FROG JUICE (dermorphin)

[casallc]

Hi cas,
I agree with that statement of yours as well....it seems to be very relevant in coming up with the solution to the lasix issue on both sides. TJ

The solution is simple - to allow lasix or not. Nothing is difficult about that. As the previous post with the Thoroughbred Times excerpt confirms, we got along without lasix for hundreds of years and every other country in the world still does. It has not benefitted racing OR horses in the least. As a matter of fact, the evidence suggests otherwise. The reason people want lasix is because they are afraid to train horses without help from a bottle; it is easier to get from a needle that, that can be achieved by time, training and proper husbandry. Lasix is the greatest scam that has ever been conceived on horseracing.

Hi cas,

I know you have seen bad bleeders in your years of experience and being in the business. In the hundred's of years prior to using lasix on race day there just wasn't enough definitive knowledge of bleeders to devise a helpful treatment. Hence the widespread administration of lasix began after the introduction of the fiberoptic endoscope in the 70's. Prior to that, bleeders were thought to be bleeding from their nostrils. With this new piece of equipment it was proven the bleeding originated from the lungs and that many horses bled to some degree during heavy respiration. It is for this reason lasix was adopted and used on race day. The worse a horse bled and the frequency with which it occurred left scarring in the lungs which reduced elasticity and lung performance during deep respiration adding to EIPH in itself. Some horses were so bad that they bled under normal respiration if the scarring was severe enough.
I have seen horses bleed horrifically after a race in my early days working for other horseman, as I am sure you have. The reason they got this bad was because they were not scoped to see what was going on. A horse gradually reaches the point where he bleed out his nostrils....that point is reached by not monitoring his internal activity from race to race. That is why a horse that shows a touch of blood is taken seriously because it is proven under continued stress they will reach a stage 4 bleeder status. I am not taking the high road when I say it is inhumane to race horses without lasix in todays world...just common sense and experience talking when I say it is essential in the preventing, healing or limiting of EIPH in race horses. In the industry today, some of the most respected horseman in the business agree with the use of race day lasix for a number or reasons. I like Graham Motions statement...."It's better the devil you know than the devil you don't know" when asked why Barry Iwin couldn't convince him not to run on lasix:>) TJ

Yes, I have had horses that bled by the bucket full - I culled them the next day.

Allen Jerkens pointed to a fitter, sturdier animal as another reason why bleeding was considered atypical in the 1950’s and 1960’s. He said none of his good horses were bleeders.

“Horses worked a lot harder in those days,” he said. “The strain on them in the race wasn’t as much as the strain is on them now. They trained almost as hard in the morning as they did when they ran.”

The best horses would often work the full distance of an upcoming race five or six days before, breeze a half-mile two days out, and maybe even an eighth of a mile the morning of the race. As but one example, three days before Assault finished off the Triple Crown, Max Hirsch sent the colt out for a 12-furlong breeze in 2:32 at Belmont.

In summary, all horses bleed, and if we are going to race them, they are going to bleed more. Yes, controlling these episodes is necessary and humane, but Lasix is a shortcut that most likely diminishes proper skeletal development at its most crucial stages – and the same effects can be achieved through the conditioning protocol of the old timers.
http://thoroedge.wordpress.com/2011/11/ ... -bleeding/

I noticed you didn't address how lasix has improved racing or helped horses achieve a longer career.

[TJ]

Hi cas,
I agree with that statement of yours as well....it seems to be very relevant in coming up with the solution to the lasix issue on both sides. TJ

The solution is simple - to allow lasix or not. Nothing is difficult about that. As the previous post with the Thoroughbred Times excerpt confirms, we got along without lasix for hundreds of years and every other country in the world still does. It has not benefitted racing OR horses in the least. As a matter of fact, the evidence suggests otherwise. The reason people want lasix is because they are afraid to train horses without help from a bottle; it is easier to get from a needle that, that can be achieved by time, training and proper husbandry. Lasix is the greatest scam that has ever been conceived on horseracing.

Hi cas,

I know you have seen bad bleeders in your years of experience and being in the business. In the hundred's of years prior to using lasix on race day there just wasn't enough definitive knowledge of bleeders to devise a helpful treatment. Hence the widespread administration of lasix began after the introduction of the fiberoptic endoscope in the 70's. Prior to that, bleeders were thought to be bleeding from their nostrils. With this new piece of equipment it was proven the bleeding originated from the lungs and that many horses bled to some degree during heavy respiration. It is for this reason lasix was adopted and used on race day. The worse a horse bled and the frequency with which it occurred left scarring in the lungs which reduced elasticity and lung performance during deep respiration adding to EIPH in itself. Some horses were so bad that they bled under normal respiration if the scarring was severe enough.
I have seen horses bleed horrifically after a race in my early days working for other horseman, as I am sure you have. The reason they got this bad was because they were not scoped to see what was going on. A horse gradually reaches the point where he bleed out his nostrils....that point is reached by not monitoring his internal activity from race to race. That is why a horse that shows a touch of blood is taken seriously because it is proven under continued stress they will reach a stage 4 bleeder status. I am not taking the high road when I say it is inhumane to race horses without lasix in todays world...just common sense and experience talking when I say it is essential in the preventing, healing or limiting of EIPH in race horses. In the industry today, some of the most respected horseman in the business agree with the use of race day lasix for a number or reasons. I like Graham Motions statement...."It's better the devil you know than the devil you don't know" when asked why Barry Iwin couldn't convince him not to run on lasix:>) TJ

Yes, I have had horses that bled by the bucket full - I culled them the next day.

