Lasix enhances performance

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by docicu3

Good to see you IC.....hope the world is treating you well.

A couple of small points, you already know, I thought might add to what's been said above....

1) Lasix is a sulfur containing diuretic far more similar to Bumex, which is another sulfur containing loop diuretic, than Premarin which is a conjugated estrogen or hormone commonly used in gynecology to limit menstral bleeding by a whole different mechanism. I guess the common thread is the limiting of bleeding to avoid the dreaded 3rd time bleed and a horses forced retirement.

Lasix first works by a) increasing the capacitance of any lung or making more small pipes or cappilaries while holding the same amount of blood in pulmonary circulation, thus lowering pressure in the horse's or human's lungs.

If given IV these effects take place in 20 minutes and last for six hours hence the name. The second effect or b) is to abolish the electrical/osmotic gradient in the kidney cell or nephron responsible for holding on to free water when inhibited a triggering of a fairly massive diuresis of very dilute urine will follow.

It blows my mind that the CHRB compares Lasix to premarin by substitution without making the public aware as Premarin is no where near as effective as a diuretic ..........very very bizarre!!

The metabolic alkalosis it causes does give a horse an advantage racing in that it takes longer and further in a race for a lasix horse to become acidotic or uncomfortable in competition which is another way of saying for it to develop a lactic acidosis because for some period it is neutralizing the acid generated in competition. Further considerations pertaining to aerobic or anaerobic metabolism add more or less to the mechanism above......phew!!

I don't think this is true. No one I asked about this has ever heard of this being the case in CA or anywhere else.

I'm still trying to understand how something that is available to all participants creates a situation where someone has an advantage?

[Indian Charlie]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I'm still trying to understand how something that is available to all participants creates a situation where someone has an advantage?

That is exactly the problem.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

That is exactly the problem.

No, the problem would be if only some had access.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I'm still trying to understand how something that is available to all participants creates a situation where someone has an advantage?

Seriously? It is really simple. Horses that don't need a drug are forced to use it because if they don't they are at a disadvantage. You consider that fair? I've heard it all now.

[richard]

I don't believe Kelly Kip ever used that because they didn't want to. Or Devil His Due.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Seriously? It is really simple. Horses that don't need a drug are forced to use it because if they don't they are at a disadvantage. You consider that fair? I've heard it all now.

What exactly is "unfair" about it? Unfair to who? The horses?

If lasix helps prevent or lessen the severity of a bleeding incident and we have no idea when a bleeding incident will occur than how exactly do you know what horses don't need it?

[richard]

http://www.equibase.com/static/entry...EQB.html#RACE2
Someone tell the trainers of the horses w/o Lasix about performance enhancement.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

What exactly is "unfair" about it? Unfair to who? The horses?

If lasix helps prevent or lessen the severity of a bleeding incident and we have no idea when a bleeding incident will occur than how exactly do you know what horses don't need it?

I just don't find forcing an owner to spend money to drug a horse that doesn't need it to be on a level playing field with the other horses fair. Crazy, I know. We'll just have to agree to disagree. I'll never believe that many horses need Lasix when the rest of the world doesn't use it. Also, our country did just fine without it for the better part of a century.

At least you aren't arguing that Lasix isn't a performance enhancer any longer.

[Fearless Leader]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I just don't find forcing an owner to spend money to drug a horse that doesn't need it to be on a level playing field with the other horses fair. Crazy, I know. We'll just have to agree to disagree. I'll never believe that many horses need Lasix when the rest of the world doesn't use it. Also, our country did just fine without it for the better part of a century.

At least you aren't arguing that Lasix isn't a performance enhancer any longer.

YYaaawnnnnnnn !!!!! Your entire argument is flawed and totally ridiculous. Stop whining already. Your are absolutely 100% incorrect about virtually everything you have said on this topic.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Fearless Leader

YYaaawnnnnnnn !!!!! Your entire argument is flawed and totally ridiculous. Stop whining already. Your are absolutely 100% incorrect about virtually everything you have said on this topic.

