Arlington Park: "Card of Shame" Should Spark Trainer Review

I may be wrong in assuming that the race card for Arlington Park this Saturday (July 12, 2008) is singular, unique, and atypical—but by heck, I hope I'm not!

Never before, in an association with the sport spanning more than two decades, have I seen so many "bleeders" gathered in one place.

As if the horrific statistic that at least eight (6.83%) of the runners on the card have previously bled during a race is not enough of a disgrace, these horses have been scheduled to run on a major stakes racing day, when the eyes of the world will be watching.

When a horse is said to be a "bleeder", it means that following a workout on the track or during a race, blood is visible in at least one nostril.  The clinical term for this is epsitaxis, and by itself is not actually a condition but a symptom of Exercise Induced Pulmonary Haemorrhage (EIPH).

The distinction is most important:  EIPH is quite common, but epistaxis is relatively rare.  To give you some idea, numerous expert studies have concluded that up to 75% of horses will suffer from EIPH after a race on at least a few occasions.  Less than 1% will ever show any sign of epistaxis.

Thus to have a situation where eight horses who have shown expistaxis are appearing at one track on one day is nothing short of phenomenal... or at least it should be!

Analysis of these runners reveals an important clue.  All of them were, at the time of the bleeding attack, very lightly raced and so had not yet been administered with furosemide (Lasix).  Could this indicate that American trainers have become over-reliant on Lasix?

There are many theories about the causes of EIPH, but the most commonly accepted one is that the condition occurs due to breathing abnormalities during strenuous effort.  In plain English, this means that during the race, the horse becomes fatigued enough to miss a breath (perhaps several times) or holds its breath, with the result that blood does not empty from the lungs at the same rate it arrives.

You don't need to be a scientist to figure out that this situation will result in a build up of pressure.  If the pressure crosses a critical threshold, the blood vessels will rupture, and when the volume of blood present freely within the lungs is sufficient that the very survival of the horse is threatened, it is forced up the trachea under immense pressure and emerges at the nostrils.

Imagine this: the heart of a racehorse at full stretch is beating more than four times per second and the entire blood supply of a horse passes through its lungs within 30 seconds!  That's a lot of blood and a lot of pressure.

From the facts mentioned above it should be easy to conclude that:

1. EIPH results from actual damage to blood vessels within the lungs
2. Any amount of EIPH is serious and potentially life-threatening, and
   
3. Epistaxis indicates that a severe amount of damage has occurred.
   

The consequences are also serious.  Once the ruptured blood vessels manage to repair themselves (if they do), they will have scarring and will be more prone to bursting in future (similar, in effect, to patching a garden hose with duct tape).

The scarred lung tissue does not perform as efficiently as healthy tissue, and furthermore due to it having been damaged, puts greater stress on other blood vessels in the lungs.

This is the point in my story where I have to start making controversial statements.

I believe it is obvious that American and Canadian trainers have a serious problem due to the legal use of lasix in the treatment (and prevention) of EIPH in racehorses.

Firstly, in every other sport, Lasix is banned.  This is not only because of the potentially adverse effects of the drug, but also because (and I consider this to be very important) it can mask the presence of other drugs.

Secondly, Lasix is a banned substance in horse racing almost everywhere outside of North America.   In most nations, the governing body requires that horses that suffer epistaxis must undergo suspension.  This is not intended to penalize the owner or trainer of the horse, but simply to allow sufficient time for the horse to recover from what is a very serious condition.

If the horse suffers further bleeding attacks in the future, it may be banned for life.  Again this is not intended as a penalty, but because it is considered cruel to race a horse that is risking its life every time it races.

Lasix, like many other drug-based therapies, does not correct the underlying cause of the problem, but simply helps to address the undesirable symptom.

It does this by thinning the blood, and in fact its primary use in medicine is to clear edemas resulting from heart failure or stroke.  In other words, it is a powerful and serious medication, not something to be taken lightly.

This blood-thinning action is similar to the effect of aspirin (although it does not work in quite the same way), and therefore the drug may have some beneficial effect on performance by inhibiting pain.

Unlike the trainers of most other countries, where horses must not be raced within three months of a bleeding attack, American and Canadian trainers use Lasix as a shortcut for proper rest and recovery, and so all of the affected horses on today's card have returned to the track within a month of their attack.

Why is it so serious and why should you care?

Well, for one thing, it could be hurting your wallet.  As I said earlier, Lasix can be used to mask other drugs, so dishonest trainers could be using it to cheat with.

Perhaps more importantly, however, we must consider the damage this does to the horses and to the sport of racing. 

Rather than giving horses adequate preparation (due in no small part to pressure from owners anxious to see a return on their investment), trainers are obviously relying on Lasix as the wonder drug that will solve all their problems.

This is dangerous and unacceptable.  Let me be very clear about this:  there is only one reason for EIPH occurring, and that is a horse being pushed to do something that he has not been adequately physically prepared for.  It is a totally preventable condition.

Even worse, in states where horses have to qualify for Lasix, trainers actually have an incentive to push their horses too hard.  Concern about rivals having an "unfair advantage" due to the use of Lasix, an unethical trainer may resort to encouraging the very condition he should be avoiding.

Just in case you think I'm talking from the wrong part of my anatomy about all of this, let's go to the facts. 

Statistically, there should have been, at most, one horse at Arlington Park on Saturday which had previously suffered epistaxis.  Instead, eight times that number have been entered.

If that doesn't at least give pause for some concern about the standards of horse training in America today, then what will it take?  How many horses and jockeys will have to die before somebody looks into this problem?

My view is that even one death is too many when we consider that this is something that could so easily be prevented by simply doing the one thing that virtually every other nation on Earth has done: ban Lasix.