Allen Jerkens pointed to a fitter, sturdier animal as another reason why bleeding was considered atypical in the 1950’s and 1960’s. He said none of his good horses were bleeders.

“Horses worked a lot harder in those days,” he said. “The strain on them in the race wasn’t as much as the strain is on them now. They trained almost as hard in the morning as they did when they ran.”

The best horses would often work the full distance of an upcoming race five or six days before, breeze a half-mile two days out, and maybe even an eighth of a mile the morning of the race. As but one example, three days before Assault finished off the Triple Crown, Max Hirsch sent the colt out for a 12-furlong breeze in 2:32 at Belmont.

In summary, all horses bleed, and if we are going to race them, they are going to bleed more. Yes, controlling these episodes is necessary and humane, but Lasix is a shortcut that most likely diminishes proper skeletal development at its most crucial stages – and the same effects can be achieved through the conditioning protocol of the old timers.
http://thoroedge.wordpress.com/2011/11/ ... -bleeding/

Hi cas,
I agree with that as well....if I allowed my horse to get that far advanced to bleed by the bucket full I'd have no choice but to cull them and render them useless to their breed. This is the value of lasix....to prevent a horse from getting that far gone. Lasix used properly can almost eliminate a horse from reaching that final stage (usually 3-4) of bleeding where they bleed through their nostrils and would need to be retired or the very least 6 months or more on the farm.
You quote the Chief, Mr. Jerkens...I know him well and he is one of the greatest trainers of all time. Yet he isn't foolish enough to race his horses with out lasix. Of course many trainers will run their 2YO's without lasix the first time as Mr. Jerkens and his son Jimmy do more times than not....but usually by the second or third race they are on lasix as the rest of their barn is when they are competing. TJ

[Patuxet]

Can someone please reference any professional studies that examine what other effects regular or long-term use of lasix can induce in horses, especially young horses with still developing skeletal systems? There must be something besides distilled water in all that excreted pee. Such research seems to be in short supply.

What sense does it make to use lasix for a specific humane reason if that very use has other equally deleterious effects on the horse? Absent valid research I have to wonder: is the medicine perhaps worse than the cure?

[casallc]

Hi cas,
I agree with that statement of yours as well....it seems to be very relevant in coming up with the solution to the lasix issue on both sides. TJ

The solution is simple - to allow lasix or not. Nothing is difficult about that. As the previous post with the Thoroughbred Times excerpt confirms, we got along without lasix for hundreds of years and every other country in the world still does. It has not benefitted racing OR horses in the least. As a matter of fact, the evidence suggests otherwise. The reason people want lasix is because they are afraid to train horses without help from a bottle; it is easier to get from a needle that, that can be achieved by time, training and proper husbandry. Lasix is the greatest scam that has ever been conceived on horseracing.

Hi cas,

I know you have seen bad bleeders in your years of experience and being in the business. In the hundred's of years prior to using lasix on race day there just wasn't enough definitive knowledge of bleeders to devise a helpful treatment. Hence the widespread administration of lasix began after the introduction of the fiberoptic endoscope in the 70's. Prior to that, bleeders were thought to be bleeding from their nostrils. With this new piece of equipment it was proven the bleeding originated from the lungs and that many horses bled to some degree during heavy respiration. It is for this reason lasix was adopted and used on race day. The worse a horse bled and the frequency with which it occurred left scarring in the lungs which reduced elasticity and lung performance during deep respiration adding to EIPH in itself. Some horses were so bad that they bled under normal respiration if the scarring was severe enough.
I have seen horses bleed horrifically after a race in my early days working for other horseman, as I am sure you have. The reason they got this bad was because they were not scoped to see what was going on. A horse gradually reaches the point where he bleed out his nostrils....that point is reached by not monitoring his internal activity from race to race. That is why a horse that shows a touch of blood is taken seriously because it is proven under continued stress they will reach a stage 4 bleeder status. I am not taking the high road when I say it is inhumane to race horses without lasix in todays world...just common sense and experience talking when I say it is essential in the preventing, healing or limiting of EIPH in race horses. In the industry today, some of the most respected horseman in the business agree with the use of race day lasix for a number or reasons. I like Graham Motions statement...."It's better the devil you know than the devil you don't know" when asked why Barry Iwin couldn't convince him not to run on lasix:>) TJ

Yes, I have had horses that bled by the bucket full - I culled them the next day.

