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

[Bill K]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

And isn't it the crux of the issue? Was Lasix originally legalized as a preventative measure for non-bleeders? Of course not, it was used to try to cure those that had bled.

Unfortunately lasix has never been proved to prevent EPIH. If it doesn't prevent why the nearly 100% use in USA racing?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Bill K

Unfortunately lasix has never been proved to prevent EPIH. If it doesn't prevent why the nearly 100% use in USA racing?

Lasix has been proven to markedly decrease the incidence and severity of EIPH in a quantitative and qualitative manner. As previously discussed in this thread, there are thought to be multifactoral causes of EIPH, and yes, lasix does not prevent EIPH in 100% of horses. Just the vast majority.

This is the valid veterinary medical proof of the drugs efficacy over decades, and there is no "opinion" available on that matter. The evidence is so strong, and the benefit to the race horse so obvious, that the American Association of Equine Practitioners and the American Veterinary Medical Association both support keeping lasix as an approved race day therapeutic medication, while they support the elimination of every single other medication we have for race day use.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Riot

Lasix has been proven to markedly decrease the incidence and severity of EIPH in a quantitative and qualitative manner.

When and where was this published?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

When and where was this published?

Well, you can read the 120 available studies on the subject over the past 40-50 years by clicking on this link and entering the words

EIPH equine

in the search term box at the top.

Then hit "search".

If you enter the terms EIPH equine lasix you'll get another 28 studies that are more specific.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Riot

Well, you can read the 120 available studies on the subject over the past 40-50 years by clicking on this link and entering the words

EIPH equine

in the search term box at the top.

Then hit "search".

If you enter the terms EIPH equine lasix you'll get another 28 studies that are more specific.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/

Sounds like an evasion.

I played along anyhow. Here's what I found:

-No significant differences were detected among treatments. (2009)

-At this time, there is no treatment that is considered a panacea, and the currently allowed treatments have not proven to be effective in preventing EIPH. (2003)

-In conclusion, although both modalities (nasal strip and furosemide) were successful in mitigating EIPH, neither abolished EIPH fully as evaluated via BAL. (2001)

-Although in the frusemide-control experiments, a significant reduction in mean pulmonary arterial, capillary and wedge pressures was observed both at rest and during galloping at 14 m/s on 3.5% uphill grade, all horses still experienced EIPH.(2001)

-Comparison of average and maximum EIPH scores of 44 horses with a minimum of 4 observations (2 nontreated, 1 saline-treated, and 1 furosemide-treated) indicated that although furosemide did not stop EIPH, it did reduce the EIPH score in 28 (64%) horses. (1985)

-Furosemide administered in different dosages and time intervals prior to exercise did not prevent EIPH. (1984)

[Riot]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

Sounds like an evasion.

I played along anyhow. Here's what I found:

No. It's not an evasion. Just surprise that anybody who has actually been reading along this thread expects there to be one paper that supports what I said - which is the uniform position of the discipline of veterinary medicine, as proven by the research.

You might read the entirety of the thread where this has been discussed already?

So now that you've "played along" superficially and shallowly, you can "play along" for real, and quote the other multiple studies that do exactly what I said, which was: Lasix has been proven to markedly decrease the incidence and severity of EIPH in a quantitative and qualitative manner.

You might also read the thread, where the concepts of "prevention" and "cause" and "attenuate" and "reduce incidence and severity" have already been discussed.

Because it appears that you are wrongly thinking that there is a claim that lasix prevents bleeding in all horses. Which nobody has ever maintained. It's clear you are confusing the different things, "prevent" and "decrease the incidence and reduce the severity".

In fact, two of the studies you superficially quoted, above, prove exactly what I said. Like this one:

-Comparison of average and maximum EIPH scores of 44 horses with a minimum of 4 observations (2 nontreated, 1 saline-treated, and 1 furosemide-treated) indicated that although furosemide did not stop EIPH, it did reduce the EIPH score in 28 (64%) horses.

-In conclusion, although both modalities (nasal strip and furosemide) were successful in mitigating EIPH, neither abolished EIPH fully as evaluated via BAL. (2001)

And one of the studies you quoted, above, about not working, isn't even talking about lasix, but an entirely different drug.

Again, as discussed throughout this thread: clinical practice and research shows that lasix works to decrease the frequency and severity of EIPH in race horses. All horses? No. Completely eliminate? No, but it has in some. Does it not work in some animals? That's right, due to what has previously been discussed here.

[Bill K]

Originally Posted by Riot

Lasix has been proven to markedly decrease the incidence and severity of EIPH in a quantitative and qualitative manner. As previously discussed in this thread, there are thought to be multifactoral causes of EIPH, and yes, lasix does not prevent EIPH in 100% of horses. Just the vast majority.

