Prominent horse owners vow to run 2-year-olds without race-day drugs

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Riot

Not treating horses for EIPH is like not treating asthma in humans. EIPH isn't a disease caused by racing. It's a disease of all horses in all sports. Ignoring a disease and not treating it doesn't make the disease go away. It doesn't make for "healthier" people. Or horses. It makes for more suffering and affected, increasing morbidity and mortality.

Any horse retired from the track because of excessive EIPH causing lung damage can go right to the breeding barn, there is zero to physically decrease their ability to breed, other than a race record.

Not rocket science. Just basic science. And the last thing we need is more science deniers in this world.

Just as all humans don't have asthma, all horses don't suffer from EIPH. There are also different levels of bleeding, but hey, just drug em all. I guess I'll start using my son's inhaler...just in case.

Freddy, I have tons of Percocet laying around and an unfilled prescription, should I fill it for you just in case you feel some pain?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Just as all humans don't have asthma, all horses don't suffer from EIPH. There are also different levels of bleeding, but hey, just drug em all. I guess I'll start using my son's inhaler...just in case.

Freddy, I have tons of Percocet laying around and an unfilled prescription, should I fill it for you just in case you feel some pain?

Are you in favor or against withholding a therapeutic medication proven to decrease the incidence and severity of EIPH in horses with evidence of EIPH? A yes or no will suffice.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Riot

Are you in favor or against withholding a therapeutic medication proven to decrease the incidence and severity of EIPH in horses with evidence of EIPH? A yes or no will suffice.

It depends on what you call evidence.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

It depends on what you call evidence.

Diagnostic evidence of the clinical condition as determined by accepted standards of practice (definition) by doctors of veterinary medicine.

I'm not trying to trick you into any answer I'm just trying to see where you draw your line in the sand, and why.

Are you in favor or against withholding a therapeutic medication proven to decrease the incidence and severity of EIPH in horses with evidence of EIPH?

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Riot

Diagnostic evidence of the clinical condition as determined by accepted standards of practice (definition) by doctors of veterinary medicine.

I'm not trying to trick you into any answer I'm just trying to see where you draw your line in the sand, and why.

Are you in favor or against withholding a therapeutic medication proven to decrease the incidence and severity of EIPH in horses with evidence of EIPH?

Honestly, I don't know. If it were merely a therapeutic medication, I would be all for it. However, there are quite a few that believe it enhances performance. There are plenty of vets on both sides of that argument. Studies are slanted towards those paying for them. Some indicate performance enhancement, others don't.

So, until it can be proven it does not enhance performance, I'm against it. The reason I say that is that it forces those horses that don't need drugs to use them to be competitive if it is indeed a performance enhancer.

My personal belief is that it does make horses run faster, and not just because it reduces EIPH. I don't know the scientific reason, that isn't my field. But I have a lot of experience measuring thoroughbred performance and until proven otherwise, I'll stick with that.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Honestly, I don't know. If it were merely a therapeutic medication, I would be all for it. However, there are quite a few that believe it enhances performance. There are plenty of vets on both sides of that argument. Studies are slanted towards those paying for them. Some indicate performance enhancement, others don't.

So, until it can be proven it does not enhance performance, I'm against it. The reason I say that is that it forces those horses that don't need drugs to use them to be competitive if it is indeed a performance enhancer.

My personal belief is that it does make horses run faster, and not just because it reduces EIPH. I don't know the scientific reason, that isn't my field. But I have a lot of experience measuring thoroughbred performance and until proven otherwise, I'll stick with that.

key word, believe.

as for the latter bolded, there have been studies that show it does not enhance. but again, the key word is all that matters. it's why they have such a muddled mess. facts vs beliefs can be messy. do you believe studies that say it enhances, and disbelieve the ones that say it doesn't? if so, then it's your judgement of right and wrong, not what is.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Danzig

key word, believe.

as for the latter bolded, there have been studies that show it does not enhance. but again, the key word is all that matters. it's why they have such a muddled mess. facts vs beliefs can be messy. do you believe studies that say it enhances, and disbelieve the ones that say it doesn't? if so, then it's your judgement of right and wrong, not what is.

There have been studies shown that it does as well. Perhaps believe wasn't the best word. The people that did the studies probably believe them.

I don't know which studies are right, that was my point. My experience would lean towards it enhancing performance. I measure it for a living, and I've had more than my share of time on the backside as well. I don't trust either side to be honest. If I have to pick one side or the other where there is a vast difference of opinion, for now I'll go with the one that doesn't inject 99% of horses with drugs. It doesn't mean my mind couldn't be changed.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Honestly, I don't know. If it were merely a therapeutic medication, I would be all for it. However, there are quite a few that believe it enhances performance.