Don't shoot the messenger. Please tell me what is wrong in the article I posted rather than being a blowhard. You sound like another horsemen that would follow the Pied Piper into the sea, which is how we got to this point in the first place.

[Fearless Leader]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Don't shoot the messenger. Please tell me what is wrong in the article I posted rather than being a blowhard. You sound like another horsemen that would follow the Pied Piper into the sea, which is how we got to this point in the first place.

Sid Gustafson, D.V.M., is a novelist and equine veterinarian specializing in thoroughbred sports medicine and equine behavior. He currently practices regulatory veterinary medicine, representing the safety and welfare of thoroughbred racehorses.


The bold type in the guy's resume should tell you all you need to know. This guy is as far off the mark and delusional as Glenn Thompson, another novelist on the subject, is.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Don't shoot the messenger. Please tell me what is wrong in the article I posted rather than being a blowhard. You sound like another horsemen that would follow the Pied Piper into the sea, which is how we got to this point in the first place.

Actually we arrived at this point because far too many people have bought into propaganda without understanding the design behind the plan. You are being duped into believing nonsense from people like Sid Guftason who is trying to promote his holistic crap and bs books. Phipps and company have tricked you into believing that the elimination of lasix is going to lead to some sort of prosperity and level playing field, ignoring all other issues by focusing on something that is noted in the program giving it a tangible feel. A ban on lasix makes the sport more expensive for owners a group already shrinking, almost assuredly will lead to more NY Times "incidents" with more horses bleeding severely and less formful races as various treatments (all unknown to bettors) will work to widely varying degrees.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I just don't find forcing an owner to spend money to drug a horse that doesn't need it to be on a level playing field with the other horses fair. Crazy, I know. We'll just have to agree to disagree. I'll never believe that many horses need Lasix when the rest of the world doesn't use it. Also, our country did just fine without it for the better part of a century.

At least you aren't arguing that Lasix isn't a performance enhancer any longer.

So now the concern is the owners financial welfare? Of all the things owners are "forced" to spend the $20 for a shot of lasix is the cheapest and most effective per dollar spent.

Personally I believe trying to turn the clock back 30 years or supposing what goes on in foreign countries to be a waste of time.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

So now the concern is the owners financial welfare? Of all the things owners are "forced" to spend the $20 for a shot of lasix is the cheapest and most effective per dollar spent.

Personally I believe trying to turn the clock back 30 years or supposing what goes on in foreign countries to be a waste of time.

It isn't just spending the money. In what alternate reality world is it acceptable just to give drugs to nearly every participant, and those that don't take it are at a disadvantage. I mean really, that is nuts.

You are saying if you don't want to drug your horse you are at a disadvantage, but that is fine...just can drug them all. And who cares if they have to spend $20, we rob them so many other ways. So those not using drugs are penalized. Nice. Maybe the NTRA could adapt that as a new slogan. I guess it beats "Go, Baby, Go", right. I like the ring to it..."Drug them all!"

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Don't shoot the messenger. Please tell me what is wrong in the article I posted rather than being a blowhard. You sound like another horsemen that would follow the Pied Piper into the sea, which is how we got to this point in the first place.

Originally Posted by cmorioles

It isn't just spending the money. In what alternate reality world is it acceptable just to give drugs to nearly every participant, and those that don't take it are at a disadvantage. I mean really, that is nuts.

You are saying if you don't want to drug your horse you are at a disadvantage, but that is fine...just can drug them all. And who cares if they have to spend $20, we rob them so many other ways. So those not using drugs are penalized. Nice. Maybe the NTRA could adapt that as a new slogan. I guess it beats "Go, Baby, Go", right. I like the ring to it..."Drug them all!"

I'm glad you are stated to be neutral on the subject lol. Let's just agree to disagree because I feel silly having to refute Sid Guftason. This is like trying to explain why dailykos.com isn't a credible source of information on GOP topics.