So if you were a trainer and you knew that giving a shot of lasix would make it far less likely that your horse would bleed and in the even it did would in most cases reduce the severity of the episode you would still not spend the $20?

How can you get an edge if everyone else is using the same thing?

You can't get an edge, but you can certainly put yourself at a disadvantage. Not using Lasix is a HUGE disadvantage, even when horses don't bleed. You would look as silly debating that as I would if I said Lasix doesn't help with bleeding. Both are indisputable, if you take the blinkers off.

Is it possible that CMORIOLES is Barry The Hypocrite Irwin in disguise ? He is making the same stupid, baseless arguments.

No, I'm not, but I can assure you my arguments are not baseless. Please though, tell me which arguments you think are stupid and/or baseless?

So are you making the case that those w/o lasix are actually the problem? I'm just pointing out the ludicrous rantings of cleanracing.org.

If everyone has the same opportunity to use lasix in a highly regulated (except seemingly Maryland) fashion, therefore giving no one a bulit in advantage (because there is a choice) then what is the problem especially considering that the horses who do bleed or are predisposed to bleed (often unknowingly until it happens) benefit physically from it?

No Barry would have insulted me, the entire board and left in a huff.

Now we've come full circle. The only problem I have is that all horses, whether they need it or not, are virtually forced to race on a drug. I realize that horse racing operates in its own little world, but where else in the world would this be considered acceptable, or even tolerated?

I think that "forced to run with a drug" is a little over the top. I mean they are "forced" to do just about everything that they do. Lasix is about as innocuous a drug as you will find. The thing is that its preventative properties make it useful for all horses therefore making the statement "whether they need it or not" a bit misleading.

and i will ask for a third time, how can you know if a horse will bleed? or when?

and thinking isn't a fact, it's an opinion.

I don't doubt that you do think that. However, try passing that one off on people outside the game. Racing is legal now, but it doesn't have to always be that way. Our sport is headed for some heavy scrutiny and I really think the fact that nearly every horse in the US gets Lasix is not something that will go over well, no matter how innocuous it may be.

It is so rewarding to do measurable science in a vacuum. Why have Gluck, with million of dollars in donations dedicated to equine science? You know, get the answers people want? Answers like, "How fast do horses run on lasix, versus off lasix?

I don't know what's worse: not knowing it exists, or repeatedly and deliberately ignoring it exists.

You can't. I've been around a long time though. I don't remember any irreparable damage done to horses that didn't get Lasix until they actually visibly bled. Horses that bled profusely through the nostrils were then given Lasix and went on to be champions. Why can't we wait? Why does nearly every single horse have to be given drugs "just in case"?

Reality has a distinctive bias towards objectivity.

try passing it off on people outside the game...what, they're suddenly going to care?
if by some strange chance someone outside the game asks me why horses are given lasix, i'll explain that horses can hemorrage due to fluid in the lungs while exerting themselves, and lasix prevents that.
or do you think these suddenly interested people aren't going to understand that? or as the article i posted the other day said would you rather withold hay and water for 24-48 hours and explain why that's ok?

as for waiting until a bleeding episode-as has been written and read by me and others, a significant bleeding episode can cause permanent damage. do you feel it's better to wait til a horse bleeds, and then just cross your fingers it's not significant enough to cause damage? or just go ahead and do what you know full well will prevent an episode and all that accompanies it?

i know if i had significant money invested, i'd rather prevent than hear an apology. you really think it's better to have preventable bleeding episodes than use lasix? you'd rather the choice be taken away? after all, it's currently up to each trainer or owner to decide. and the owner is the one ponying up all the money, whether to give beforehand, or possibly have wasted money by not paying for lasix and having a possibly lung damaged horse.

I tried running this through babblefish, but it couldn't translate the post either. I seem to remember you quoted a study that said some horses run faster, others do not. In any case, the studies I saw were vague and the conclusions dubious at best. Surely we can do better in 2012.

Yes, they will care, when breakdowns are rampant and drug use is widespread. Oh, they will care, at least long enough to ruin the game. You can count on that.

You don't have a clue how to read a scientific study. Your dismissal of what you don't like is ridiculous.

"Deliberately ignore" it is. Don't walk in here and pretend you want to find out any "truth" about lasix. It's obvious you have an agenda, you're sticking to it, and it's not based upon any objectivity of what is best for horses.

Here's your challenge: give any objective evidence at all to prove that lasix is harmful to horses.

er, according to some, breakdowns are already rampant, and drug use is widespread.
i bet many of the over 100k on hand may 5 in churchill knew nothing about o'neills several milkshaking violations, or other issues with racing officials. they just cared about having a good time.
i've got race photos in my office. i'll let you know the first time someone asks me about drugs. had them up for years, hasn't happened yet.

Where have I ever said it was harmful? I am quite sure I have never said that. Feel free to keep making things up though.

As vague and conclusive as the assertion that Lasix is a performance enhancer?