Derby Trail Forums - NYTHA Lasix Primer & Letter to NYS RWB

Derby Trail Forums (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/index.php)

- The Paddock (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=2)

- - NYTHA Lasix Primer & Letter to NYS RWB (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46678)

How about we use Robinal instead? Or Premerin and La'Arginine.....why do people think we have to replicate racing from other countries? Really us Americans do a whole lot of stuff way different than other countries because we ARE different. People who own horses and dont like Lasix, dont use it then.

that's still medication honu. it's not whether it's useful or has a purpose, or even that we aren't in fact the only country that allows lasix-whether on raceday or in training.

a certain segment wants raceday medication banned. it doesn't matter if it would make a horse walk on water, they feel raceday use, regardless of merit, is wrong.

guess we may see how it'll shake out if it gets banned. if nothing else, it'll be interesting.

you can give a million reasons why it should stay, that means nothing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig (Post 861126)

Actually Premerin and La'Arginine are not given on race day....one is given 36 hours out and the 24 hours out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honu (Post 861124)

People who own horses and dont like Lasix, dont use it then...AND LOSE, REPEATEDLY.

FTFY

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmorioles (Post 861133)

FTFY

How do you know?

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmorioles (Post 860978)

If it does, then these horses shipping in from Europe that don't race with Lasix over there don't have any.

This makes no sense. Where was it said that all horses would incur lung tissue damage w/o lasix? Why are european shippers being held up as some sort of standard when they make up a miniscule number of the entire population?

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmorioles (Post 860982)

But 93% of all horses bleed. Obviously all the bleeders don't get sent here, only the worst ones. Are you trying to say most of the G1 winners that shipped in from overseas are part of the magic 7%?

Obviously of the 93% that bleed there is a wide variance between severe damage to very minor damage. Naturally it could be pointed out that lasix may be preventing much more severe damage by minimizing incidences.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin (Post 861003)

Some people think that lasix is one of the reasons why horses run less now than they did 30 years ago. I don't know whether this is true or not. I think it is certainly a reasonable hypothesis. I know that you do not think it is true.

My question to you is whether you think the opposite is true. Do you believe that the advent of lasix has actually increased the number of starts per horse, per year (when the other factors that have decreased starts are taken out of the equation)? If everything Riot says about lasix is true, lasix should actually increase the number of starts per year, per horse. Yet I think that all the evidence points to the opposite. Sure there may be other reasons why starts per year have gone down. But I still think the best case scenario is that lasix has had no effect on number of starts per horse, per year. If it has no effect, then I think all the supposed positive benefits are overstated. We know that when a horse bleeds in a race, that horse will need extra time off before his next race. If lasix is doing such a great job of preventing bleeding, then you would expect that lasix would lead to more starts per year, per horse. There is no evidence that this has happened. If anything, the evidence points to the opposite.

Some people think Obama is one of our best presidents too. Most people are stupid. I have no idea why anyone would think this is a reasonable hypothesis because there is ZERO evidence tying lasix to fewer starts except a trend which was already going strong long befre lasix was being used.

The number of starts per year has been decreasing since 1960.

You and many others use "stats" to try to convince yourself that you are right but that ignores that there is no logical reason that lasix would lead to less starts and also ignores every other factor that has an effect. Ask yourself why horses started more in 1960 than they did in 1950. Ask youself why they started less in 1970 than 1960. Lasix has nothing to do with either question obviously.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honu (Post 861128)

Actually Premerin and La'Arginine are not given on race day....one is given 36 hours out and the 24 hours out.

Premarin is not going to go over with the PETA crowd considering where it comes from.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honu
People who own horses and dont like Lasix, dont use it then...AND LOSE, REPEATEDLY.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmorioles (Post 861133)

FTFY

It is amazing what horses can do when they are not bleeding into their lungs.

Why, they can run to their best effort! :tro:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 861143)

It is amazing what horses can do when they are not bleeding into their lungs.

Why, they can run even better than their best effort! :tro:

FTFY

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmorioles (Post 861144)

FTFY

No thanks. I have an evidence-based opinion on frusemide. Not an unsubstantiated, factually-opposed and rationally-bereft cultist dogma ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 861145)

Thanks!

No problem.

Quote:

cmorioles says:

Why, they [horses] can run even better than their best effort!

Prove it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 861147)

I'm sold!

I knew you'd come around.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmorioles (Post 861148)

Why, they [horses] can run even better than their best effort!

Prove it.

Anything?

Anything at all?

Nope?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot (Post 861150)

Thank goodness I've overcome this!

Glad I could help.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honu (Post 861128)

Actually Premerin and La'Arginine are not given on race day....one is given 36 hours out and the 24 hours out.

wouldn't matter to them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell (Post 861138)

oh, come now cannon. it's obviously connected. and i'm surprised no one has mentioned the fact we haven't had a t.c. winner since the 70's-i have no doubt that's also the fault of lasix. it's obvious, look at the stats. lasix started in the 70's, and that was when we had our last 3. it's far-reaching at that. look at england; has there been a triple winner in england since nijunsky II?
matter of fact, we started having energy issues in the 70's-i bet there's a tie-in with that as well. it's so obvious, just look at the stats.

besides, if you remove lasix, obviously all issues in racing will completely disappear. new fans will line up at gates nationwide, take out will be reduced, there will be no more cheating at all. horses will all do their very best without pernicious race-day meds that are ruining the sport (somehow), the number of starts will double...nay, triple. all of racings ills fixed in one fell swoop!! then we can lead all the others worldwide who allow training and race day use to the promised land.

lol
or not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig (Post 860838)

great idea. that would end racing once and for all. wouldn't take long either.

I am curious why you think this? From what I read here only 5% of the current thoroughbred industry's inventory really need lasix. Maybe another 25% should have it.

So we get rid of 30% of the stock. Wouldn't the market eventually adjust and owners/trainers be more careful what they add to their stable?
I am still convinced that if the lungs bleed beyond a certain level, the horse is doing something it shouldn't. And for a vet to allow that animal to compete is borderline criminal. And giving it a shot of lasix is animal cruelty.