Dueling Vet's on Lasix

[freddymo]

Amazing how many opinions are bandied about on the % of horses that bleed, require Lasix and its PED value.

Here is Dr. Cohen's take OBVIOUSLY in the vocal minority:

http://www.thoroughbreddailynews.com...just-said-yes/

“The reason I put him on Lasix is that I had to in order to compete,” he said. “He won an allowance and a maiden race without it and at that lower level he would have been fine without it. But once we got to the graded stakes level we were at a huge disadvantage, maybe by 12-15 lengths, not being on it. Lasix is a stone cold performance-enhancer. It was horrible that I had to do this. It tortures me.”

[taxicab]

PED + a masking agent.

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by taxicab

PED + a masking agent.

Despite reams of research over the last two decades that conclusively determined that Lasix has no properties as a 'masking agent', this lie gets repeated over and over. Feel free to identify it as a product that can enhance performance and be against it being administered on race day, but stop with the falsehood that it masks the presence of alleged nefarious administrations.

[The Devil]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Despite reams of research over the last two decades that conclusively determined that Lasix has no properties as a 'masking agent', this lie gets repeated over and over. Feel free to identify it as a product that can enhance performance and be against it being administered on race day, but stop with the falsehood that it masks the presence of alleged nefarious administrations.

[GenuineRisk]

This is a ridiculous Op-Ed piece. From the article itself:

"Nineteens months later, Effinex has became the last thing Cohen wanted him to be, the poster horse for anyone who still believes you can make do without Lasix. That’s not because it keeps horses from bleeding. It’s because it makes horses run faster."

You do understand, Bill, (may I call you Bill?) that these things are not mutually exclusive? I run faster when I'm not bleeding in my lungs, too.

And:

"Cohen doesn’t want all the credit to go to the Lasix because he believes that takes away from Effinex’s ability. At least two other factors enter into the equation when it comes to why he improved so dramatically–a trainer change and the likelihood that he is simply a late-developing horse."

Soooo.... horse by a horse known for siring late-bloomers improves after being given to a A+ trainer, but come on, it has to be the Lasix!

And, this:

"I don’t care what anyone else says, 99% of all horses run on Lasix and 99% of all horses do not bleed,” Cohen said. “Period. End of story. I have been scoping horses for 30 years and the percentage of horses that really bleed is less than 10%. Do not listen to any veterinarian tell you differently."

The key word here is, "really." I am assuming by the use of "really," that Cohen only counts it as bleeding if it's a 3 or 4 (the good doctor may mean something else, but in context, that's what I'm taking from it). No one disputes that bleeding from the nose is rare. Doesn't mean there isn't still minor bleeding going on and the damage from that is cumulative.

I like Finley's writing, but this is a piece for people who are already anti-Lasix. It's thoroughly unconvincing as an argument.

And the worst part:

"It’s tough to stand by your principles when your principles could be costing you a lot of money. Lasix may not be good for horses, may not do much of anything when it comes to controlling breeding and might reduce the longevity of any horse that goes on it, but if you don’t run with it and everyone else does you are putting yourself at a serious competitive disadvantage. Cohen ultimately came to that realization, and that’s why he caved."

A paragraph like that makes it sound like that for Cohen, winning money trumps a horse's health and welfare. Nice work there dissing your subject, Finley. Not cool. (Dr. Cohen, if I were you, I'd totally block him on Facebook.)

Boo, Finley. Back to Argument 101.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

This is a ridiculous Op-Ed piece. From the article itself:



You do understand, Bill, (may I call you Bill?) that these things are not mutually exclusive? I run faster when I'm not bleeding in my lungs, too.

And:



Soooo.... horse by a horse known for siring late-bloomers improves after being given to a A+ trainer, but come on, it has to be the Lasix!

And, this:



The key word here is, "really." I am assuming by the use of "really," that Cohen only counts it as bleeding if it's a 3 or 4 (the good doctor may mean something else, but in context, that's what I'm taking from it). No one disputes that bleeding from the nose is rare. Doesn't mean there isn't still minor bleeding going on and the damage from that is cumulative.

I like Finley's writing, but this is a piece for people who are already anti-Lasix. It's thoroughly unconvincing as an argument.

And the worst part:



A paragraph like that makes it sound like that for Cohen, winning money trumps a horse's health and welfare. Nice work there dissing your subject, Finley. Not cool. (Dr. Cohen, if I were you, I'd totally block him on Facebook.)

Boo, Finley. Back to Argument 101.

His opinion is hardily a scientific brief by Dr Cohen, its anecdotal at best. Horses do run faster when given Lasix. I am not necessarily against it in fact I lean way more towards keeping it in use. It is certainly over prescribed and it is over used because it does aid horses in running faster.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Despite reams of research over the last two decades that conclusively determined that Lasix has no properties as a 'masking agent', this lie gets repeated over and over. Feel free to identify it as a product that can enhance performance and be against it being administered on race day, but stop with the falsehood that it masks the presence of alleged nefarious administrations.

and then the study done that showed lasix does indeed help with what it's supposed to help with, EIPH.

but yeah, people have a right to their own opinion, but not their own facts! hard to have a legit discussion when falsehoods get promoted as truth.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Despite reams of research over the last two decades that conclusively determined that Lasix has no properties as a 'masking agent', this lie gets repeated over and over. Feel free to identify it as a product that can enhance performance and be against it being administered on race day, but stop with the falsehood that it masks the presence of alleged nefarious administrations.

Dr. Cohen called Lasix "a stone cold performance-enhancer". Masking? nobody believes that much anymore BUT horses simply run faster with Lasix, its pretty hard to deny years of figs

[taxicab]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Despite reams of research over the last two decades that conclusively determined that Lasix has no properties as a 'masking agent', this lie gets repeated over and over. Feel free to identify it as a product that can enhance performance and be against it being administered on race day, but stop with the falsehood that it masks the presence of alleged nefarious administrations.

The World Anti-Doping Agency has it on the top of their banned drug list for one reason and one reason only.......it's ability to mask other drugs.
And that includes Equestrian events(Olympics etc...) where the horses are tested also.


http://www.marsing-sa.com/shop/furosemide/

http://list.wada-ama.org/list/s5-diu...asking-agents/

http://www.doping-prevention.de/subs...ng-agents.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2962812/

[Danzig]

[Kasept]

Lasix can't hide the presence of other meds in blood testing. Period.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by taxicab

PED + a masking agent.

I can hardly wait for your second post.

[knickslions2]

Originally Posted by taxicab

PED + a masking agent.

Awesome first post cab!!

[casp0555]

troll-online-web-content-twitter-facebook-internet.jpg