"Belief" doesn't matter in science and medicine.

There is no objective evidence that lasix is a performance enhancer.

There is overwhelming, unassailable evidence that lasix is a valuable therapeutic medication that attenuates the severity and frequency of EIPH.

There are plenty of vets on both sides of that argument.

No. There are not. The vast, overwhelming majority of veterinarians are in favor of lasix's use as a therapeutic medication, including the American Association of Equine Practitioners, and the American Veterinary Medical Association - both organizations who feel so strongly about the matter, they have published public position papers on the subject.

There are very, very few, outlier vets that think differently, that say no.

Studies are slanted towards those paying for them.

That's a common lay person belief, that is generally wrong. But that is also why studies are published in open, peer-reviewed international magazines, so the methodology and results are open to every scientists opinion and comment.

Thus, studies that stand up to peer-review, scrutiny and question are taken as definitive evidence.

Some indicate performance enhancement, others don't.

No. Those numbers are wrong. I know of one old study with a few horses that indicates an improvement in running in non-EIPH horses, and many, many studies that show the opposite.

So, until it can be proven it does not enhance performance, I'm against it.

It has been proven thus, that it is not a performance-enhancer in non-EIPH horses, via objective examination of all research to date, and thus is the opinion, of the overwhelming majority of scientists and veterinary medical doctors around the world. I am one of them.

Horse racing has a serious problem with performance enhancement, but the water pill that grandma takes for her heart problem, and that horses are given to protect their lungs, isn't it.

As someone whose profession is animal medicine and health, who also cares about horses as an owner/rider/fan, who wants all performance enhancing drugs out of horse racing (and other horse sports), who has experience with published scientific research on lasix, and who puts the welfare of the horse above all else (even client preferences) in my professional life, it is utterly tragic to me that some in horse racing are trying to eliminate a valuable therapeutic medication from use, while true drug problems rage rampant.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Riot

"Belief" doesn't matter in science and medicine.

There is no objective evidence that lasix is a performance enhancer.

There is overwhelming, unassailable evidence that lasix is a valuable therapeutic medication that attenuates the severity and frequency of EIPH.



No. There are not. The vast, overwhelming majority of veterinarians are in favor of lasix's use as a therapeutic medication, including the American Association of Equine Practitioners, and the American Veterinary Medical Association - both organizations who feel so strongly about the matter, they have published public position papers on the subject.

There are very, very few, outlier vets that think differently, that say no.



That's a common lay person belief, that is generally wrong. But that is also why studies are published in open, peer-reviewed international magazines, so the methodology and results are open to every scientists opinion and comment.

Thus, studies that stand up to peer-review, scrutiny and question are taken as definitive evidence.



No. Those numbers are wrong. I know of one old study with a few horses that indicates an improvement in running in non-EIPH horses, and many, many studies that show the opposite.



It has been proven thus, that it is not a performance-enhancer in non-EIPH horses, via objective examination of all research to date, and thus is the opinion, of the overwhelming majority of scientists and veterinary medical doctors around the world. I am one of them.

Horse racing has a serious problem with performance enhancement, but the water pill that grandma takes for her heart problem, and that horses are given to protect their lungs, isn't it.

As someone whose profession is animal medicine and health, who also cares about horses as an owner/rider/fan, who wants all performance enhancing drugs out of horse racing (and other horse sports), who has experience with published scientific research on lasix, and who puts the welfare of the horse above all else (even client preferences) in my professional life, it is utterly tragic to me that some in horse racing are trying to eliminate a valuable therapeutic medication from use, while true drug problems rage rampant.

This simply isn't true. If it were easy to measure performance, which it is not, there would be easy answers. I personally don't think those on the side of non-drug use should have to prove a drug doesn't enhance performance. It should be the other way around. I'm not sure it can be done right now with the tools we have.

Let me ask a simple, yes or no, question. If Frankel raced in the USA or Canada, would he be given Lasix? If so, does he really need it? If not, why not?

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Just as all humans don't have asthma, all horses don't suffer from EIPH. There are also different levels of bleeding, but hey, just drug em all. I guess I'll start using my son's inhaler...just in case.

Freddy, I have tons of Percocet laying around and an unfilled prescription, should I fill it for you just in case you feel some pain?

ABSOLUTELY