But the issue has not disappeared, nor should it. It’s odds-on to be reprised in the coming weeks, months, maybe even years. It’s what happens when battle lines are drawn over a matter of economy and ethics..
As previously stated, the continued use of raceday medication Salix, or Lasix, is an emotional and complex subject with serious considerations and consequences on both sides.
Approximately a week ago, I received an e-mail from a retired veterinarian who takes an anti-Salix position. Dr. Rod Cundy, D.V.M.,Canada, was practicing medicine before and after Lasix became a legal medication for raceday use.
Cundy believes the industry would be better off without it in the long term. Proponents believe it’s a humane way to treat Exercise Induced Pulmonary Edema, and that it's cost efficient for owners.Cundy disagrees with this notion, too.
We hope that HRI's readers will decide for themselves and give voice to the issue. Pro-Salix industry members are encouraged to respond, to have their voices heard, their positions stated. HRI will run that response in its entirety with no edits altering context in any way. Organizations can speak as one, if that's the tack they choose to take.
The first of Cundy's emails appeared yesterday. Today is the second, as Cundy explains how some illegal substances work, the difference between them, and in what context those substances are analogous to raceday Salix use:
“It first started with only a few trainers and their horse would stand out in a race. Eventually, like Salix, almost all starters were using bicarbonate and any advantage was gone. We as veterinarians asked the Commission to outlaw its use but it took another year or so for them to see the light. Today they regularly check blood levels of bicarbonate in enough horses each race day just prior to race time to deter its use.
“In reference to the level of bicarbonate allowed in Salix horses, I assume that regulators have seen that horses using Salix have a higher blood level of bicarbonate than non-Salix horses so they must allow some difference in legal levels, but in essence are allowing a form of soda doping in Salix horses without the trainer having to administer any external forms of bicarbonate.
“EPO and its various related compounds that enable a horse to "finish" because of the enhancement of their own oxygen carrying capacity is a very serious issue facing racing as it is in human sports such as the Tour de France. Substitute some high percentage trainers name for Lance Armstrong and the recent “60 Minutes” episode could be all about horse racing instead of cycle racing.
{Ed. Note: According to the latest Uniform Classification Guidelines for Foreign Substances and Recommended Penalties and Model Rule, revised in August, 2011 and released earlier this week, Erythropoietin (EPO), manufactured under the trade names Epogen and Procrit, is a Class 2 Drug classified under Penalty A.
A Class 2 Drug is defined by the Association of Racing Commissioners International as having “a high potential for affecting the outcome of a race. Most are not intended to be used as therapeutic agents in the racing horse...”
Under Penalty A, a first offense for trainers carries with it “a minimum one year suspension absent mitigating circumstances. The presence of aggravating factors could be used to impose a maximum three year suspension...”}.
“Since the useful effect of these drugs take several days after administration to display themselves, last for weeks or months afterwards, and yet can only be detected for a few days after administration, it makes it very difficult with present testing procedures to deter their use. The only way this problem is going to be successfully dealt with, and abusers effectively deterred, is through rigorous "out of competition" testing.
“Unfortunately if other racing jurisdictions are like they are here in Alberta, this is not being done. Although we have the legislation to do “out of competition” testing, in practice little is being done. Hopefully people like you who have the ear of racing's participants and the public will pursue this issue much the same way the Salix issue has been pursued until the problem is resolved.”
Proponents, Dr. Cundy has stated his case in approximately 1,000 words. You are afforded equal time whenever you wish
01 Sep 2011 at 07:18 am | #
Just so I don’t lose my cynical attitude, I would like to write that I would not give a first look (forget second look) at Thoroughbred racing if there were no gambling involved (I can’t imagine that anyone would follow racing without the ability to gamble). Accordingly, my only interest in racing is in making money, though as any decent person would comment I do want all animals to be treated with respect.
I am in no position to render an opinion on drugs used to enhance performance, nor am I interested in what a veterinarian might write.
Thoroughbreds have trainers, and when in competition with each other for purses I would think that each and every trainer would want the playing field level; thus, the burden should be on them to see that it is. Coaches of all contests keep an eye on the competition, it is their job!
The most important thing right now is getting people to gamble on the ponies; priority number one, two, three, four, five, and six. Any other problem facing racing is a distant seventh.
-------
BTW Mr. Pricci: I note that the percentages you mentioned in a reply a couple of days ago appear in the report presented to the Jockey Club. I will comment on that report soon (clue: think free-to-play games and social games on the internet are the solution, as suggested in the report?).
01 Sep 2011 at 12:38 pm | #
Wendell,
Have no idea what the answer is vis a vis social networking; my oldest daughter Jen helps me out with most of that. (Thank you Jen!)
Meanwhile, my point to you the other day was that the better races have experienced substantially growth in the last decade while the rest of the business has tanked. People are betting more on the better horses.
BTW: I do not disagree with you. I try to put forth some ereasonable ideas that would grow or enchance the business/betting side from time to time. One of the ways to do that is improve the product people are betting on.
JP
01 Sep 2011 at 01:24 pm | #
Mr. Pricci: I am looking forward, perhaps tomorrow, to rendering my thoughts on the Mckinsey & Co. report to the members of the Jockey Club.
