No. They are being published where their wealth of skill and knowledge about lasix matters, in research journals, pharmacology textbooks, clinical medicine applications.

Some crank wrote an opinion letter to the NYT. You're falling for it. Good luck.

You calling lasix, "drug them all" simply reveals that you remain completely ignorant about furosemide and it's long and successful in horses (and dogs, cats, people, tigers, bears, primates, etc)

It was a cheap shot, I'll admit. But the coincidence with the "30 years" refrain was too good to pass up.

At least Riot finally set me straight, so I paid the price in the end.

It is a drug, right?

Dogs, cats, people, tigers, bears, and primates and even etc. aren't being given Lasix to race while people bet millions of dollars on them. In this case, we even found out California lies to us about which horses actually get Lasix and which don't. That will go a long way to establishing trust with bettors.

Drug them all.

]Because, as has been previously mentioned, the affect on the acid-base balance of one injection of furosemide at a measured dose and time is immediately and successfully attenuated by the body's normal acid-base physiologic compensatory mechanisms, resulting in changes that have been repeatedly measured to be minor and unaffecting of performance.

No. They are being given lasix most usually to save their lives.

That knowledge and understanding separates those that are licensed to use and dispense legend drugs - doctors, pharmacists, veterinarians, etc. - and the guy at the end of the bar stool expounding upon how much he knows about lasix because he read a NYT opinion piece that confirmed what he's determined to think.

spin, spin, spin, spin, spin.

So completely irrelevant to the subject at hand, at least we agree on that.

Whatever...

I always love when people accuse one side of an argument with being stubborn and then make statements like "I'll never agree with that".

As for the welfare of horses I would think that those who profit off of the knowingly abused have blood on thier hands as well...

But dont fret, using lasix isnt really abuse no matter how hard you neutrally rail against it.

No, the pharmacology and mechanism of action of a drug is 100% "relevant".

You being unable to comprehend that just makes you "irrelevant".

Won't make that mistake again will you? lol

Why don't you go off and try to find out why the measurable TCO2 level of a horse on lasix (be it standing in a stall, running on a treadmill, running in a race, or in an intensive care unit at an equine hospital with acid/base disturbances) is between certain very well-known and predictable values, and the TCO2 of horses that have received illegal milkshakes or other alkalynizing agents is something else entirely?

Maybe check the NYT opinion page.

The above sure reads like a "compensatory mechanism".

Don't be getting all acerbic on me now. Buffer your embarrasment some warm milk.

It would be if this were about making sure horses live long, healthy lives...but it isn't.

And spell check.

I'm sorry you don't know basic, high-school physiology (ever hear of lactic acid?) thus feel compelled to make fun of what you don't know.

Once again, with feeling ...

Lasix similar to effect of a milkshake? Ridiculous. Lasix has a minor adjustment to elevation of pH (we know that, because that has actually been measured multiple times) but nowhere near what a milkshake does (we know that, because it's been actually measured multiple times).

In fact, our intimate knowledge of the difference in blood pH effects between heat, humidity, lasix, certain feeds, etc. and what a milkshake does is why testing TCO2 levels are set precisely where they are.

Because we know what pH a shot of lasix gives. And we know what pH alkalynizing agents get. They are different.

We have used furosemide internationally for 40 years in the horse, not to mention multiple other species. We know exactly what it does, and how, and why. This is simple, straightforward, basic medical science.

I'm done sparring with the loony conspiracy theorists.

i think the fallout had to do with the fact that a lot of bettors lost out on betting a horse who should have been scratched. i know lasix was suggested as a possible reason for her lackluster performance.
now, when i read the other day that there was an 80% reduction in visible bleeding by horses in NY once the lasix ban was lifted....well, what else is there to say? do we really want an 80% increase in bleeders? we already have negative attention because of breakdowns, what will happen if horses start coming by the grandstand with blood coming out of their nostrils? or horses collapsing because of a bad enough hemorrage? and that does happen. i firmly believe that it's better to prevent something than to take a risk-that it's a lesser 'evil' if you will.

i'm asking what's best as in better to take a risk of bleeding, or use the lasix? i know there are plenty of people who don't give a rats behind about what's really best for the horses.
and i see someone has reared their head, so i guess i'm done with this thread anway....

You realize if two horse visibly bleed in a week, an "80% reduction" means that now 1.6 do, right? In any case, the is certainly NOT the equivalent of an 80% increase in bleeders.

maybe she had a liver-ache.