Allen Jerkens pointed to a fitter, sturdier animal as another reason why bleeding was considered atypical in the 1950’s and 1960’s. He said none of his good horses were bleeders.

“Horses worked a lot harder in those days,” he said. “The strain on them in the race wasn’t as much as the strain is on them now. They trained almost as hard in the morning as they did when they ran.”

The best horses would often work the full distance of an upcoming race five or six days before, breeze a half-mile two days out, and maybe even an eighth of a mile the morning of the race. As but one example, three days before Assault finished off the Triple Crown, Max Hirsch sent the colt out for a 12-furlong breeze in 2:32 at Belmont.

In summary, all horses bleed, and if we are going to race them, they are going to bleed more. Yes, controlling these episodes is necessary and humane, but Lasix is a shortcut that most likely diminishes proper skeletal development at its most crucial stages – and the same effects can be achieved through the conditioning protocol of the old timers.
http://thoroedge.wordpress.com/2011/11/ ... -bleeding/

Hi cas,
I agree with that as well....if I allowed my horse to get that far advanced to bleed by the bucket full I'd have no choice but to cull them and render them useless to their breed. This is the value of lasix....to prevent a horse from getting that far gone. Lasix used properly can almost eliminate a horse from reaching that final stage (usually 3-4) of bleeding where they bleed through their nostrils and would need to be retired or the very least 6 months or more on the farm.
You quote the Chief, Mr. Jerkens...I know him well and he is one of the greatest trainers of all time. Yet he isn't foolish enough to race his horses with out lasix. Of course many trainers will run their 2YO's without lasix the first time as Mr. Jerkens and his son Jimmy do more times than not....but usually by the second or third race they are on lasix as the rest of their barn is when they are competing. TJ

Coincidentally, his other son, Alan Jr. has been the sportscaster on a local TV station here in Tulsa for years. Ironically, he is allergic to horses.

Again, we have different opinions on the therapeutic effects of lasix. I think the effects are minimal, if any on EIPH. If it did have some minimal effect it would be offset by the dibilitating effects it has otherwise. The thing that benefits the trainer is the loss of 20-30 pounds. Most any reasonable person knows losing that much weight within a few hours is not good for you - when done routinely it can be deadly for man or beast.

Jerkins and Son are smart enough to take every edge possible when needed. Lasix gives that edge and puts horses at a disadvantage that don’t use it – the primary reason to ban it. I don’t think either one of them would be unhappy to see it banned.

[TJ]

Can someone please reference any professional studies that examine what other effects regular or long-term use of lasix can induce in horses, especially young horses with still developing skeletal systems? There must be something besides distilled water in all that excreted pee. Such research seems to be in short supply.

What sense does it make to use lasix for a specific humane reason if that very use has other equally deleterious effects on the horse? Absent valid research I have to wonder: is the medicine perhaps worse than the cure?

Hi Patuxet,
The race day lasix issue is a very confusing debate and if you are currently training in this modern era you might see the benefit of lasix on more than one front. It does help in a positive way. This is the only drug that today's horseman ask to remain permissible on race day because most believe it benefits the horse, the industry and the economics of horse racing. No one wants to see horses bleeding out their nostrils when they return from a race. Since lasix, these sights have been much less than we witnessed prior to lasix.
The evidence changes according to the side you are on, of course adding to the confusion. So, I use my personal experience to decide what I feel is viable or not....in my experience Lasix is. There are many knowledgeable people that are in favor of the use of lasix on race day who are disputed on so many levels. For this reason, it must be decided by your own horse sense, knowledge and experience.
If you can get past some of the cheesy part's of this video (especially the very beginning:>), I find it fairly informative. I hope you find it helpful as I know you truly would like a better understanding of this whole situation. When you click on the link, scroll down about 1/2 way and click on the video. I would like to hear from you if the video in fact helped your understanding of EIPH and lasix ? TJ
http://www.caltrainers.org/

[TJ]

Hi cas,
I agree with that statement of yours as well....it seems to be very relevant in coming up with the solution to the lasix issue on both sides. TJ

The solution is simple - to allow lasix or not. Nothing is difficult about that. As the previous post with the Thoroughbred Times excerpt confirms, we got along without lasix for hundreds of years and every other country in the world still does. It has not benefitted racing OR horses in the least. As a matter of fact, the evidence suggests otherwise. The reason people want lasix is because they are afraid to train horses without help from a bottle; it is easier to get from a needle that, that can be achieved by time, training and proper husbandry. Lasix is the greatest scam that has ever been conceived on horseracing.

