![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
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. |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Or the measured difference that a study quoted earlier here found.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The thread has now come full circle. Some that are sure lasix is a performance enhancer ruining the sport will not be dissuaded by any evidence to the contrary. Kasept and Cannon wrote some very insightful posts in the first few pages. Worth a re-read.
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
The studies I saw had different conclusions. I saw some that said a small difference, others that said big difference. It is tough to follow your biased snippets. I haven't learned much about Lasix in this thread that I didn't already know, but I have learned those supporting its use are as stubborn as those against it, and both sides are wrong on some of the issues. TTFN. |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Here's a comment on my "admitted bias" for you (and the bias that apparently also encompasses the rest of the veterinary medical and research world who also hold the same opinion) There is a reason that the American Veterinary Medical Association membership and the American Association of Equine Practitioners membership majorities hold "that opinion". And it's not because our critical thinking skills are comparable to religious zealots. My opinion is based upon what science has told me is true. It was formed after I reviewed the evidence. The evidence told me what was true - not the other way around. I can't hold an opinion on a drug that is contrary to the facts in front of my eyes. That would be irresponsible and stupid. And if different evidence and new information appears, I certainly will be willing to change my opinion. I have in the past. Advancements in medicine happen all the time, and we change our advice and opinions based upon current best knowledge. Versus holding an opinion in the face of all evidence to the contrary like some appear to do. Quote:
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
As you pointed out earlier in the thread, the move up of horses is about as quantifiable as any other handicapping angle. Since all horses are allowed to use Lasix, clearly the playing field is leveled and the handicapper is provided with known information to work with. I don't believe for a second that any relevant segment of the general public refuses to bet on horse races due to a perception that Lasix is part of the stigma that the game cannot be trusted because horses are surreptiously drugged to win therefore rigging the results of the contest. What I would love to hear from the proponents of banning Lasix is exactly what good for the game they believe they are accomplishing by banning it. Saying that the breed has been watered down and trying to link it to the use of Lasix is nothing more than pure speculation without any scientific evidence to back it up and is just as likely to be a coincidence with regard to timing. Forcing horses to race with blood in their lungs, shortening their careers, creating disincentives to ownership, etc. is not only cruel, but bad for the game in the short and long run. At the end of the day, knowing that it without question has medical benefits to race horses, what is the harm in allowing horses to race on it under the current rules? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
All drugs have negative effects. When deciding whether to use a drug (on either an animal or a human), you have to weigh the benefits and the risks. With lasix, maybe the benefits outweigh the risks. That would be a legitimate argument. If you said that, I wouldn't argue with you. But for you to say that there are only benefits and no risks is ridiculous. I don't think there is a single drug out there (for humans or animals) that has no risks. |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
That question sounded to me like you didn't think there was anything bad about the drug. Anyway, I will let this guy answer your question: http://thoroedge.wordpress.com/2011/...lous-nonsense/ By the way, with regard to the PR debate I think it would be positive PR if they banned lasix. Let's just say that for our sport to be really successful that we need public perception of the sport to improve by 80%. I'm making that number up just for argument's sake. You could use any number. But if we pretend that we need public perception to improve by 80%, do I think that the elimination of lasix would improve public perception by 80%? Of course not. But I think it could improve it by maybe 5-10%. I think it would certainly help a little bit. I think the banning of steroids helped a little bit. I don't think it was a dramatic improvement but I think it helped a little bit. |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Does it cause minor dehydration? Doesn't standing in a stall when it is 95 degrees do that as well? I have never heard of dehydration as being listed as a major issue for racehorses. Let me be on record as saying that I dont believe that lasix is some magical drug that does all these things good or bad. For the most part it just makes them pee. If there was something different that could be used to help prevent bleeding, lessen incidents and hold confirmed bleeders I would kick lasix to the curb in a minute. But that doesnt appear to be on the horizon so IMO stopping its raceday usage because a few bluebloods (and Barry) feel better about themselves using a bogus PR claim (Rupert you cant seriously think that a lasix ban is going to have any effect when a STEROID ban didnt do you?) and a threat of the Feds coming is completely counter productive. And for those who dont own horses and think they have no dog in the fight because they are just bettors if the Feds do come guess whose money they are going to tap into to fund the bureaucracy? |
#10
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
If I thought that banning lasix would help horseracing I would be content to try to figure out ways to deal with EIPH without it. But I dont think that those who are in favor of banning it are: a. being truthful about their true intentions, b. have little understanding of what the betting public wants, c. understand the ramifications and potential negative reactions that will come with the elimination of it. The PR bounce has zero chance of helping, the breeding factors are laughable and when you realize that all these industry leaders are the same ones wo have gotten us to this point of near irrelevancy perhaps like PG1985 you will figure out that simply going the other way will increase your chance of success greatly. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#12
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
![]() This not true unless lasix was in use in 1960
|
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|