Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot
Well, no. Not at all. Properly done and peer-reviewed published studies are extremely valuable, as they stand up to scrutiny and questioning and dissection from "all sides".
That's right.
How can you speak to that in the least? It's a guess. I've watched horses race since the 1960's, too. How do you know they couldn't run a length faster? Or come back to their next race two weeks sooner?
Common sense - and physiology - tells me, as a veterinarian, that a horse with blood in it's alveoli can't oxygenate as well as one without microscopic blood in it's alveoli.
That's an assumption stated as fact.
 It DOES help. ALOT. Measurably and repeatedly. There is plenty of proof over the past 40 years.
We'll, we're just going by the science. |
Maybe they could have run a length faster. Is that worth drugging every horse so now they all run a length faster?
Sturdier is an assumption based on rapidly declining starts per year, which happens to coincide with the use of Lasix. I don't know if it is the cause, but it certainly hasn't helped overall.
As for your science, there have been studies done that show it does enhance performance among non-bleeders. You posted it yourself if I'm not mistaken.