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

[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.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

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.

but that's the thing...if there are two findings, then i guess it does come down to bias. i really don't know myself if it's good or not. on the face of it, blocking hemorraging would be good. and if you don't know who to treat, or not to treat, then what do you do? personally i'd rather prevent than say i wish i'd prevented. after the fact is too late.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Danzig

but that's the thing...if there are two findings, then i guess it does come down to bias. i really don't know myself if it's good or not. on the face of it, blocking hemorraging would be good. and if you don't know who to treat, or not to treat, then what do you do? personally i'd rather prevent than say i wish i'd prevented. after the fact is too late.

So drug them all, then, right? I just have a problem with that I guess. If other places didn't do just fine racing without drugs, maybe I would feel differently.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

So drug them all, then, right? I just have a problem with that I guess. If other places didn't do just fine racing without drugs, maybe I would feel differently.

i don't know. i know i asked you before about harm from lasix. is there? i think you'd said no before.
as for others-yeah, they ship them to where they can use lasix when they bleed, so they know it helps bleeders. wonder where we'll ship ours? or if there is a horse with an issue, it's better to not treat? just seems that we can never find a happy medium with things like this.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i don't know. i know i asked you before about harm from lasix. is there? i think you'd said no before.
as for others-yeah, they ship them to where they can use lasix when they bleed, so they know it helps bleeders. wonder where we'll ship ours? or if there is a horse with an issue, it's better to not treat? just seems that we can never find a happy medium with things like this.

I don't know if it harms them. I do know horses are running less and less and lasting fewer seasons since it was introduced.

Yes, they ship bleeders here, but those are the chronic type, not that kind that have to be scoped to find microscopic traces of blood. Hell, after I jog a few miles, I'd probably qualify for the stuff these days.