Hi cas,

I know you have seen bad bleeders in your years of experience and being in the business. In the hundred's of years prior to using lasix on race day there just wasn't enough definitive knowledge of bleeders to devise a helpful treatment. Hence the widespread administration of lasix began after the introduction of the fiberoptic endoscope in the 70's. Prior to that, bleeders were thought to be bleeding from their nostrils. With this new piece of equipment it was proven the bleeding originated from the lungs and that many horses bled to some degree during heavy respiration. It is for this reason lasix was adopted and used on race day. The worse a horse bled and the frequency with which it occurred left scarring in the lungs which reduced elasticity and lung performance during deep respiration adding to EIPH in itself. Some horses were so bad that they bled under normal respiration if the scarring was severe enough.
I have seen horses bleed horrifically after a race in my early days working for other horseman, as I am sure you have. The reason they got this bad was because they were not scoped to see what was going on. A horse gradually reaches the point where he bleed out his nostrils....that point is reached by not monitoring his internal activity from race to race. That is why a horse that shows a touch of blood is taken seriously because it is proven under continued stress they will reach a stage 4 bleeder status. I am not taking the high road when I say it is inhumane to race horses without lasix in todays world...just common sense and experience talking when I say it is essential in the preventing, healing or limiting of EIPH in race horses. In the industry today, some of the most respected horseman in the business agree with the use of race day lasix for a number or reasons. I like Graham Motions statement...."It's better the devil you know than the devil you don't know" when asked why Barry Iwin couldn't convince him not to run on lasix:>) TJ

Yes, I have had horses that bled by the bucket full - I culled them the next day.

Allen Jerkens pointed to a fitter, sturdier animal as another reason why bleeding was considered atypical in the 1950’s and 1960’s. He said none of his good horses were bleeders.

“Horses worked a lot harder in those days,” he said. “The strain on them in the race wasn’t as much as the strain is on them now. They trained almost as hard in the morning as they did when they ran.”

The best horses would often work the full distance of an upcoming race five or six days before, breeze a half-mile two days out, and maybe even an eighth of a mile the morning of the race. As but one example, three days before Assault finished off the Triple Crown, Max Hirsch sent the colt out for a 12-furlong breeze in 2:32 at Belmont.

In summary, all horses bleed, and if we are going to race them, they are going to bleed more. Yes, controlling these episodes is necessary and humane, but Lasix is a shortcut that most likely diminishes proper skeletal development at its most crucial stages – and the same effects can be achieved through the conditioning protocol of the old timers.
http://thoroedge.wordpress.com/2011/11/ ... -bleeding/

Hi cas,
I agree with that as well....if I allowed my horse to get that far advanced to bleed by the bucket full I'd have no choice but to cull them and render them useless to their breed. This is the value of lasix....to prevent a horse from getting that far gone. Lasix used properly can almost eliminate a horse from reaching that final stage (usually 3-4) of bleeding where they bleed through their nostrils and would need to be retired or the very least 6 months or more on the farm.
You quote the Chief, Mr. Jerkens...I know him well and he is one of the greatest trainers of all time. Yet he isn't foolish enough to race his horses with out lasix. Of course many trainers will run their 2YO's without lasix the first time as Mr. Jerkens and his son Jimmy do more times than not....but usually by the second or third race they are on lasix as the rest of their barn is when they are competing. TJ

Coincidentally, his other son, Alan Jr. has been the sportscaster on a local TV station here in Tulsa for years. Ironically, he is allergic to horses.

Again, we have different opinions on the therapeutic effects of lasix. I think the effects are minimal, if any on EIPH. If it did have some minimal effect it would be offset by the dibilitating effects it has otherwise. The thing that benefits the trainer is the loss of 20-30 pounds. Most any reasonable person knows losing that much weight within a few hours is not good for you - when done routinely it can be deadly for man or beast.

Jerkins and Son are smart enough to take every edge possible when needed. Lasix gives that edge and puts horses at a disadvantage that don’t use it – the primary reason to ban it. I don’t think either one of them would be unhappy to see it banned.

Hi cas,
I guess we will have to agree to disagree and leave it at that...our opinions on lasix will never come together...but the discussion is always enjoyed and I look forward to them.
Didn't know what became of his son Allen Jr....does he cover horse racing at all? His other two boys both train in NY, Steve wasn't as well know as Jimmy who has a twin sister Julie who is a teacher in Florida.
You know sometimes I wish I was allergic to horses too:>) TJ

[casallc]

Can someone please reference any professional studies that examine what other effects regular or long-term use of lasix can induce in horses, especially young horses with still developing skeletal systems? There must be something besides distilled water in all that excreted pee. Such research seems to be in short supply.

What sense does it make to use lasix for a specific humane reason if that very use has other equally deleterious effects on the horse? Absent valid research I have to wonder: is the medicine perhaps worse than the cure?

There are very few scholarly articles on the subject (that the lay person can understand). Having been partners with a veterinary group in a large breeding operation in the past, I can assure you they are reluctant to say or print anything that might affect their or their colleagues pocketbooks. The very fact that furosemide has never been approved as a drug for treatment of EIPH by the FDA or any proper scientific studies should make "someone" take notice.

