Hey, you maintain it's a performance enhancer. Prove it. Use objective evidence.

My name is on multiple published, peer-reviewed research articles regarding the use of lasix in race horses. Guess what? I know 1000 times what you know about lasix in race horses. Probably more like 10,000 times.

So put up or shut up. You don't have the bona fides to back up your nonsense. I'm calling you out.

I dont live in a vaccum, I do speak to many people outside of the game. I have never had anyone raise any questions about lasix, ever. I have spoke to a number of people in the last year and posed the lasix question to them. Not a single person disagreed that if it is beneficial with few if any serious side effects it should be banned. The way it is being portrayed is far more dangerous to the game than its actual use.

I have been preaching for a long time that there are a whole lot of issues on the regulatory end that need addressing. I have been stumping for more effective deterrants to cheating both on Steves radio show, privately to officials and on this board. My greatest fear isnt that the game will be banned because that is unlikely but that the "changes" that these dolts at the TOBA and JC want to make wont have any effect except make the game more expensive for owners and players, 2 groups of which are becoming a rarer breed.

then what is the problem? it doesn't harm, it prevents harm...so why are you so adamant about it?

:tro:

Lasix use has zero to do with breakdowns and breakdowns are hardly rampant. As I said before the way lasix is protrayed is far worse than any supposed negative effects.

I know they are, and the sport is getting more and more negative publicity put on it as slots become more prevalent. When the negatives of racing are featured in the New York Times, whether you like the articles or not, things aren't going well.

You think politicians aren't going to try to find every reason they can to kick racing to the curb and keep every slots dollar? Please. It is already happening in many places. If you think the "every horse needs drugs so they don't bleed" defense is going to help one iota, you are sadly mistaken.

The biggest problem horse racing has, and has always had as far as I can tell, is that the sport lives in the present with no foresight whatsoever. Almost every decision that is ever made is a short term patch and usually proved to have negative implications going forward. Having every horse receiving drugs before racing is not going to shine a good light on the sport when it needs it. We can argue until the next millennium if it should be seen as a negative, but it will be perceived that way no matter how many vets say otherwise. You can book that.

Well, in the past decade we had around 12 tracks change surfaces because they were "safer". If breakdowns aren't an issue, why the change? We also had the recent rash of breakdowns in New York. We have similar happening every day around the country. The difference is not many people care about what is happening at Penn National or Prairie Meadows or Emerald Downs...yet.

Sounds to me this is exactly the reason Lasix should not be banned. This would be a short term patch that doesn't even correlate to the objectives it seeks to cure.

Unless, of course, you include the very next sentence I wrote.

I guess I have missed all the public outrage over the regulated use of Lasix in racehorses.

I read it. You want to ban a drug that clearly helps race horses. And you're willing to pretend it does not help them, in the face of overwhelming evidence it does.

If we are going to help race horses, banning a drug that is proven to help them is moronic beyond belief. Period.

You and the "ban lasix" crowd have zero factual support for the false contentions that have been made about lasix, in support of the desire for a ban. This is dangerous to the sport. To it's very existence. The lying, the false contentions, the ignoring of real drug problems. Unbelievable.

We. Know. Better. The public can read Joe Drape, but the public can also learn better, as the information is right there at their fingertips. It can't be covered up, or hidden, or bullied into the background.

Does anyone know why administering sodium bicarbonate via nasogastric tube within 24 hours of a race is illegal?

Yes.

I don't think there is anything wrong with wanting a drug free sport. Horsemen took advantage of Lasix rules to the point the drug is overused, now they will have to suffer the consequences. If horses truly need drugs to race, we probably shouldn't have horse racing. Are there worse problems in racing? Of course there are. I don't have all the answers. But only in racing would drugging an animal every time it competes be passed off as "caring about horses".

I'm out.

