Kentucky's ongoing attempt to end racing in state proceeds..

[cmorioles]

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.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Maybe they could have run a length faster.

Or the measured difference that a study quoted earlier here found.

Is that worth drugging every horse so now they all run a length faster?

If you take an aspirin for a sore knee, are you a "drugged performance enhancer"? And nobody has ever said lasix should be given to every horse.

Sturdier is an assumption based on rapidly declining starts per year, which happens to coincide with the use of Lasix.

That also coincides 100% with the advancement of the Mayan calendar.

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.

That's right, I posted three studies about performance. What did they say again?

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.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Riot

Or the measured difference that a study quoted earlier here found.



If you take an aspirin for a sore knee, are you a "drugged performance enhancer"?



That also coincides 100% with the advancement of the Mayan calendar.



That's right, I posted three studies about performance. What did they say again?

This is getting old, as you are clearly biased and admitted as much. All horses don't bleed, so the aspirin thing is silly. Aspirin also wouldn't make humans that compete without a sore knee do it better.

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.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

This is getting old, as you are clearly biased and admitted as much. All horses don't bleed, so the aspirin thing is silly. Aspirin also wouldn't make humans that compete without a sore knee do it better.

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.

The fact there is a difference at all is the entire point.

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.

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.

We could let the factual evidence tell us what opinion to have. You have a good night, too. Good discussion.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

This is getting old, as you are clearly biased and admitted as much. All horses don't bleed, so the aspirin thing is silly. Aspirin also wouldn't make humans that compete without a sore knee do it better.

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.

Assuming for a moment that you are correct that there is some enhancement to horses performances with Lasix despite the lack of medical evidence to support that contention, there is still a disconnect to the banning of the drug. Almost all players understand that Lasix can move a horse up (regardless of whether it is a performance enhancer or the horse has now been able to perform to its ability due to the medical benefits of the drug).

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?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by pointman

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?

Let's not even talk about public perception because the public relations implications are debatable. Let's just talk about the drug itself. It sounds like you are saying that lasix has these great medical benefits and there is nothing bad about taking lasix. I would totally disagree with that. There are all kinds of negative side effects and we may not even know the long term negative consequences of using the drug. That one article said that there is concern that long-term lasix use reduces calcium and may lead to brittle bones.

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.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Let's not even talk about public perception because the public relations implications are debatable. Let's just talk about the drug itself. It sounds like you are saying that lasix has these great medical benefits and there is nothing bad about taking lasix. I would totally disagree with that. There are all kinds of negative side effects and we may not even know the long term negative consequences of using the drug. That one article said that there is concern that long-term lasix use reduces calcium and may lead to brittle bones.

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.

Where did I say there are no negatives? Of course it is a benefit vs. negatives analysis. I have just yet to here a cogent argument based on factual or scientific evidence instead of speculation that comes close to making the negatives of its current use outweigh the positives.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by pointman

Where did I say there are no negatives? Of course it is a benefit vs. negatives analysis. I have just yet to here a cogent argument based on factual or scientific evidence instead of speculation that comes close to making the negatives of its current use outweigh the positives.

Here was your quote, "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?"

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.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Let's not even talk about public perception because the public relations implications are debatable. Let's just talk about the drug itself. It sounds like you are saying that lasix has these great medical benefits and there is nothing bad about taking lasix. I would totally disagree with that. There are all kinds of negative side effects and we may not even know the long term negative consequences of using the drug. That one article said that there is concern that long-term lasix use reduces calcium and may lead to brittle bones.

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.

The long term consequences? The average horse may get 6 shots a year. Being that people keep confusing the issue by using human analogies they forget that horses are very infrequently treated with lasix especially compared to humans who take it every day for long periods.

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?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Let's not even talk about public perception because the public relations implications are debatable.

http://www.drf.com/news/crist-lasix-...hat-you-preach

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.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

http://www.drf.com/news/crist-lasix-...hat-you-preach

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.

I'm not sure which part of the article you want me to respond to. With regard to his main message, I would simply say that the reason most of these guys continue to use the drug is because they think they would be at a disadvantage if they didn't, and not so much because their horses would bleed, but because they think it makes most horses run better, even non-bleeders.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Let's not even talk about public perception because the public relations implications are debatable. Let's just talk about the drug itself. It sounds like you are saying that lasix has these great medical benefits and there is nothing bad about taking lasix. I would totally disagree with that. There are all kinds of negative side effects and we may not even know the long term negative consequences of using the drug.

Wrong. We know virtually everything about lasix, and have for decades. It's a very simple, easy-to-understand drug with a predictable and well-defined mechanism of action, and side effects which are dose-dependent and well-documented and very predictable.

That one article said that there is concern that long-term lasix use reduces calcium and may lead to brittle bones.

Not even remotely possible at the doses horses get racing.

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.

Yet veterinarians are encouraging the American racing industry to eliminate all drugs from race day - except lasix. Because the benefit is overwhelming.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

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.

This not true unless lasix was in use in 1960