Vets, thresholds, and ZERO use of LASIX is the kindest of all

And of course Germany's banning bleeders from their Stud Book...certainly an inherited trait...from an 'improving the breed' aspect...

Not your 'DRUGS RULE ok'

[Chief Stipe]

6 minutes ago, Thomass said:

HK's use of approved only Vets, thresholds, and ZERO use of LASIX is the kindest of all

 

Do you have the details on approved drug use volume in Hong Kong?  Or are you just making things up again?

[Chief Stipe]

22 minutes ago, Thomass said:

...you know horses being kept in work while in pain...on a constant diet of NSAID's...

Would you rather they weren't treated or treated with steroids instead?  Afterall Voltaren is a NSAID i.e. non-steriod anti-inflammatory.

Do you actually care about Equine health and welfare?

[curious]

3 hours ago, Thomass said:

The data's been well and truely published wee c...look it up

Until 1975, when the starts per horse remained relatively constant, LASIX was introduced and nek minute...

a DRAMITIC DROP

 

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.

[Thomass]

4 minutes ago, curious said:

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.

Cant you read....RELATIVELY CONSTANT

...of course you won't show 'Post '75'....

We all know you LOVE American Drug Racing....many contacts there and you want to turn NZ Thoroughbred Racing into an American Drug Racing Base

...just admit it....

....instead of posting positive Drug excerpts from suspect websites and sus druggies...

Tell us IN YOUR OWN WORDS how you'd like to transform NZ Racing...with drugs eh?

 

[curious]

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.

[Thomass]

3 hours ago, curious said:

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.

"America is perhaps the best example to use given that its therapeutic medication rules are the most permissive among major racing nations.

According to statistics from the Jockey Club Fact Book, in 1960 the average number of starts per horse per year was 11.31.

Despite all of the advances in veterinary treatments since then, by 2015 the number of average starts per horse per year had almost halved to 6.18.

It is worth noting that the average stayed steady from 1950 to 1975, but went into a downward spiral thereafter. What happened in America around 1975? Lasix had begun to be made legal in states all around the country."

[Chief Stipe]

23 minutes ago, Thomass said:

According to statistics from the Jockey Club Fact Book, in 1960 the average number of starts per horse per year was 11.31.

Do you think that it might have had something to do with the change in the denominator?

The number of starters per year went from 29,000 in 1960 to over 80,000 in 1985.

Between 1960 and 1975 the number of starters went from 29,000 to 58,000 I.e. doubled.

Once again Thomarse you've proven statistics are not your forte.

[curious]

4 hours ago, Thomass said:

"America is perhaps the best example to use given that its therapeutic medication rules are the most permissive among major racing nations.

According to statistics from the Jockey Club Fact Book, in 1960 the average number of starts per horse per year was 11.31.

Despite all of the advances in veterinary treatments since then, by 2015 the number of average starts per horse per year had almost halved to 6.18.

It is worth noting that the average stayed steady from 1950 to 1975, but went into a downward spiral thereafter. What happened in America around 1975? Lasix had begun to be made legal in states all around the country."

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.

Edited June 27, 2021 by curious

[curious]

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?

[Freda]

3 hours ago, curious said:

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?

Do you have any stats re. nasal strips,  C ?

[curious]

58 minutes ago, Freda said:

Do you have any stats re. nasal strips,  C ?

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.

[curious]

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.

[Freda]

Thanks, yes, that was helpful.     A vet friend [ years ago, to be fair ] offered the opinion that N.S were ' useless'   as the point of most resistance was in the throat structures, not the nostril area.  No doubt he didn't have access to the research you just showed.

I found material from W. Robert Cooke very informative too, although that work was also carried out years ago.

[Thomass]

6 hours ago, curious said:

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?

What a simply ridiculous comparison...

....and why aren't you discussing HK's complete ban on Lasix and how effective that is in owning the 'social license' narrative?

...and Barbara Stronach's very strong response after the horrendous deaths at Santa Anita...

...This is the future

These revisions comprise best practices currently employed at racetracks around the world:

• Banning the use of Lasix.
• Increasing the ban on legal therapeutic NSAIDS, joint injections, shockwave therapy, and anabolic steroids.
• Complete transparency of all veterinary records.
• Significantly increasing out-of-competition testing.
• Increasing the time required for horses to be on-site prior to a race.
• A substantial investment by The Stronach Group in diagnostic equipment to aid in the early detection of pre-existing conditions.
• Horses in training are only allowed therapeutic medication with a qualified veterinary diagnosis.

[Thomass]

7 hours ago, curious said:

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.

Why are you refusing to acknowledge the 50% drop since '75??

 

[Chief Stipe]

13 minutes ago, Thomass said:

Why are you refusing to acknowledge the 50% drop since '75??

Why are you ignoring the 100% increase in the number of horses racing?

[Chief Stipe]

20 minutes ago, Thomass said:

What a simply ridiculous comparison...

....and why aren't you discussing HK's complete ban on Lasix and how effective that is in owning the 'social license' narrative?

...and Barbara Stronach's very strong response after the horrendous deaths at Santa Anita...

...This is the future

These revisions comprise best practices currently employed at racetracks around the world:

• Banning the use of Lasix.
• Increasing the ban on legal therapeutic NSAIDS, joint injections, shockwave therapy, and anabolic steroids.
• Complete transparency of all veterinary records.
• Significantly increasing out-of-competition testing.
• Increasing the time required for horses to be on-site prior to a race.
• A substantial investment by The Stronach Group in diagnostic equipment to aid in the early detection of pre-existing conditions.
• Horses in training are only allowed therapeutic medication with a qualified veterinary diagnosis.

Then take your horses to Hong Kong.  Lock them up in an artificial sterile environment where they don't see or gallop on a grassy green paddock for the rest of their racing career if not the rest of their life.

Hong Kong needs you Thomarse.  Get your vaccination and go!