NY Task Force on Racehorse Health & Safety Report, Reccos

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Every study I've ever done, and there were many, showed a very high percentage of horses ran faster with 1st time Lasix than they ever did pre-Lasix, so this simply isn't true.

No, that proves actually proves that lasix is efficacious at stopping EIPH. When you can breath, you can run faster and farther. When you can't breath, you slow down until you can breath, or you stop.

Your assumption is that the horses pre-lasix are not bleeding. Hard science says no, that's not true.

You say it is true because of one scope and lack of obvious blood in the nose or trachea. That's a method that misses the diagnosis of bleeding 80% of the time. Other methods with greater detection shows that yes, these horses are bleeding in their dorso-caudal lungs.

[freddymo]

Its really amazing how european horses can drown in their damaged lungs and still drown are wonderfully healthy prestined lunged non bleeding horses.. Dr Hack you are the hack of all hacks

[Riot]

Originally Posted by freddymo

Its really amazing how european horses can drown in their damaged lungs and still drown are wonderfully healthy prestined lunged non bleeding horses.. Dr Hack you are the hack of all hacks

Duly noted.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by freddymo

Its really amazing how european horses can drown in their damaged lungs and still drown are wonderfully healthy prestined lunged non bleeding horses.. Dr Hack you are the hack of all hacks

And many run faster when shipped here and getting Lasix. Horses that don't get Lasix, despite obviously being treated for EIPH the same way as they were overseas, don't have a very good record here. I wonder why.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Riot

No, that proves actually proves that lasix is efficacious at stopping EIPH. When you can breath, you can run faster and farther. When you can't breath, you slow down until you can breath, or you stop.

Your assumption is that the horses pre-lasix are not bleeding. Hard science says no, that's not true.

You say it is true because of one scope and lack of obvious blood in the nose or trachea. That's a method that misses the diagnosis of bleeding 80% of the time. Other methods with greater detection shows that yes, these horses are bleeding in their dorso-caudal lungs.

Again though, this is the problem. How much of a problem is it if it takes that much to detect it? These two year olds at Saratoga that didn't bleed will race faster with Lasix on average, I guarentee it. Of course you say they did bleed without proof, calling those people that said they didn't liars basically. How convenient.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Again though, this is the problem. How much of a problem is it if it takes that much to detect it? These two year olds at Saratoga that didn't bleed will race faster with Lasix on average, I guarentee it. Of course you say they did bleed without proof, calling those people that said they didn't liars basically. How convenient.

Wont the vast majority of two year olds run faster as they get older?

[Riot]

I will not argue proven science. This is the basic "hard" science about EIPH and furosemide - meaning this is what has been repeatedly proven beyond any doubt as of 2012:

All horses, of all breeds, that work at hard speed suffer from Exercise-Induced Pulmonary Hemorrhage.

It is not a breed-specific problem (not restricted to only TB or Standardbred) It is not thought to be strongly genetically associated because it is not a bloodline or breed problem, it is a species problem.

Bleeding originates from damage to the capillaries in the alveolar-capillary interface in the lungs (where the lungs pick up oxygen from the air sacs).

The location of damage in the lungs is caudo-dorsal, meaning top-back, and is a bit unusual compared to other species that suffer EIPH (racing greyhound, racing camels, human)

Location of damage and causality currently thought to be most associated with leg-strike induced shockwaves through lung tissue under weight of rider, but multifactorial.

All thoroughbred horses are considered to bleed and suffer varying degrees of EIPH (from microscopic to frank blood from nostrils to rare instant death) proven by examination of thousand of horses.

Thus EIPH is considered ubiquitous for morbidity among TB race horses. All racing horses are considered affected, whether they bleed enough to show blood in trachea or not.

Furosemide is a loop diuretic that decreases the incidence of EIPH in nearly all horses. That efficacy is not solely due to dehydration, but is helped by dehydration, nor is efficacy due to horse weight loss.

Horses that receive furosemide run farther and faster (averaging 3 to 5 lengths) than horses that do not (varies significantly, though, sprint vs long distance, speed of race).

The reason that horses run better on lasix is because their bleeding is measurably decreased, thus the physical obstruction of oxygenating is removed, and their oxygen saturation in their blood is better.

Performance is not improved due to any slight alkalosis, nor slight weight loss, nor any "hop" effect - it is because the horse can breath better. Horses that do not get EIPH from their sport gain zero performance advantage from a shot of lasix.

