NYTHA Lasix Primer & Letter to NYS RWB

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

One thing not mentioned was the dose of lasix used on raceday.

One of the reasons behind the banning of "milkshaking" is that horsemen can alter the outercome of a race by employing an "on-and-off" regimen (one race given, one race not given) of bicarbonate.

With lasix, most jurisdictions allow a range of lasix from 150mg to 500mg. Is there room there to alter a horse's performance? If I have a severe bleeder whose bleeding is controlled only with the higher dose of lasix, what happens if I up and decide to give him the bare minimum in his next race?

The problem with the questions like this is that it is impossible to isolate a single factor in the performance of a horse. More lasix doesnt mean better treatment. The idea that a horseman can turn a horse off and on with milkshakes is silly. The entire premise that we can stop horses with a lower dose of lasix assumes that all other factors are not pertinent. A lot of what you and CJ want is answers that dont exist and will never exist because this is not an exact science regardless of how hard you scrutinize it.

Making a horse bleed before treating them is asinine and irresponsible. Do you wait to have a heart attack before you go on a aspirin regime? Millions of people take a drug everyday and a large percentage of them will never have a heart attack.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The problem with the questions like this is that it is impossible to isolate a single factor in the performance of a horse. The idea that a horseman can turn a horse off and on with milkshakes is silly. The entire premise that we can stop horses with a lower dose of lasix assumes that all other factors are not pertinent. A lot of what you and CJ want is answers that dont exist and will never exist because this is not an exact science regardless of how hard you scrutinize it.

It's not really a question of provability, though, is it? It's a question of intent and opportunity.

If the possiblity exists that bicarbonate loading affects performance, then ideally administering "milkshakes" should be prohibited.

If the possibility exists that altering the dose of lasix affects performance, then ideally the dose of lasix should be standardized (eg, by body weight) at the very least.

More lasix doesnt mean better treatment.

Two scenarios:

1) Your horse receives 150mg of lasix for a race. The horse wins. Post-race, the horse is found to have bled a Grade 3 (scale 0 to 4). Assuming no further complications, how do you treat the horse for its next start, at the same class level?

2) Your horse receives 150mg of lasix for a race. The horse runs poorly. Post-race, the horse is found to have bled a Grade 3. Assuming no further complications, how do you treat the horse for its next start, at the same class level?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

It's not really a question of provability, though, is it? It's a question of intent and opportunity.

If the possiblity exists that bicarbonate loading affects performance, then ideally administering "milkshakes" should be prohibited.

If the possibility exists that altering the dose of lasix affects performance, then ideally the dose of lasix should be standardized (eg, by body weight) at the very least.

The dose of lasix is standardized by body weight.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Riot

The dose of lasix is standardized by body weight.

Not if the same horse can receive 150mg one race and 500mg the next.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

Not if the same horse can receive 150mg one race and 500mg the next.

My. god. you. are. ignorant. Yes, the dose of lasix is determined by body weight. You are making imaginary scenarios up out of thin air.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Riot

My. god. you. are. ignorant. Yes, the dose of lasix is determined by body weight.

So you are saying an individual horse gets the same amount of lasix each time it races?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

So you are saying an individual horse gets the same amount of lasix each time it races?

Nope. I said the dose is determined by body weight. Those are two different things, even keeping with your concern.

Try learning about what you are talking about, before you declare "how things are"?

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

A lot of what you and CJ want is answers that dont exist and will never exist because this is not an exact science regardless of how hard you scrutinize it.

Sure, it isn't an exact science. However, I have no doubt that a study could be conducted to test if Lasix enhances performance in non-bleeders and bleeders alike. If the sample is large enough, reasonable conclusions could be drawn.

The problem is the people currently doing the testing really have no idea how to measure thoroughbred performance during races, and neither do veterinarians. There are plenty of people that do and could be used as consultants if anyone really had the desire to know. The problem is such an experiment would cost a ton of money and also would require people to let their horses be used in the study.

Outside of that, all I can do is draw conclusions based on the data and experience I've accumulated over the years. I would say with 95 percent certainty that it is a performance enhancer. That is my opinion and I'll stand by it until it is proven otherwise.

One good thing has come out of this finally. You admitted it hasn't been proven that Lasix IS NOT a performance enhancer. I do find it funny that the alleged positives can be tested and proven, yet you claim the single biggest negative can never be tested. Of course it can be tested. It just depends on how badly people want to know the answer.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

However, I have no doubt that a study could be conducted to test if Lasix enhances performance in non-bleeders and bleeders alike. If the sample is large enough, reasonable conclusions could be drawn.

That has been done. More than once. Those studies have existed for many years now.

They've even been quoted in the threads about lasix you write in, but apparently don't read.

I would say with 95 percent certainty that it is a performance enhancer. That is my opinion and I'll stand by it until it is proven otherwise.

The veterinary world says you are dead wrong. But you hang in there being a rebel!

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Riot

That has been done. More than once. Those studies have existed for many years now.

They've even been quoted in the threads about lasix you write in, but apparently don't read.

I do read, and I found the results ambiguous. How could they be anything else when different conclusions are reached?

I also would submit that the testing methods were woefully flawed. The performance measurements were obviously designed by people that knew little about actual racing and how to measure performance.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I do read, and I found the results ambiguous.

Really? Which studies specifically have you found "ambiguous"?

How could they be anything else when different conclusions are reached?

Well, you're suffering a confusion common to people who know nothing about science, and less than nothing about critical, objective thinking.

I also would submit that the testing methods were woefully flawed. The performance measurements were obviously designed by people that knew little about actual racing and how to measure performance.

And again: list which studies you are calling "flawed", and which "measurements" you think are inadequate. Be specific.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Riot

Really? Which studies specifically have you found "ambiguous"?



Well, you're suffering a confusion common to people who know nothing about science, and less than nothing about critical, objective thinking.



And again: list which studies you are calling "flawed", and which "measurements" you think are inadequate. Be specific.

I'm not playing your games.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I'm not playing your games.

Because you don't have a clue about lasix or studies or methods or peer review and scientific quality. You're only good at throwing out mindless and ignorant accusations and invented crap about trainers and veterinarians. You know what you know, and dammit, you're not gonna let any facts or reality change your mind.

Your games are beyond tiresome. It's not about you. It's about the horses.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Riot

The veterinary world says you are dead wrong. But you hang in there being a rebel!

The veterinary world has no idea how to measure thoroughbred performance.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

The veterinary world has no idea how to measure thoroughbred performance.

You don't even know how "the veterinary world" has measured performance.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Riot

You don't even know how "the veterinary world" has measured performance.

I read the reports. They don't know how. They did the best they could with what they had to work with, but that is about the best I can say.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I read the reports. They don't know how. They did the best they could with what they had to work with, but that is about the best I can say.

What the hell are you talking about? There are multiple studies out there, some in the research lab and some retroactive studies of actual racing results.

You just dissed them all as to results and methodology.

You don't have the first clue what you are talking about. You have no idea how veterinarians measured "performance".