Cool, keep drugging them all then, whether they need it or not. You have a future in pharmacological sales.

You were done when I exposed your cross-thread backpedal. Don't kid yourself.

You have been neutralized. I suggest going back to the basics.

Do lecture us on HCO3-, acid-base balance, metabolic acidosis, strong ion exchange in the kidney, etc.

You can't even recognize when you're hopelessly clueless about what you are talking about :D

Your point is well taken, however, we should point out that the incidence of bleeding out the nose is reportedly between 1 and 2% of starters. And even then, that doesn't necessarily mean all episodes are visible to the public (ie some horses don't start bleeding until back at the barn).

I think the numbers you quoted were something in the range of 30+ vs. 70+ for comparable years at NYRA tracks.

Don't need to. This isn't a pissing contest (especially since all the participants aren't on lasix).

However, for those who are actually interested, I would whole-heartedly recommend ignoring any of my posts that broach those subjects you mentioned in favor of studying your own...and then presuming the exact opposite of what is written.

There is certainly more to be gained by that method then anything I could possibly cut-and-paste.

That's it, I'm rooting for the Spurs...

When someone comes up with something that works better I'd be glad to stop using lasix. Until then I'm not going to stick my head in the sand and just hope that my horses don't bleed.

Sorry you don't agree but you dont exactly have to worry about real horses, just the theoretically abused ones.

One last time...

If it is a given that lasix helps prevent bleeding and it is a given that it helps reduce the severity of an incident and it is a given that we can't accurately predict when an incident will occur...how do you know who will or wont need it?

Aspirin, a drug is used by millions as preventative medicine and no one seems to have an issue with that.

I promised myself I would stay out of this from here on in, but this comment was too naive for me to pass up.

Are you freaking kidding? Aspirin is far from harmless and lots and lots and lots of people have issues with it.

Truth be told, I was going to say idiotic, but in the interest of not being inflammatory I went with naive. Then again, I could just take an NSAID if I get too inflammatory!

Get it??! Aspirin, anti inflammatory, NSAID?? All worked together in one post! Pretty clever if you ask me!!

You should read up on NSAID's sometime.

Lasix and Aspirin are good for you.


Side note: The Doritos Locos Taco Supreme is nutritious and delicious.

So the generally medically accepted practice of Doctors prescribing a daily aspirin regime is controversial and unacceptable?

CS, there's plenty of debate about it, and it's not driven by whackos. Google "daily aspirin" for a sample.

Here's a link to the Mayo Clinic's recommendation:

http://www.mayoclinic.com/print/dail...3/METHOD=print

Here's part of what Mayo says:

"You should a daily aspirin only if your doctor advises you to do so. If you have had a heart attack or stroke, your doctor will likely recommend you take a daily aspirin unless you have a serious allergy or history of bleeding. If you have a high risk of having a first heart attack, your doctor might recommend aspirin after weighing the risks and benefits. You shouldn't start daily aspirin therapy on your own.

Although taking an occasional aspirin or two is safe for most adults to use for headaches, body aches or fever, daily use of aspirin can have serious side effects, including internal bleeding. "

--Dunbar

Yo, it's like unicorns in your mouth.

Live mas.

Correct.

In fact, about fifteen years ago I saw, on TV, an FDA regulator say that if aspirin were to be submitted today (15 years ago anyways) for approval as a new drug, it wouldn't pass.

To be fair though, he said it would not pass because they didn't fully understand it's mechanism. Or how it worked in the body.

Of all drugs, aspirin is probably the least harmful, but it causes a lot of problems for a lot of people. Did you read up on NSAID's yet?

Not only does it cause internal bleeding (NSAIDs are particularly well known for causing the liver to bleed!), but that myth that a daily aspirin is 'good' for heart health has been completely debunked.

Huh? What are you basing that on?

--Dunbar

I did overstate it when I said it's been totally debunked, but there is clear evidence that it is not as effective as people have been led to believe, and that aspirin is a bandaid for an underlying problem that needs to be addressed.

My dad starting taking daily aspirin after what was a misdiagnosed mild heart issue and almost died from a GI bleed 3 weeks later.......scary stuff.

I don't get how with all these drugs the game has developed for horse welfare, the advances in modern equine medicine, that horses run about 1/3 as often as they did in the "30 years ago".