Be careful, she stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Just the opposite appears to have happened. She can't seem to answer anything. Maybe when her "spinning" class is over.

I see no point in engaging you, as you've proven beyond a doubt in multiple Derby Trail discussions, including this one, that you have zero ability or desire to discuss facts about any subject for which you have already formed an inviolate opinion - but thanks anyway ;)

Why you would even want the opinion of one who you dismiss as a "supposed vet" is beyond me. Vets, horse trainers - you won't be fooled by those folks on matters of drug use or horse training, will ya?

Have that nice day.

I was being sarcastic, she thinks she knows everything and I have learned the hard way that trying to argue with her is pointless. As you said, she will try to spin it in every which way she can. She is not worth trying to debate, it is an utter waste of your time.

I know you were, just adding on.

Spin, spin, spin. When backed into a corner, RUN! Nice strategy.

Dr. Palmer on ATR for all of Hour 2 today...

I did attend the Gluck conference on furosemide today. Very nice. Toxicologists, drug researchers, equine researchers, clinical vets from sport horse and racing practices, and the inevitable group of exhausted pHD students.

Unfortunately, like the Disease Diagnostic Center conferences, this one was not filmed to put on the internet. Much was detailed toxicology, pharmacology, research data review anyway.

Was a review of reams of good scientific literature and documented TB/harness racing experience regarding EIPH from the 1960's on (with a glance to the origins of documented EIPH, before it was called EIPH), especially the good research involving thousands of race horses in multiple jurisdictions, and the NYRA track information available from before and after the lasix permission ruling.

Causes of EIPH, what does and does not make it worse, what is currently accepted and what is disproven. The proven measurable incidence of occurrence in exercising horses of all disciplines.

Mostly the last half hour was a review of what is considered proven and definitive in the scientific literature regarding the effects and efficacy of lasix in the race horse, regarding attenuating EIPH. In other words, what is pretty indisputably considered true.

Also discussed was disproven old wives tales regarding lasix effect on dilution of urine, why performance is increased and how much (measurable) ability to mask drugs, why the holding period is 4 hours, why performance improves in the horse and by how much, why the dose is what it is in the racehorse, etc (background stuff)

Some interesting recent stuff about the best efficacy of lasix for initial and chronic use (at what distances) - there is a distinct variance of shown efficacy regarding horse performance between sprint (most), middle distance, and distance (least). Interesting couple pieces of info that would help trainers starting young horses.

And yes - the attempt to eliminate lasix by a few in American racing was discussed in the Q & A following. The science is undeniably and unquestionably heavily on the other side of that issue at this point. Nobody present thought forbidding the use of furosemide in the race horse would be remotely good for the health and welfare of the horse, or the breed. And the current body of science clearly shows why.

Question on if toxicologists/pharmacologists were working on any other drugs to attenuate EIPH, answer: not currently, as furosemide safe and efficacious at this point. Discussion of use of blood pressure alteration via pharmacology, but too many untoward side effects and less efficacy this point.

Dr Riot and her special friends decided to further pretend lasix isnt a performance enhancing drug how quaint.

I guess you didn't bother to actually read what I wrote, especially the sixth and seventh paragraphs.

This is why you have zero credibility discussing furosemide use in race horses. You falsely say people said the opposite of what they have just written, with the writing that proves you wrong right here in front of everyone's eyes

Ok gotcha now you are onboard with lasix as a performance enhance drug as per paragraph 6 and 7.. Have a heart you are a fraud Dr Riot.

Do you think lasix is a performance enhancer? I read your post and it's a little confusing because you say things like performance improvement is a disproven wives tale. Then you objected to Freddy saying you were pretending it isn't a performance enhancer.

So let's make it nice and simple. In your opinion is it a performance enhancer?

What I wrote regarding performance (even saying the same thing twice) was:

"Also discussed was disproven old wives tales regarding lasix effect on dilution of urine,
why performance is increased and how much (measurable)
ability to mask drugs,
why the holding period is 4 hours,
why performance improves in the horse and by how much,
why the dose is what it is in the racehorse, etc (background stuff)"

"Some interesting recent stuff about the best efficacy of lasix for initial and chronic use (at what distances) - there is a distinct variance of shown efficacy regarding horse performance between sprint (most), middle distance, and distance (least). Interesting couple pieces of info that would help trainers starting young horses."

My opinion is what the science has always told us is true:

Virtually all TB race horses suffer EIPH.
Suffering EIPH impedes performance.
Lasix attenuates EIPH very successfully.
Horses that don't suffer EIPH regain their performance level.
Yes, lasix improves performance in horses suffering EIPH.
If you give any performance horse lasix (outside of EIPH) does their performance improve?
No. Not at all. No, lasix is not a performance-enhancer.

Virtually all, except nearly every 2yo that raced without Lasix at Saratoga this year.

When you look for a EIPH using a testing methodology (1 scope post-work or race within 2 hours) that has been proven to miss an accurate diagnosis 80% of the time, people tend to hold the factually false opinion on morbidity rate that you do.

If you don't look for it, you don't find it.

Virtually all TB race horses suffer EIPH. Every single incidence of EIPH, no matter how minor, or detected grossly or not, damages lung tissue.

And therein lies the rub. Horses raced for a century with all this apparent lung damage and were a much sturdier group of animals by far.

Your implication is that EIPH hasn't caused problems for race horses in the past before furosemide. False. EIPH has always harmed race horses.

EIPH has had the same effect on horses since it was first documented in text in the 1600's, and owners and trainers have simply always used methods other than furosemide to attempt to control it.

You are saying two different things.

You're saying it does improve performance in bleeders. But it doesn't improve performance in non bleeders. It just lets them "regain their performance level."

well, if they aren't suffering EIPH, then they shouldn't need lasix right? And what performance level are they regaining if their performance level wasn't impeded to begin with?

dear sweet baby jesus.

I'm not doubting that. I'm just saying this "damage" isn't as severe as people let on. If it was, how do you explain horses racing successfully over 100 times in a career?

While Lasix does help sometimes with EIPH (nobody is denying that), it isn't a cure all and I think there are some negative effects as well. It certainly isn't the only reason horses don't last these days, but it is one of them. I also think it is one of the reasons horses don't recover as quickly as the once did. You know, like when horses could win the Triple Crown and throw in a prep between the Preakness and Belmont.