I find myself wondering if they actually got paid for their report - worthless IMO!
If you had absorbed the Mckinsey report, you will realize that ‘better’ races are not profitable, the purse exceeding revenue from takeout and signal fees - now, that is a quandary isn’t it? On the one hand, Mckinsey’s talking heads say that less is better, and that the trend is toward ‘better’ races, yet they follow this with their conclusion that these ‘better’ races are not funded by takeout and signal fees. Go figure!
Now, if only someone would tell me what a ‘better’ race is, I would be most appreciative, since for 53 years I have yet to note a difference between a claiming race and a stake race. All horses look alike, all races look alike, all payoff are about the same, and picking winners is no different between a claiming or stake race - except in the stake races it is usually Pletcher, Baffert, Mott, Zito, etc. who are laughing all the way to the bank.
And the beat goes on ....
01 Sep 2011 at 03:23 pm | #
GET THE “LIFE AT TEN” DEAL STRAIGHT FIRST...VEITCH STILL HANG N???...THAT CRAP LOOKED REEL BAD...PERIOD...TY…
01 Sep 2011 at 09:40 pm | #
I am looking forward, perhaps tomorrow, to rendering my thoughts on the Mckinsey & Co. report to the members of the Jockey Club.
02 Sep 2011 at 11:04 am | #
Maybe Mr. Pricci would solicit an email from a different race track vet with a counterpoint! Personally, I’m having trouble with a vet wanting to eliminate a bleeder med because in his view (totally unsubstantiated) it mimics “soda doping” and due to fear of EPO use--forgetting that the horse has its own EPO mechanism called a spleen. It further disturbs me that a vet would begin his analysis without putting the horse at the center: What is missing from this? What’s best for the horse?
02 Sep 2011 at 12:34 pm | #
First, I would like to thank you Mr. Pricci for publishing these two articles. I’m in the camp that believes that Lasix does nothing “beneficial” except mask EIPH by soaking up the tale-tell fluid so that it appears that a horse did not bleed, which leads to severe scarrification of the horse’s lung tissue over time, a significant reduction in the horse’s athletic capacity over time, and to calcium and potassium deficiencies (which are well known side effects of all species on Lasix).
My own research into EIPH and Lasix in horse racing began sort of tangentially when my cat was diagnosed with congestive heart failure and put on Lasix.
As an avid follower of horse racing, I was very curious about the fact that my very sick cat was on the same medicine as healthy race horses, and that the medicine was extremely debilitating to my cat, a desert species that can survive quite easily on salt water (which is why they were so well suited to life about ships).
Given the fact that the negative effect of dehydration on athletic performance has been well documented and is well understood--even mild dehydration has a profound effect on athletic performance--it didn’t make sense to me as to why they would purposely dehydrate an animal before forcing it to perform at the top of its athletic ability. It also didn’t make sense as to how a diuretic could possible prevent or heal pulmonary, blood vessel hemorrhaging, which is what EIPH involves.
I spoke at length with my cat’s cardiologist about this, and he confirmed that there was no pharmacological mechanism for Lasix to do that--if there was, it would be able to cure congestive heart failure, not just alleviate the symptoms by removing fluid from the airways. He also confirmed that he was well aware of Lasix use in horse racing and personally believed it was abusive to put any healthy animal on the drug, but especially one asked to perform at top capacity on it.
In my research, I came across another veterinarian, Dr. W. Robert Cook, Professor Emeritus of Tufts School of Veternary Medicine, who also believes that EIPH is the result of oxygen depletion or asphyxia, and the FLAIR nasal strip, which prevents bleeding mechanically by ensuring that a horse’s nasal passage remains open and unobstructed. Finally, I read all of the actual studies on EIPH and Lasix.
These studies do not “prove” that Lasix prevents EIPH, they only prove that there was less fluid visible upon post race scoping with Lasix, than without Lasix, which is exactly what you would expect to find, since Lasix is a medicinal sponge. The only way to conclusively determine that there was no bleeding would have been to kill the horse and perform an autopsy of it’s lung tissue. None of the studies did this, and in fact none even used the 2nd best test, BAL. All relied solely upon scoping.
Dr. Cook has written many articles on EIP,. Lasix, and airway obstruction, they are available freely on the web. Here are links to a few:
http://www.bitlessbridle.com/Four_reasons_why_racehorses_bleed.pdf
http://www.bitlessbridle.com/asphyxia.pdf
http://www.bitlessbridle.com/Why_do_horses_lungs_bleed.pdf
http://www.bitlessbridle.com/EIPH_or_AIPE.pdf
And here are links to research conducted on EIPH by FLAIR:
http://www.flairstrips.com/education-and-research/exercise-induced-pulmonary-hemorrhage/
http://www.flairstrips.com/pdfs/Benefits_of_FLAIR.pdf
http://www.flairstrips.com/pdfs/Benefits_of_FLAIR.pdf
Please note that I am not associated with either Dr. Cook or Flair, and am not endorsing their products. But their conclusions support Dr. Cundy’s conclusions, as does the study that determined that the fluid in the airways from EIPH was not reducing performance through suffocation, but through interference with the horse’s ability to exchange oxygen in its blood. That study can be found here:
http://www.scef-inc.com/research_articles/Bayly_Bleeding.pdf