Lasix In America
After such a positive response on my last blog regarding California Chrome's Triple Crown bid, I decided to do a little research based blog post. My piece sparked a great debate on Twitter and I thought it would be wise to extend my knowledge, as in reality US racing is relatively foreign to me. Please contact me via Twitter (@mp_horseracing) with any opinions you may have, or to correct me if I have anything wrong, thank you! Credit goes to @chare889, @cynically_me, @sutts109, @cahardinge, @keejayOV and others for contributing to the debate and inspiring me to write this.
Furosemide, commonly known as Lasix, is a diuretic banned in the horse racing industry in many different corners of the world. It appears most popular and present in racing in the US. In 1995 New York became the last state to approve it's use in racing after a prolonged period of refusing to. Lasix significantly reduces bleeding in the lungs or pulmonary haemorrhage induced by exercise. It is controversial for many reasons, one being because it is believed to enhance performance due to it's medicinal qualities. It is injected either intramuscularly or intravenously, usually 0.5-1.0 mg/kg twice/day, although less before a horse is raced. It is detectable in urine 36–72 hours following injection. Its use is prohibited by most equestrian organizations.
To understand the so-called predicament and state of racing in a country so far away, we have to attempt to understand what has caused the current changes in racing culture and modern day society. Today's widespread use of Lasix in the US may be due to the fact that in the racing rules of most states, if a horse bleeds from it's nostrils 3 times it is permanently banned from racing. However, now Lasix appears to have become a trend, its use is not stably controlled and therefore could have detrimental effects to the future of bloodlines in almost every horse in America. This needs to be recognised as a potentially, incredibly serious issue. Short term use may benefit performance, however in the long term the positives are outweighed dramatically. It could be just one of the contributing factors to the lack of Triple Crown winners in recent years, although at the same time it could be purely coincidence. Although veterinarians have split opinions on Lasix, even by US racing supporters, it is not considered a purely innocent drug, Lasix is used to mask flaws in the make-up of todays' racehorses. On the other hand, there are many talented racehorses with US bloodlines that run on Lasix that are more than able to put foreign-bred horses in their place. Is Lasix in any way responsible for their abilities? Can it's use be sustained at such a rate and not have any derogatory consequences?
The breakneck speeds and scorching paces set in US races may have led to such dense and frequent use of the substance. Obviously this is a generalisation and stereotypical but from my little experience it seems that it is partially correct. Faster speeds in the early part of races mean slower speeds in the latter stages, this encourages excessive use of the whip. Often US racing is difficult to watch due to the lack of regulations regarding whip usage. It is not painting a good picture for the wider public, yet as mentioned in my previous blog, the attention surrounding California Chrome on Saturday was second to none. Evidently there is a balanced to be reached. This is another topic I wish to do a blog on in the future. In contrast, others would argue champions such as Seattle Slew and Secretariat didn't need or use Lasix (they could run lightening fast, naturally- this surely is what racing is all about), as they achieved historic recognition on the track in its absence. If a horse is destined for greatness, in my opinion it will not require the additional aid of medication nor the overuse of the whip. Whether this be in the US, or in any other area of the world. This is what segregates the top class horses from the slower ones. If a Triple Crown horse is harder to come by because of this, then so be it, that's what makes history, history and not just something that happens every few years. It is important to note that scarily, many horses bleed through Lasix, it's success is questioned. This suggests carelessness in use and dependency/reliability upon its continued administration. It will breed weaker generations of the Thoroughbred and this action, over time, will decline the breed and limit its durability.
In the UK, we often hear of disappointing performances from high profiled horses, some of which are also due to bleeding, or bursting of blood vessels. A random example would be Time For Rupert in the 2011 RSA Chase at Cheltenham. This proves "bleeding" occurs worldwide but does not necessarily mean horses are certified "bleeders". Horses can recover quite quickly from such injuries and in a way it can be seen as a natural occurrence. I am in no means saying racing in the UK is superior to that in the US, as both have problems in different areas. We also know that due to the recent scandalous revelations of Mahmood Al Zarooni and Phillip Fenton, drugs in racing is a serious issue indeed in the UK and worldwide, and under both codes. I believe if Lasix, or any drug, is not absolutely essential it should not be used, and the majority of the world in terms of racing, seem to agree. It is the management of collective and convictive attitudes that could see the world of racing turn a corner.
No comments:
Post a Comment