Lasix again

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

We were told 90+% of horses bleed (I don't remember the exact number). I've taken enough statistics classes to know the results in the article would be enough to think that number is totally bogus. 15 out of 41 bled, not near the high percentage that was quoted. That would be statistically significant given the base of 90+% that has been cited. In other words, if horses really bled at such a high rate, the odds of finding a sample of 41 where only 36% match the criteria are basically nil.

And 10 out of 14 WITH Lasix bled? Yeah, that doesn't sound too effective to me. And we are talking the best (and best cared for) horses.

90% bleed at some point, not necessarily on Breeders Cup weekend. If 90% of horses bled every race there would be no racing. You see what people don't seem to understand is that we don't have any idea of when it will happen.

The fact that 45% of them showed some sign of EIPH was surprisingly high to me considering these are lightly raced, young horses in a good weather environment.

Of course I realize that the numbers here are completely random and nothing can really be gleaned from them with any degree of accuracy.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

90% bleed at some point, not necessarily on Breeders Cup weekend. If 90% of horses bled every race there would be no racing. You see what people don't seem to understand is that we don't have any idea of when it will happen.

The fact that 45% of them showed some sign of EIPH was surprisingly high to me considering these are lightly raced, young horses in a good weather environment.

Of course I realize that the numbers here are completely random and nothing can really be gleaned from them with any degree of accuracy.

Completely random is a stretch. It isn't like it was 3 horses. What about the horses that bled through Lasix, 10 of 14. That random too?

I would like to know level "bled significantly" represents.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Completely random is a stretch. It isn't like it was 3 horses. What about the horses that bled through Lasix, 10 of 14. That random too?

I would like to know level "bled significantly" represents.

Horses bleed. Sometimes with lasix, sometimes without. Sometimes they race poorly and don't bleed. Sometimes they race well and do. Until a horse becomes a chronic bleeder it is almost always a random act. being that these were almost all lightly raced 2 year olds it is hard to imagine that there are too many chronic cases here.

I actually know what these things mean. I actually have seen the results of thousands scope reports. I have actual practical experience with racehorses, EIPH and lasix.

So just continue to disregard my posts, hell put them on ignore them if you'd prefer. Why understand the reality of a situation when you can be part of a "revolution" as I saw the anti-lasix cartel being described as on the internet this afternoon?

[cmorioles]

All I'm saying is that if 10 of 14 of the top horses still bled on Lasix, something is wrong. It isn't all wine and roses with Lasix. There are negatives, and the positives aren't as positive as many pretend.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

All I'm saying is that if 10 of 14 of the top horses still bled on Lasix, something is wrong. It isn't all wine and roses with Lasix. There are negatives, and the positives aren't as positive as many pretend.

And I'm saying that making any judgement based on the results of one race of Cal bred 2 yo's is insane. No one is saying that lasix is 100% effective or is some wonder drug. However unfortunately it is the best option that we have at this point.

If you want to take something negative out of the "study" consider that 45% of the horses scoped showed some signs of EIPH with or without lasix.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

And I'm saying that making any judgement based on the results of one race of Cal bred 2 yo's is insane. No one is saying that lasix is 100% effective or is some wonder drug. However unfortunately it is the best option that we have at this point.

If you want to take something negative out of the "study" consider that 45% of the horses scoped showed some signs of EIPH with or without lasix.

And I'm just saying if it is the best we have, it might not be worth having.

While I'm sure Lasix is far from the only reason the sport is in constant decline, I do think it is a reason. And a lot smarter people than me think so too.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

And I'm just saying if it is the best we have, it might not be worth having.

While I'm sure Lasix is far from the only reason the sport is in constant decline, I do think it is a reason. And a lot smarter people than me think so too.

better to have lasix to treat a bleeder, than to just have bleeders. some horses bleed thru-how much worse would those incidents be without lasix? and i think many put their horses on it because it's not construed as dangerous, and because there's no way to know ahead of time that a bleeding episode is coming.

as for lasix causing a decline in the sport-i've had conversations over the years with people about racing. not one has ever said 'well, i don't follow it due to meds/lasix'. they just aren't into the sport. and knowing how casual so many people are regarding drugs and people, i have a hard time believing that many folks give much thought to it in racing. people who don't follow racing don't really know about medications, and why they're given. they don't care either, because they aren't into the sport to begin with. it's like the tour de france...it's not the only bike race, but it's the only one most people know. lance armstrong isn't the only guy busted in that sport, but he's probably the only guy people could name-because they don't follow the sport.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

And I'm just saying if it is the best we have, it might not be worth having.

While I'm sure Lasix is far from the only reason the sport is in constant decline, I do think it is a reason. And a lot smarter people than me think so too.

The supposedly smart people who use logic that blames lasix use for the decline of the game are a far greater cause of the decline of the sport than anything.

Ignoring the real issues and dragging the sport through the mud arguing about lasix is not the panacea that so many think. We effectively rid the game of steroids just a few years ago and yet nothing changed and in fact in the minds of many of those supposedly smart people things have gotten worse not better. Getting rid of lasix will accomplish nothing either. Juice trainers will continue on, super trainers will continue on, stallion farms will continue to retire "star" horses, the day to day cards will continue to feature mostly crap races, more tracks not attached to racinos will continue to close, tracks with racinos will begin to close, takeout levels will most likely rise to make up the drying up slot money... Do any of those smart people think lasix is causing any of those issues?