It has been stated before there are lots of opinions but little solid "stand up" evidence of the efficacy or the side effects of lasix on horses. There are plenty of theories and old wives tales but as my Dad use to tell me “don’t believe anything you read or hear and only half of what you see but you can take to the bank, every word I tell you” there is a lot of interesting stuff at this site: http://thoroedge.wordpress.com/ just keep in mind they are trying to sell stuff – mostly their training philosophy (for the most part I agree with). The thought does come to mind, if they are so smart why aren’t they winning everything? It is an interesting blog and it does answer your question if you dig for it. I’ve seen it somewhere.

[casallc]

Hi cas,
I agree with that statement of yours as well....it seems to be very relevant in coming up with the solution to the lasix issue on both sides. TJ

The solution is simple - to allow lasix or not. Nothing is difficult about that. As the previous post with the Thoroughbred Times excerpt confirms, we got along without lasix for hundreds of years and every other country in the world still does. It has not benefitted racing OR horses in the least. As a matter of fact, the evidence suggests otherwise. The reason people want lasix is because they are afraid to train horses without help from a bottle; it is easier to get from a needle that, that can be achieved by time, training and proper husbandry. Lasix is the greatest scam that has ever been conceived on horseracing.

Hi cas,

I know you have seen bad bleeders in your years of experience and being in the business. In the hundred's of years prior to using lasix on race day there just wasn't enough definitive knowledge of bleeders to devise a helpful treatment. Hence the widespread administration of lasix began after the introduction of the fiberoptic endoscope in the 70's. Prior to that, bleeders were thought to be bleeding from their nostrils. With this new piece of equipment it was proven the bleeding originated from the lungs and that many horses bled to some degree during heavy respiration. It is for this reason lasix was adopted and used on race day. The worse a horse bled and the frequency with which it occurred left scarring in the lungs which reduced elasticity and lung performance during deep respiration adding to EIPH in itself. Some horses were so bad that they bled under normal respiration if the scarring was severe enough.
I have seen horses bleed horrifically after a race in my early days working for other horseman, as I am sure you have. The reason they got this bad was because they were not scoped to see what was going on. A horse gradually reaches the point where he bleed out his nostrils....that point is reached by not monitoring his internal activity from race to race. That is why a horse that shows a touch of blood is taken seriously because it is proven under continued stress they will reach a stage 4 bleeder status. I am not taking the high road when I say it is inhumane to race horses without lasix in todays world...just common sense and experience talking when I say it is essential in the preventing, healing or limiting of EIPH in race horses. In the industry today, some of the most respected horseman in the business agree with the use of race day lasix for a number or reasons. I like Graham Motions statement...."It's better the devil you know than the devil you don't know" when asked why Barry Iwin couldn't convince him not to run on lasix:>) TJ

Yes, I have had horses that bled by the bucket full - I culled them the next day.

Allen Jerkens pointed to a fitter, sturdier animal as another reason why bleeding was considered atypical in the 1950’s and 1960’s. He said none of his good horses were bleeders.

“Horses worked a lot harder in those days,” he said. “The strain on them in the race wasn’t as much as the strain is on them now. They trained almost as hard in the morning as they did when they ran.”

The best horses would often work the full distance of an upcoming race five or six days before, breeze a half-mile two days out, and maybe even an eighth of a mile the morning of the race. As but one example, three days before Assault finished off the Triple Crown, Max Hirsch sent the colt out for a 12-furlong breeze in 2:32 at Belmont.

In summary, all horses bleed, and if we are going to race them, they are going to bleed more. Yes, controlling these episodes is necessary and humane, but Lasix is a shortcut that most likely diminishes proper skeletal development at its most crucial stages – and the same effects can be achieved through the conditioning protocol of the old timers.
http://thoroedge.wordpress.com/2011/11/ ... -bleeding/

Hi cas,
I agree with that as well....if I allowed my horse to get that far advanced to bleed by the bucket full I'd have no choice but to cull them and render them useless to their breed. This is the value of lasix....to prevent a horse from getting that far gone. Lasix used properly can almost eliminate a horse from reaching that final stage (usually 3-4) of bleeding where they bleed through their nostrils and would need to be retired or the very least 6 months or more on the farm.
You quote the Chief, Mr. Jerkens...I know him well and he is one of the greatest trainers of all time. Yet he isn't foolish enough to race his horses with out lasix. Of course many trainers will run their 2YO's without lasix the first time as Mr. Jerkens and his son Jimmy do more times than not....but usually by the second or third race they are on lasix as the rest of their barn is when they are competing. TJ

Coincidentally, his other son, Alan Jr. has been the sportscaster on a local TV station here in Tulsa for years. Ironically, he is allergic to horses.

Again, we have different opinions on the therapeutic effects of lasix. I think the effects are minimal, if any on EIPH. If it did have some minimal effect it would be offset by the dibilitating effects it has otherwise. The thing that benefits the trainer is the loss of 20-30 pounds. Most any reasonable person knows losing that much weight within a few hours is not good for you - when done routinely it can be deadly for man or beast.

Jerkins and Son are smart enough to take every edge possible when needed. Lasix gives that edge and puts horses at a disadvantage that don’t use it – the primary reason to ban it. I don’t think either one of them would be unhappy to see it banned.

