Dueling Vet's on Lasix

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by freddymo

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.

I don't think it's disputed that a horse can run faster when he's not bleeding in his lungs, and study after study has shown that the vast majority of race horses bleed in their lungs at some point in their careers. Is something that, at best, enables horses to run to the limit of their ability (as opposed to below it) a performance enhancer? I mean, it's not like it can make a slow horse fast.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

I don't think it's disputed that a horse can run faster when he's not bleeding in his lungs, and study after study has shown that the vast majority of race horses bleed in their lungs at some point in their careers. Is something that, at best, enables horses to run to the limit of their ability (as opposed to below it) a performance enhancer? I mean, it's not like it can make a slow horse fast.

Dr Cohen suggests the following:


“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.


Strange that there is such diversity in Vet's opinions on a fairly simple condition to substantiate?

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by freddymo

Dr Cohen suggests the following:


“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.


Strange that there is such diversity in Vet's opinions on a fairly simple condition to substantiate?

His math is dubious at best. But besides that, if he has been scoping horses for 30 years....and 99% of the horses he is scoping are on Lasix, and thus 99% of horses don't bleed, what point exactly is he trying to make? That it works?

How could he possibly know that less than 10% of horses actually need it if 99% of his test samples are on it?

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by freddymo

Dr Cohen suggests the following:


“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.


Strange that there is such diversity in Vet's opinions on a fairly simple condition to substantiate?

As I said earlier, he says, "That really bleed." Now, it's hard to tell exactly what is meant without hearing the tone, but in a lot of situations, "really" means "a lot." Like, "It's really hot out," or "he's really cute," or "that was a really bad op-ed Bill wrote there." If he means "really bleed" as in, bleed to where you can see it with the naked eye because it's coming out the horse's nose, then sure, I'll give him that only ten percent of the horses he's scoped "really bleed."

Rudeboyelvis also pointed out something I missed: that if the horses the vet is scoping are running/training on Lasix, then yes, it would stand to reason that most of them wouldn't bleed. Because that's what Lasix does, makes them not bleed.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

I don't think it's disputed that a horse can run faster when he's not bleeding in his lungs, and study after study has shown that the vast majority of race horses bleed in their lungs at some point in their careers. Is something that, at best, enables horses to run to the limit of their ability (as opposed to below it) a performance enhancer? I mean, it's not like it can make a slow horse fast.

I think you are a little bit confused. If a horse bleeds a drop, that is not going to affect their performance. I've been with vets while they are scoping horses after races on numerous occasions. They will tell me whether the horse bled, and if so, to what extent, and whether or not it affected the horse's performance. In most cases, the horses don't bleed. In maybe 10-20% of the cases, the vet will say the horse barely bled, that there was a drop of blood in the horse's throat. In these cases when I asked whether or not this affected the horse's performance in any way, every vet has always said, "No." Occasionally there will be a case where they can see a decent amount of blood in the horse's throat and they will tell you that the horse did bleed enough to have affected his performance. That happens maybe 5-10% of the time at most.

Don't get me wrong. When your horse bleeds, it is never a good thing. Even if it is only a drop, there is always a chance the problem could get worse. You need to pay attention to it.

Anyway, my point is that if your contention is that the only reason that horses run faster with lasix is because it stops them from bleeding, you are totally wrong. Lasix does lessen the chances of a horse bleeding. You are correct that if you stop a horse from bleeding, he will run faster. That is true and that is one of the reasons that horses run faster with lasix. But that is not the main reason. If you take horses that have never bled and you put them on lasix, most of them will run faster. Practically any vet will tell you that.