Do you really think that tracks went to synthetic surfaces because of horses? C'mon get real. They wanted a "maintenance free" surface to save them money. I know for a fact that 2 of the tracks that hold TC races have had their track maintenance budgets cut since the advent of synthetic surfaces. There is no evidence that there is a rash of breakdowns everyday around the country. In fact there isnt evidence that there are more breakdowns now than 20 years ago since there is very little data from then but of course there is plenty of conjecture. You see the little issue that people seem to forget is that it wasnt so long ago that races werent available on tv or at simulcasting centers or on the internet. Charts werent readily available except for your local tracks. So of course it seems like less was happening them because you had so little information as compared to now.

Racing does a horrific job controlling the message especially on things like breakdowns which are impossible to spin especially without data.

Because you arent allowed in most states to give anything via tube or needle including electrolytes within 24 hours except lasix.

Therapeutic drugs that help horses? Or illegal drugs that harm horses? There's a big difference. I completely agree with the second, not the first.

You continue to mistake your personal opinion for some type of "fact".

Please. I wish the anti-lasix crowd would have the guts to stand up and just say the only thing they can: "I know lasix helps horses, but the perception of lay people with no vested interest in the sport is more important to me than our horses health and what veterinarians and scientists tell us is best for the horses health."

I'm sorry but i cant understand how you can say you are neutral on the topic yet make posts like this. I also cant believe you drug yourself everyday and yet can pass judgement on those wishing to protect thier horses from a bleeding episode.

Well, for one, I stopped drugging myself as soon as humanly possible. Second, I wasn't drugging myself so I could compete in a sport. I was doing it so I could walk. I have no idea how these are remotely related.

I presume it's because there are negative implications associated with someone administering any substance to a horse on raceday.

Is sodium bicarbonate innocuous and/or beneficial to an athlete?

To make a point. You needed drugs to treat a specific medical issue. This doesnt make you a druggie, a bad guy or a cheater. Horses would probably feel the same way about bleeding. Average horse races 6 times a year. I would say 6 shots a year isnt exactly junkie material.

I would guess your presumption is correct not to mention makes it easier to monitor because it would be pretty hard to say you were using a tube to give lasix.

It wasnt that long ago that you could "legally" milkshake horses on raceday. Some horses seemed to run better with them, some ran worse, most ran about as the same as you would think. Of course there are a lot of other factors that lead to a positive or negative performance so it isnt easy to say with certainty.

I have no idea if it would help a human though I suppose the delevery system would need to be different

This is also true when discussing the significance of bleeding in racehorses as it pertains to actual performance. How much is a horse's performance actually affected by bleeding at grades below the most severe?

It goes back to what cmorioles was saying about the vast majority of racehorses receiving lasix on raceday.

Tell us. The proper way to formulate that hypothesis would be that 100% of horses are negatively affected. Prove that hypothesis wrong.

We do not want to assume, or guess, do we? Let's base our opinions on the facts - right?

Horses win races despite bleeding out the nose.

Next.

No. That's not what you said at all. And that proves nothing at all about what you said.

You said: "How much is a horse's performance actually affected by bleeding at grades below the most severe?"

So tell us: how much is a horses performance affected by bleeding at grades below 4? None? 100%? 50% By 2 lengths? By 10 lengths? By 0.5 seconds per furlong? Not at all? Do you know the answer? Do you have a percentage of how many are affected, and at what grades? What is that answer?

I've always wondered if you need a scope to find bleeding, how bad is it really? Does it affect performance? How do we know? Who can give an accurate measurement?

You know that you don't need a scope to find bleeding. You know there are other ways that are far more accurate. Why are your purposely ignoring that? Why are you misleading people with your statements?

I didn't assert anything, Copernicus. I asked a question.

Yep. Thought so. A question.

Funny, I asked the very same question. We must share the same brain.

Of course, I have it all the time.

One logical course of action would be to observe the quality and success of racing in jurisdictions that don't allow raceday lasix.

That's right, smarty. Why don't you go find the answer and get back to us? Because it's out there. And it's absolutely germane to this discussion.

