Ticker
  • There will be a Pick Six carryover of $167,021 when racing resumes Friday at Los Alamitos.Posted 1 day ago
  • There will be a Pick Six carryover of $42,460 when racing resumes Thursday at Los Alamitos.Posted 2 days ago
  •  Assateague goes wire to wire in the Dr. James Penny Memorial!Posted 3 days ago
  •  Assateague goes wire to wire in the Dr. James Penny Memorial!Posted 3 days ago
  • Clearly Now breaks the 7f track record at Belmont - 1:19.96.Posted 6 days ago
  • There will be a Pick Six carryover of $28,880 when racing resumes July 4 at Los Al.Posted 7 days ago
  • 1-9 Frac Daddy upset by Sky Captain in the Dominion Day! Posted 10 days ago
  •  Size holds off Ria Antonia in the Iowa Oaks!Posted 13 days ago
  •  Declassify game in the Triple Bend!Posted 13 days ago
  •  Riposte proves best in the New York Handicap!Posted 13 days ago

The Battle of Salix - By Eric Mitchell

Another battle over the medication Salix is brewing. We say “another” because Thoroughbred racing has been wrestling with this drug on and off since the 1970s when there was a mixed bag of prohibition and acceptance among the racing states. New York was the last state to fall, lifting its ban in 1995.

Today, debate is heating up again over the effectiveness of the anti-bleeder medication (formerly known under the brand name Lasix) and more importantly whether it should be allowed on race day since research has shown it is a performance-enhancing drug.
Read More

 

comments powered by Disqus

Older Comments about The Battle of Salix - By Eric Mitchell...

Yes, ruffian, but he ran in several states, not just in Arkansas. One of his nicest finishes wasn't a win, but his second to Cigar in the 1995 Oaklawn Handicap. I read that he raced cars after retirement because his pasture was located beside a highway.
goblin: Didn't Silver Goblin win the short-lived Colorado Derby, @ Arapahoe Park? I remember him running at Oaklawn Park thereafter.
Now posted.
Oh, Silver Goblin. Better.
Sorry, I had not heard of that horse, gob. Is gob okay?
The name was chosen because of one of my favorite horses. If you don't want to address me, that's okay. http://www.thoroughbredtimes.com/national-news/2011/03/10/silver-goblin-dies-at-20.aspx
I'm not going to address an adult as goblin. I just can't, so if I respond to one of your posts, I'll try to give the time stamp, so You'll know it's to you.
Mary, I certainly don't go by a bunch of usernames either. I made one change after posting under my actual name for 7 years--purely for safety purposes.
my whatever back there got squished in the editing.
Hey, I'm not in the industry, just a fan. It's not like I would try to take a pacifier out of somebody else's kid's mouth. I so get it. Headache's back Pissed to hell. I read that Thoroughbred Times article. A couple of things, I have no idea if the well-published veterinarian derives any of his income off of keeping race horses running, and profiting for their owners, and no one has duplicated the S.African study, and everyone knows that Salix is a strong diuretic, and it is now said by all, even the believe it or not PRO-Salix people who think it is cruel to race a horse without this diuretic. Another thing is, goblin, I don't go by a bunch of usernames and I don't care to talk to someone as one name here, another there, not that I don't think you have a right to use whatever names you care to, just that I'm chock full of that, and it's not so amusing to me. HEADACHE!!!
Whever that sceptre is, it doesn't know me to group me with anything, except pissed off people.
Mary Z., Couldn't help but notice this post. sceptre is a physician and breeder--maybe owner--he has posted his educational background on BH several times. I think there is an article on this subject in today's Thoroughbred Daily News, not the Thoroughbred Times. It is correct that furosemide and NSAIDS are contraindicated for usage at the same time, but it seems to be done anyway. I (under a different screen name) have commented on Eric Mitchell's BH articles concerning furosemide along with sceptre. I do not share his opinions necessarily. If you couldn't get your comment past the BH moderator, but want a starting place for understanding applicable research, then try reading the study by Hinchcliffe, Morley, and Guthrie published in the JAVMA, 7/2009, vol. 235, issue. BTW, BH is largely anti-Lasix as far as I can tell.
Didn't pass the moderator, so:sceptre, Thanks for the grouping generalization, whoever the heck you are. We're strangers to each other, so I don't know what group you're in. Anyway, I had sent a longer comment this a.m. about the Salix subject and the nsaids. I'll check out that article you mentioned at the now defunct Thoroughbred Times. You do consider if someone, real scientists included, have a vested interest in keeping the diuretic, Salix, in use? Of course you understand that the drug is not a cure nor a prevention for EIPH. You are satisfied with not considering any long term effects these drugs may have? Happy with the increased recovery time between races due to the fluid loss, since the diuretic does its work in that area, and you are okay with the calcium loss from bones to replenish the blood calcium levels? My earlier comment ,which was not posted, to KY concerned the use of Salix which acts upon the kidneys alongside of administering phenylbutazone which can have side effects of causing ulcers and kidney damage. Also, with most of a card being made up of claiming and allowance races, why not start with disallowing Salix for stakes races? This would affect a small percentage of overall racing, but it would affect the races that get the most new fan/tv attention. Understanding that the perception by those against Salix use and those who don't feel as though it is a problem(and then there are those that are pro-Salix, stating that it is actually cruel to run a horse without the diuretic) is that Salix gives an edge because of the weight loss through fluid loss, pre-race. The comments that since it is a first-time Salix user horse will improve, usually with no other reason given for that improvement. So, a perception that U.S. horses must be medicated to win, and not for health reasons. sceptre, it would take some persuasion, and yes, scientific evidence, and long-term effects studies to change my mind about the administering of a strong diuretic to approximately 90% of U.S. racing Thoroughbreds. Tell me why I should think that's okay. Uniform rules, nationwide, for drug usage and consequences for infractions are of course long overdue. Possibly that was the part of the comment that did not pass the moderator earlier.

Related Pages

Related Stories

Top Stories