[freddymo]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

This is a ridiculous Op-Ed piece. From the article itself:



You do understand, Bill, (may I call you Bill?) that these things are not mutually exclusive? I run faster when I'm not bleeding in my lungs, too.

And:



Soooo.... horse by a horse known for siring late-bloomers improves after being given to a A+ trainer, but come on, it has to be the Lasix!

And, this:



The key word here is, "really." I am assuming by the use of "really," that Cohen only counts it as bleeding if it's a 3 or 4 (the good doctor may mean something else, but in context, that's what I'm taking from it). No one disputes that bleeding from the nose is rare. Doesn't mean there isn't still minor bleeding going on and the damage from that is cumulative.

I like Finley's writing, but this is a piece for people who are already anti-Lasix. It's thoroughly unconvincing as an argument.

And the worst part:



A paragraph like that makes it sound like that for Cohen, winning money trumps a horse's health and welfare. Nice work there dissing your subject, Finley. Not cool. (Dr. Cohen, if I were you, I'd totally block him on Facebook.)

Boo, Finley. Back to Argument 101.

His opinion is hardily a scientific brief by Dr Cohen, its anecdotal at best. Horses do run faster when given Lasix. I am not necessarily against it in fact I lean way more towards keeping it in use. It is certainly over prescribed and it is over used because it does aid horses in running faster.