This is the valid veterinary medical proof of the drugs efficacy over decades, and there is no "opinion" available on that matter. The evidence is so strong, and the benefit to the race horse so obvious, that the American Association of Equine Practitioners and the American Veterinary Medical Association both support keeping lasix as an approved race day therapeutic medication, while they support the elimination of every single other medication we have for race day use.

Unfortunately that is not true. There is no prove. Yes a study in South Africa seemed to indicate a lessening of EIPH. This certainly was not extensive study. No one seems to every refer to the head Vet who testified before Congress that their extensive study didn't show Lasix to perform as a deterrent of bleeding in horses and was used as a masking agent for other PEDs.That is right in the congressional record.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Bill K

Unfortunately that is not true. There is no prove. Yes a study in South Africa seemed to indicate a lessening of EIPH. This certainly was not extensive study. No one seems to every refer to the head Vet who testified before Congress that their extensive study didn't show Lasix to perform as a deterrent of bleeding in horses and was used as a masking agent for other PEDs.That is right in the congressional record.

Perhaps because the preponderance of other evidence doesn't support that postion.

This is not an opinion matter. It's either true, or it isn't. And there are at least 50 current studies that show that yes, lasix mitigates exercise-induced pulmonary hemorrhage. That's not my opinion. It's fact.

You can go check it yourself at the links I have given.

It's scientific, measurable fact as publicly supported by the American Veterinary Medical Association and the American Association of Equine Practitioners.

As said before: does it stop bleeding in all horses? No, as EIPH has multifactoral causes. And nobody has ever maintained that. Does it decrease the extent of bleeding in most, and stop it in some? Yes, indeed.

The comment about not being able to find drugs in dilute urine is laughable nonsense that was last true about 25 years ago.

This type of ridiculous misinformation, deliberate ignoring of facts to support a predetermined political agenda, is exactly what is dangerous to this sport, but more importantly, the health of our horses.

You can't fix deliberate, purposeful ignorance.

Lasix can be banned in US racing, if racing wants no drugs at all to be used. But trying to ban it based upon decades-old falsehoods and ridiculous lies needs to be confronted for the scientifically disproven fantasy it is.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Bill K

Unfortunately that is not true. There is no prove. Yes a study in South Africa seemed to indicate a lessening of EIPH. This certainly was not extensive study. No one seems to every refer to the head Vet who testified before Congress that their extensive study didn't show Lasix to perform as a deterrent of bleeding in horses and was used as a masking agent for other PEDs.That is right in the congressional record.

There is plenty of proof you just choose to ignore it. The vet that testified in front of congress is an animal rights activist who was brought in specifically to preach. I have 30 years experience with thoroughbred racehorses and it has been my experience over those 30 years that lasix helps considerably with horses who bled and was a far better method of controlling bleeding than what we used prior to its use. Of course there might have just been a few decades worth of coincidences and maybe we just lucky all those years???

And Rafael Palmeiro also is in the congressional record as stating that he never took steroids....


I think what so many people miss here is that bleeding is not a big problem anymore because we have the ability to use lasix to combat it. No lasix means that the problem will worsen and a whole cottage industry will rise consisting of things that will be used to try to tackle the issue. In the end the lack of lasix will have a detrimental effect on the horses.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Bill K

Unfortunately that is not true. There is no prove. Yes a study in South Africa seemed to indicate a lessening of EIPH. This certainly was not extensive study. No one seems to every refer to the head Vet who testified before Congress that their extensive study didn't show Lasix to perform as a deterrent of bleeding in horses and was used as a masking agent for other PEDs.That is right in the congressional record.

As an attorney who does significant personal injury and medical malpractice in addition to criminal law, I can assure you that with the right money you can find a doctor or vet to say just about anything.

There will be conclusions generally on both sides of an issue like this, you just have to wade through them and determine where the majority seem to lean and the ones that make more logical sense.

Prevention is not the only purpose of the drug, reduction is just as important if not more than prevention.

[Danzig]

... 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?

now, pointman, that is a good question. wonder if you'll get a good answer?

Originally Posted by pointman

As an attorney who does significant personal injury and medical malpractice in addition to criminal law, I can assure you that with the right money you can pay a doctor or vet to say just about anything.There will be conclusions generally on both sides of an issue like this, you just have to wade through them and determine where the majority seem to lean and the ones that make more logical sense.

Prevention is not the only purpose of the drug, reduction is just as important if not more than prevention.

no joke!!

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Bill K

Unfortunately lasix has never been proved to prevent EPIH. If it doesn't prevent why the nearly 100% use in USA racing?

I've been asking the same question.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I've been asking the same question.

But ignoring the answers.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Riot

But ignoring the answers.

So by your latest study we give drugs to 99% of horses Lasix because 64% have microscopic bleeding?