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

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Riot

This is interesting info published last year.

They took 37 baby 2-year-old thoroughbreds, and exercised them at the track for 5 months. Then they breezed them over 2-3 furlongs, and looked to see if they had evidence of bleeding in their lungs. No lasix or history of racing, no training on lasix.

(sounds like the 2-year-old in training sales, doesn't it?)

24 hours after their breezes, 23 had evidence of microscopic bleeding down in the lung. 14 did not.

Now, they also found that the horses that bled? Had increased inflammation in the lung, and decreased immune response capability against bacteria and other particles that can get down in the lung. All at the microscopic level.

That's a respiratory infection waiting to happen.

That is a good reason why lasix should be permitted as a race day therapeutic medication.

Even in the 14 that didn't bleed? Did horses in the 70s and 80s have a rash of respiratory infections? I sure don't remember it. Do we even no if this microscopic bleeding causes poorer performance?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Even in the 14 that didn't bleed? Did horses in the 70s and 80s have a rash of respiratory infections? I sure don't remember it. Do we even no if this microscopic bleeding causes poorer performance?

That has been discussed in some depth earlier in the thread. You can look back and read it.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Riot

That has been discussed earlier in the thread. You can look back and read it.

I'd rather read War and Peace. I scanned through it and couldn't find it.

We all know these studies will usually find exactly what the people funding the study want it to find. I prefer to use common sense. Horses raced for decades with this undetected microscopic bleeding. They seemed to be just fine, and were a lot sturdier lot than what we have now. I certainly don't think Lasix is the only problem, but shouldn't it have at least helped a little bit with horses being able to run more often?

Like I've said, as a bettor I don't really care if it is banned. I just have to laugh when those that say it isn't a performance enhancer dismiss that as ridiculous. Their actions contradict everything they say.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I'd rather read War and Peace. I scanned through it and couldn't find it.

We all know these studies will usually find exactly what the people funding the study want it to find.

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".

I prefer to use common sense. Horses raced for decades with this undetected microscopic bleeding.

That's right.

They seemed to be just fine,

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.

and were a lot sturdier lot than what we have now.

That's an assumption stated as fact.

I certainly don't think Lasix is the only problem, but shouldn't it have at least helped a little bit with horses being able to run more often?

It DOES help. ALOT. Measurably and repeatedly. There is plenty of proof over the past 40 years.

Like I've said, as a bettor I don't really care if it is banned. I just have to laugh when those that say it isn't a performance enhancer dismiss that as ridiculous.

We'll, we're just going by the science.

[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.

[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

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

We all know these studies will usually find exactly what the people funding the study want it to find. I prefer to use common sense. I just have to laugh when those that say it isn't a performance enhancer dismiss that as ridiculous.

More hit-and-run quotes from choice abstracts:

-Given the purported ergogenic effects of frusemide, the external nasal strip is a valuable alternative for the attenuation of EIPH

-Improvement of performance in the furosemide trials was due more to the weight-loss related effects of the drug than its apparent alleviation of EIPH

-The existing literature references suggest that furosemide has the potential of increasing performance in horses without significantly changing the bleeding status.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

More hit-and-run quotes from choice abstracts:

You can't cherry pick out individual sentences from abstracts while completely ignoring the breadth of work and the other sentences in the paragraphs. For example, you quote this

-The existing literature references suggest that furosemide has the potential of increasing performance in horses without significantly changing the bleeding status.

But you fail to quote a few sentences later:

This is substantiated by clinical observations that the administration of furosemide to horses with EIPH may reduce haemorrhage but does not completely stop it.

Science - not your thing

Rollo, the entirely of the veterinary community has one fairly united opinion on this. What is your explanation for that?

And yes, as has been previously pointed out here, the FLAIR nasal strips have the same efficacy in decreasing the severity of EIPH as lasix does. Glad you noticed.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Riot

And yes, as has been previously pointed out here, the FLAIR nasal strips have the same efficacy in decreasing the severity of EIPH as lasix does. Glad you noticed.

Good thing there's an alternative that doesn't require a raceday injection in case lasix does end up getting banned.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

Good thing there's an alternative that doesn't require a raceday injection in case lasix does end up getting banned.

Yes. Buy stock. Lasix will never be banned. That would harm too many horses. That the industry is even considering lasix a problem shows the ignorance and absurdity of those in charge.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

Good thing there's an alternative that doesn't require a raceday injection in case lasix does end up getting banned.

Imagine the uproar if every human athlete was stuck with a needle before competition...every time.

[Indian Charlie]

Arguing medical issues with true believers is utter folly, Rollo, Rupert, and CJ.

It's like trying to talk reason to a religious zealot. Can't be done, and it's stupid to even think you can.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

Arguing equine medical issues with a person whose name is on several of the studies and is a veterinarian is utter folly, Rollo, Rupert, and CJ.

It's like trying to talk reason to a religious zealot. Can't be done, and it's stupid to even think you can.

Fixed that for you, big guy

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by Riot

Fixed that for you, big guy

You know what, you actually did make my post better and made my point far better than I ever could have.

I offer you a sincere thank you for that.