Hi cas,
I guess we will have to agree to disagree and leave it at that...our opinions on lasix will never come together...but the discussion is always enjoyed and I look forward to them.
Didn't know what became of his son Allen Jr....does he cover horse racing at all? His other two boys both train in NY, Steve wasn't as well know as Jimmy who has a twin sister Julie who is a teacher in Florida.
You know sometimes I wish I was allergic to horses too:>) TJ

Big Al, as he's known here, has been at KJRH since 1979. Here is his pic and bio: http://www.kjrh.com/dpp/about_us/staff/big-al-jerkens

I too, enjoy our discussions. My wife says I'll agrue with a fence post.

[TJ]

Can someone please reference any professional studies that examine what other effects regular or long-term use of lasix can induce in horses, especially young horses with still developing skeletal systems? There must be something besides distilled water in all that excreted pee. Such research seems to be in short supply.

What sense does it make to use lasix for a specific humane reason if that very use has other equally deleterious effects on the horse? Absent valid research I have to wonder: is the medicine perhaps worse than the cure?

There are very few scholarly articles on the subject (that the lay person can understand). Having been partners with a veterinary group in a large breeding operation in the past, I can assure you they are reluctant to say or print anything that might affect their or their colleagues pocketbooks. The very fact that furosemide has never been approved as a drug for treatment of EIPH by the FDA or any proper scientific studies should make "someone" take notice.

It has been stated before there are lots of opinions but little solid "stand up" evidence of the efficacy or the side effects of lasix on horses. There are plenty of theories and old wives tales but as my Dad use to tell me “don’t believe anything you read or hear and only half of what you see but you can take to the bank, every word I tell you” there is a lot of interesting stuff at this site: http://thoroedge.wordpress.com/ just keep in mind they are trying to sell stuff – mostly their training philosophy (for the most part I agree with). The thought does come to mind, if they are so smart why aren’t they winning everything? It is an interesting blog and it does answer your question if you dig for it. I’ve seen it somewhere.

Hi cas,
Yes, there was a time lasix was not approved by the FDA. That is no longer the case. As in many drugs early on in their development that were used first by humans and then approved afterwards for animals. TJ
https://www.federalregister.gov/article ... furosemide

[TJ]

Hi cas,
I agree with that statement of yours as well....it seems to be very relevant in coming up with the solution to the lasix issue on both sides. TJ

The solution is simple - to allow lasix or not. Nothing is difficult about that. As the previous post with the Thoroughbred Times excerpt confirms, we got along without lasix for hundreds of years and every other country in the world still does. It has not benefitted racing OR horses in the least. As a matter of fact, the evidence suggests otherwise. The reason people want lasix is because they are afraid to train horses without help from a bottle; it is easier to get from a needle that, that can be achieved by time, training and proper husbandry. Lasix is the greatest scam that has ever been conceived on horseracing.

Hi cas,

I know you have seen bad bleeders in your years of experience and being in the business. In the hundred's of years prior to using lasix on race day there just wasn't enough definitive knowledge of bleeders to devise a helpful treatment. Hence the widespread administration of lasix began after the introduction of the fiberoptic endoscope in the 70's. Prior to that, bleeders were thought to be bleeding from their nostrils. With this new piece of equipment it was proven the bleeding originated from the lungs and that many horses bled to some degree during heavy respiration. It is for this reason lasix was adopted and used on race day. The worse a horse bled and the frequency with which it occurred left scarring in the lungs which reduced elasticity and lung performance during deep respiration adding to EIPH in itself. Some horses were so bad that they bled under normal respiration if the scarring was severe enough.
I have seen horses bleed horrifically after a race in my early days working for other horseman, as I am sure you have. The reason they got this bad was because they were not scoped to see what was going on. A horse gradually reaches the point where he bleed out his nostrils....that point is reached by not monitoring his internal activity from race to race. That is why a horse that shows a touch of blood is taken seriously because it is proven under continued stress they will reach a stage 4 bleeder status. I am not taking the high road when I say it is inhumane to race horses without lasix in todays world...just common sense and experience talking when I say it is essential in the preventing, healing or limiting of EIPH in race horses. In the industry today, some of the most respected horseman in the business agree with the use of race day lasix for a number or reasons. I like Graham Motions statement...."It's better the devil you know than the devil you don't know" when asked why Barry Iwin couldn't convince him not to run on lasix:>) TJ

Yes, I have had horses that bled by the bucket full - I culled them the next day.

Allen Jerkens pointed to a fitter, sturdier animal as another reason why bleeding was considered atypical in the 1950’s and 1960’s. He said none of his good horses were bleeders.

“Horses worked a lot harder in those days,” he said. “The strain on them in the race wasn’t as much as the strain is on them now. They trained almost as hard in the morning as they did when they ran.”

The best horses would often work the full distance of an upcoming race five or six days before, breeze a half-mile two days out, and maybe even an eighth of a mile the morning of the race. As but one example, three days before Assault finished off the Triple Crown, Max Hirsch sent the colt out for a 12-furlong breeze in 2:32 at Belmont.

