Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell
You dont need me to tell you when or where it is used since it is right there in black and white. Are 2 year olds somehow immune to bleeding? As long as there is equal access and the information is made public I dont see why you would care.
|
I don't see why anyone cares.
The author's article has some compelling statistics, but none of them correlate with Lasix use other than the timing of the legalization of the drug and the decline of field sizes and races run per horse. Quite possibly sheer coincidence, although he says,
Quote:
|
It can't be a coincidence that the introduction of Lasix came at precisely the time a trend began whereby horses make fewer and fewer starts each year.
|
Why can't it be a coincidence?
Another gem,
Quote:
|
So, it appears that Lasix doesn't solve bleeding or keep horses in training longer.
|
How does Lasix not solve bleeding problem. Does he have any statistics of horses bleeding through Lasix vs. horses that don't, in order to help his stance that it does not solve bleeding? I don't think it will ever be completely solved, but any trainer or vet can tell you it definitely helps the bleeding.
He also states,
Quote:
|
There is strong evidence that it is detrimental to the long-term well-being of the horse.
|
Where is that evidence? The aforementioned smaller field sizes and less races per career? There are no other reasons that horses are running less and less often? It's solely the fault of Lasix? Please.
If he offered up some medical or physical proof that Lasix is making the breed more fragile, then we could have a discussion of it's positives and negatives. Otherwise this is just a poorly researched witch hunt.