[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Riot

Just cutting and pasting words.

Interesting. You asked me to directly quote the study that states that lasix is associated with superior performance. I did. Now you say I'm "just cutting and pasting".

Cute. But anyone with a pulse sees right through it. Refute Dr. Hinchcliff's (you know, the guy who proved lasix was effective under actual race conditions) conclusions.

You have every right to have a position on drugs in racing. Stand up and say you don't want any drugs whatsoever on race day. Nothing wrong with that.

I don't need you to tell me that I have a right to have an opinion. I'm trying to participate in a discussion like most of the others in this thread. I'm not pushing an agenda or climbing all over someone who posts something I don't agree with or questions my own posts. Try using some tact for once.

However, you should probably come up with a reason why you oppose the direct and specific medical advice of the veterinary profession, who says that doing what you want is not best for the health and welfare of the horse.

I like how questioning something is apparently the same as opposing it.

We say these lay person interpretations (such as published by some of the anti-lasix folks) of the scientific information surrounding lasix use is wrong and off base. We advise the very opposite of what some lay people in racing are proposing.

Why are 60,000 medical professionals wrong, but lay people with no scientific education, correct?

I highly doubt all 60,000 medical professionals are comfortable with you being their self-appointed spokesman.

But enough of that duck-and-dive tactic you're so good at. You're cherry-picking my last post. Why don't you comment on the mechanism of action of furosemide and how, according to your claim, it does not affect acid-base balance in a racing Thoroughbred?

The lay people want to know.

No, the TCO2 threshold used for detecting milkshaking is "not higher than the level signifying alkalosis". That's false. You've misunderstood and confused two different concepts.

Interesting, once again. Dr. Kenneth McKeever noted in a paper in 2005 that several studies have shown that the mean plasma concentration of total CO2 of normal horses is ~30 mmol/L. Yet, in many racing jurisdictions, the total CO2 threshold is 37 mmol/L. Is 37 higher than 30? Anyone? Anyone? Is there a mathematician in the house?

Ironically, some states, such as New York have two thresholds for total CO2. 37 mmol/L and 39 mmol/L. Anyone know which horses are held to the higher (that's the 39 level for the non-mathematicians here) threshold?

Yep, you guessed it. It's for horses that were administered lasix.

Interesting that the rules of racing seem to suggest that lasix alters the acid-base status (specifically, has an alkalinizing effect) of a horse. No?

Have you read the paper Steve posted in the first post of this thread? Have you READ it yet? The first page is 100% accurate. There is absolutely zero scientific dissent with what is stated in that lay person synopsis.

I read it. It has an obvious bias, as someone else mentioned. Once again, I'm trying to eliminate any bias in the discussion. We're being fed half-truths by both sides.

It's not "controversial" What do you think is "controversial"?

Dr. Kenneth Hinchcliff: "Therapy for EIPH is controversial..." (2004) and "Given...the finding that furosemide can improve the performance of Thoroughbred racehorses, the use of furosemide to prevent EIPH remains controversial." (2009)

Dr. Warwick Bayly: "...this review emphasizes issues that relate to the highly controversial subject of furosemide use in racehorses." (2000)

Do we need those pesky lay people to voice their concern, too? Or are we good here?