In summary, all horses bleed, and if we are going to race them, they are going to bleed more. Yes, controlling these episodes is necessary and humane, but Lasix is a shortcut that most likely diminishes proper skeletal development at its most crucial stages – and the same effects can be achieved through the conditioning protocol of the old timers.
http://thoroedge.wordpress.com/2011/11/ ... -bleeding/

Hi cas,
I agree with that as well....if I allowed my horse to get that far advanced to bleed by the bucket full I'd have no choice but to cull them and render them useless to their breed. This is the value of lasix....to prevent a horse from getting that far gone. Lasix used properly can almost eliminate a horse from reaching that final stage (usually 3-4) of bleeding where they bleed through their nostrils and would need to be retired or the very least 6 months or more on the farm.
You quote the Chief, Mr. Jerkens...I know him well and he is one of the greatest trainers of all time. Yet he isn't foolish enough to race his horses with out lasix. Of course many trainers will run their 2YO's without lasix the first time as Mr. Jerkens and his son Jimmy do more times than not....but usually by the second or third race they are on lasix as the rest of their barn is when they are competing. TJ

Coincidentally, his other son, Alan Jr. has been the sportscaster on a local TV station here in Tulsa for years. Ironically, he is allergic to horses.

Again, we have different opinions on the therapeutic effects of lasix. I think the effects are minimal, if any on EIPH. If it did have some minimal effect it would be offset by the dibilitating effects it has otherwise. The thing that benefits the trainer is the loss of 20-30 pounds. Most any reasonable person knows losing that much weight within a few hours is not good for you - when done routinely it can be deadly for man or beast.

Jerkins and Son are smart enough to take every edge possible when needed. Lasix gives that edge and puts horses at a disadvantage that don’t use it – the primary reason to ban it. I don’t think either one of them would be unhappy to see it banned.

Hi cas,
I guess we will have to agree to disagree and leave it at that...our opinions on lasix will never come together...but the discussion is always enjoyed and I look forward to them.
Didn't know what became of his son Allen Jr....does he cover horse racing at all? His other two boys both train in NY, Steve wasn't as well know as Jimmy who has a twin sister Julie who is a teacher in Florida.
You know sometimes I wish I was allergic to horses too:>) TJ

Big Al, as he's known here, has been at KJRH since 1979. Here is his pic and bio: http://www.kjrh.com/dpp/about_us/staff/big-al-jerkens

I too, enjoy our discussions. My wife says I'll agrue with a fence post.

Hi cas,
Yes, I do remember Al was his name...actually probably not a Jr as the Chief's real name was Harry. Thank you for that link. I look forward to our (what I prefer to call) discussions, not arguments. It also serves a purpose for me....by having these discussions it keeps Alzheimer's at bay and I use less Ginkoba :>) TJ

[casallc]

Can someone please reference any professional studies that examine what other effects regular or long-term use of lasix can induce in horses, especially young horses with still developing skeletal systems? There must be something besides distilled water in all that excreted pee. Such research seems to be in short supply.

What sense does it make to use lasix for a specific humane reason if that very use has other equally deleterious effects on the horse? Absent valid research I have to wonder: is the medicine perhaps worse than the cure?

There are very few scholarly articles on the subject (that the lay person can understand). Having been partners with a veterinary group in a large breeding operation in the past, I can assure you they are reluctant to say or print anything that might affect their or their colleagues pocketbooks. The very fact that furosemide has never been approved as a drug for treatment of EIPH by the FDA or any proper scientific studies should make "someone" take notice.

It has been stated before there are lots of opinions but little solid "stand up" evidence of the efficacy or the side effects of lasix on horses. There are plenty of theories and old wives tales but as my Dad use to tell me “don’t believe anything you read or hear and only half of what you see but you can take to the bank, every word I tell you” there is a lot of interesting stuff at this site: http://thoroedge.wordpress.com/ just keep in mind they are trying to sell stuff – mostly their training philosophy (for the most part I agree with). The thought does come to mind, if they are so smart why aren’t they winning everything? It is an interesting blog and it does answer your question if you dig for it. I’ve seen it somewhere.

Hi cas,
Yes, there was a time lasix was not approved by the FDA. That is no longer the case. As in many drugs early on in their development that were used first by humans and then approved afterwards for animals. TJ
https://www.federalregister.gov/article ... furosemide

I have never said that furosemide was not FDA approved for horses, what I said was lasix has never been approved as a drug for EIPH and it still hasn't. In order to get that it would have to have met the clinical criteria with sufficent trials that it indeed prevented or lessened the indications of EIPH. I posted this before I thought it was in this topic but I couldn't find it.