Thus Lasix is not a 'performance enhancer", it is a therapeutic medication that treats a specific problem inherent in racing horses, racing camels, racing greyhounds, etc.

Lasix can not dilute the urine to mask drugs. It cannot mask NSAIDs or opiates. The timing of drawing blood for drug tests is after the peak after injection of lasix.

We know the pharmacology and toxicology of furosemide in great detail, it has been used for some time in many species for a variety of problems. It is not particularly complicated, nor does it have undiscovered side effects.

The peak effect of lasix is about 1 hour after it is given IV, and then tapers quickly, the effect is virtually gone by race time 3 hours later. The horse is not racing "on" lasix.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Riot

I will not argue proven science. YADA, YADA, YADA.

In other words, you won't address any of the reasonable points I made, you'll just repeat the same mantra ad nauseum.

It is true, I'm no vet, but I know horsesh!t when I see it. I will say it is comical that I, and others, get chastised because we aren't vets but give opinions, but a bunch of vets think they know how to measure horse speed.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

In other words, you won't address any of the reasonable points I made,

No. I have attempted multiple times on this board to address, in a reasonable and honest fashion, your factual errors about what lasix can and cannot do.

I have honestly quoted to you the proven, unquestionable science. I have tried to give you the real facts.

You have always simply ignored it or dismissed it out of hand as you did above.

You can't refute the science, it's what it is. The facts matter. The truth matters. That isn't my opinion, it's just the truth. My opinion is formed by the truth.

You're is formed in your imagination.

You have always, and continue to, ignore discussing the issue of lasix from a factual scientific basis.

You deny proven science exists. You simply, purposely ignore whatever doesn't fit your opinion.

Thus "debating" you on lasix is futile, and a colossal waste of time, because you don't ever debate honestly from the basis of truthful scientific fact about the drug.

you'll just repeat the same mantra ad nauseum.

Yes, you do.

It is true, I'm no vet, but I know horsesh!t when I see it. I will say it is comical that I, and others, get chastised because we aren't vets but give opinions, but a bunch of vets think they know how to measure horse speed.

You get "chastised" because you confuse "opinion" with "factual reality" and "science"

When a horse is running on a high-speed treadmill set at 16 meters/second squared - yeah. We "do" know how to measure speed. And yeah - we know how to do those "statistics" things when examining 27,000+ horses that race in Australia, North and South America, and South Africa, too.

Dismissing the hard, proven science out of hand - not any "new" information, mind you, but studies whose facts have been independently verified and repeated over and over by scientists in multiple disciplines - is what make the "anti-lasix" argument folks a complete loser.

You might as well embrace creationism to further your arguments about lasix. It's the same thing as your blatant dismissal of all proven science.

I repeat: Thus "debating" you on lasix is futile, and a colossal waste of time, because you don't ever debate honestly from the basis of truthful scientific fact about the drug.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Riot

When a horse is racing on a high-speed treadmill set at 16 meters/second squared - yeah. We "do" know how to measure speed.

Comical. When horses start racing on treadmills, maybe that will have some merit. I can't think of a dumber way to try to measure horse speed. You measure speed in races, not on a treadmill or even during workouts. If that worked, every winning first time starter would pay $2.20.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Wont the vast majority of two year olds run faster as they get older?

You disassembled a Transformer....good job.


Not easy.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Wont the vast majority of two year olds run faster as they get older?

Of course they will, but the same would be true of 3yos, 4yos, and older. The problem, of course, is that very few horses go that long without lasix these days.

That said, I've been measuring performance of 2yos and projecting improvement into the figures for years, so when I talk about "faster" it excludes a lot of the natural maturation. I know every horse is different, but it works very well.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Again though, this is the problem. How much of a problem is it if it takes that much to detect it? These two year olds at Saratoga that didn't bleed will race faster with Lasix on average, I guarentee it. Of course you say they did bleed without proof, calling those people that said they didn't liars basically. How convenient.

No. I said that you are calling those horses "clear" of EIPH using a test which misses that diagnosis 80% of the time. If you don't look for it, you don't find it.

If we did BAL on those horses, they would all show bleeding.

I have posted before the efficacy rate of various testing methodologies for EIPH (BAL vs scope, for example) and you have simply always continued to ignore it exists.

Using an endoscope to diagnose EIPH is like diagnosing chip fractures in the ankles by palpation only, not using radiographs.