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.