The issue at hand, since clearly you don't follow, is the significance of bleeding, not the diagnosis.

Ketchup.

Heck no. "Observing the quality and success of racing in jurisdictions that don't allow raceday lasix"would give us absolutely zero information about, "finding bleeding, how bad is it really? Does it affect performance? How do we know? Who can give an accurate measurement?"

You know what would be a great way to find out how many horses bleed, how bad is the problem "really", does it affect performance? You know who could give us an accurate measurement?

That would be to let scientists actually look at thousands of race horses, and actually measure how badly they bleed, with and without lasix.

We have that information. What is the answer? Do you know?

Oh, I love it when those ignorant of science try to use it in an argument, then reveal themselves to be ... well, ignorant of science.

Yes, the issue at hand is the significance of bleeding. And to know if a horse has bleed, you have to ... you know ... see if it bled, first. Then you measure the change in performance.

Right?

Your question was: "How much is a horse's performance actually affected by bleeding at grades below the most severe?"

We have that information. Do you know the answer?

Let's base the use of lasix in race horses on the facts surrounding lasix in race horses. Don't you agree? Let's let the facts tell us what we should do for the horses in our care?

Rather than making up scientific-sounding nonsense, or ignoring the 127 papers published about lasix in race horses, pretending the information we don't want to hear just doesn't exist?

You like to pretend like you have the answers, but curiously, you never actually put them out there in black-and-white. That is to say, you never actually help propel the discussion (which is what this is) along. It's not a street fight.

Some of us here are trying to investigate all the nooks and crannies that bog down the issue of lasix, so that as honest a picture as possible can be obtained. Some issues/questions might prove to support the use of lasix while others might illustrate why it is justifiable to ban it.

But apparently, you've already made your decision (because you know 10,000x more than us), so you feel the need to barge around like a cow in a china shop.

Good for you.

Nope. I have absolutely put the facts out there in black and white in our previous discussions. They sit in the other thread. Hard to ignore. Why do you say something that clearly isn't true?

Yes, I have an opinion on using lasix in race horses, but my opinion is formed as a result of the decades of fact and science surrounding the use of lasix in race horses.

Yes, indeed - I do know about 10,000 times more about lasix than you do. You might try and learn something. You have shown zero interest in finding the answers to your questions.

Your question was: "How much is a horse's performance actually affected by bleeding at grades below the most severe?" I said we have that information.

So please, don't pretend you want to know all the "nooks and crannies" of the lasix question, when you've clearly shown you have zero desire to hear anything at odds to your current opinion.

You? You have an opinion unfiltered and unaffected by the facts.

And calling me a cow in a china shop may make you feel more like a big tough guy, but the fact of that is that you are just another proof of Jonathan Gabriel's Law of the Internet.

I know you guys want to come on here and throw around "facts" about lasix. I'm calling you guys out on your "facts". Because, again, we need to base what we do medically for our race horses on fact - not guesses. Don't you agree?

If other jurisdictions are able to successfully maintain a viable racing industry without the permitted use of lasix on raceday, doesn't that suggest something with regards to the signficance of EIPH on racing in general?

From the horses point of view? From the gamblers? From the track's profit line? From horse breeders point of view? Whose interest should be put first in the racing industry?

What it says is only that uncontrolled EIPH on race day will not prevent a viable racing industry from existing.

Do you think we should base our use of race day medications on what scientific facts tell us is best for the horse, or not?

Attack!! Attack!! Counter Attack!! Feign Weakness!! Scold!! Attack!! Attack!! Vague Explanations!!! Counter Attack!! Snide Retort!!! Trophy!!

This is the first page from the link Kasept posted at the start of this thread. There is nothing scientifically false or questionable in this. There is more scientific evidence, in addition to what is quoted below (you can read the detail by clicking on Kasepts original link), to support and substantiate every single statement without hesitation or question.

In other words: this is not opinion, it is fact and truth.