Salix® is indicated for the treatment of edema, (pulmonary congestion, ascites) associated with cardiac insufficiency and acute noninflammatory tissue edema.
HORSE - The individual dose is 250 to 500 mg (5 to 10 mL) administered intramuscularly or intravenously once or twice daily at 6 to 8 hour intervals until desired results are achieved. The veterinarian should evaluate the degree of edema present and adjust dosage schedule accordingly. Do not use in horses intended for human consumption.
http://www.vetdepot.com/product-labels/ ... ablets.pdf

EIPH would not fall in the catagory of acute noninflammatory tissue edema in fact it would be exactly opposite.

Alzheimers has it's good points, I've found. I can hide my own easter eggs. Use all the Ginkoba you want - it's the lasix I want you to slow down on.

[TJ]

Can someone please reference any professional studies that examine what other effects regular or long-term use of lasix can induce in horses, especially young horses with still developing skeletal systems? There must be something besides distilled water in all that excreted pee. Such research seems to be in short supply.

What sense does it make to use lasix for a specific humane reason if that very use has other equally deleterious effects on the horse? Absent valid research I have to wonder: is the medicine perhaps worse than the cure?

There are very few scholarly articles on the subject (that the lay person can understand). Having been partners with a veterinary group in a large breeding operation in the past, I can assure you they are reluctant to say or print anything that might affect their or their colleagues pocketbooks. The very fact that furosemide has never been approved as a drug for treatment of EIPH by the FDA or any proper scientific studies should make "someone" take notice.

It has been stated before there are lots of opinions but little solid "stand up" evidence of the efficacy or the side effects of lasix on horses. There are plenty of theories and old wives tales but as my Dad use to tell me “don’t believe anything you read or hear and only half of what you see but you can take to the bank, every word I tell you” there is a lot of interesting stuff at this site: http://thoroedge.wordpress.com/ just keep in mind they are trying to sell stuff – mostly their training philosophy (for the most part I agree with). The thought does come to mind, if they are so smart why aren’t they winning everything? It is an interesting blog and it does answer your question if you dig for it. I’ve seen it somewhere.

Hi cas,
Yes, there was a time lasix was not approved by the FDA. That is no longer the case. As in many drugs early on in their development that were used first by humans and then approved afterwards for animals. TJ
https://www.federalregister.gov/article ... furosemide

I have never said that furosemide was not FDA approved for horses, what I said was lasix has never been approved as a drug for EIPH and it still hasn't. In order to get that it would have to have met the clinical criteria with sufficent trials that it indeed prevented or lessened the indications of EIPH. I posted this before I thought it was in this topic but I couldn't find it.

Salix® is indicated for the treatment of edema, (pulmonary congestion, ascites) associated with cardiac insufficiency and acute noninflammatory tissue edema.
HORSE - The individual dose is 250 to 500 mg (5 to 10 mL) administered intramuscularly or intravenously once or twice daily at 6 to 8 hour intervals until desired results are achieved. The veterinarian should evaluate the degree of edema present and adjust dosage schedule accordingly. Do not use in horses intended for human consumption.
http://www.vetdepot.com/product-labels/ ... ablets.pdf

EIPH would not fall in the catagory of acute noninflammatory tissue edema in fact it would be exactly opposite.

Alzheimers has it's good points, I've found. I can hide my own easter eggs. Use all the Ginkoba you want - it's the lasix I want you to slow down on.

Hi cas,
Sorry I misunderstood your post. But lasix is also used to lower blood pressure by removing water and salt from the body via the kidney's. This will cause a decrease in blood volume....less blood volume creates lower blood pressure in the circulatory system. Which in turn helps control a bleeder's blood pressure to remain at a level less likely to blow a gasket. TJ

[casallc]

Hi cas,
Sorry I misunderstood your post. But lasix is also used to lower blood pressure by removing water and salt from the body via the kidney's. This will cause a decrease in blood volume....less blood volume creates lower blood pressure in the circulatory system. Which in turn helps control a bleeder's blood pressure to remain at a level less likely to blow a gasket. TJ

I took lasix for about 5 years before I had an angioplasty and 2 stents in my heart. It is some evil stuff and might be behind my hatred for it. I probably know more about lasix than most Dr.s perscribing it.

[TJ]

Hi cas,
Sorry I misunderstood your post. But lasix is also used to lower blood pressure by removing water and salt from the body via the kidney's. This will cause a decrease in blood volume....less blood volume creates lower blood pressure in the circulatory system. Which in turn helps control a bleeder's blood pressure to remain at a level less likely to blow a gasket. TJ

I took lasix for about 5 years before I had an angioplasty and 2 stents in my heart. It is some evil stuff and might be behind my hatred for it. I probably know more about lasix than most Dr.s prescribing it.

Hi cas,
Maybe it acts different in horses....but what I said is the basic benefit lasix affords to a horse to aid in the prevention of bleeding. In the link below it seems it does the same exact thing for us. TJ
http://hypertension.emedtv.com/furosemi ... -work.html

[winds]

I actually find this debate funny, since I'm on lasix. I have congestive heart failure and need it to keep the fluid off my heart. Though I don't run, or compete in anything, it's to help keep me alive. So why would it be bad for horses to stop them from bleeding?

winds