[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

This simply isn't true. If it were easy to measure performance, which it is not, there would be easy answers.

It is very easy to measure objective performance parameters scientifically. We have literally thousands of scientific papers, in human and animal medicine, that do this: measure performance. It is the basis of the creation and development of sports medicine, in humans and animals, years ago.

There are two ways that are commonly and frequently used in equine research regarding furosemide and EIPH:

The first is to take horses, train them to run on a high-speed treadmill indoors at racing speeds (where you control environment, temperature, humidity, air quality, absolute feet-per-second of speed, etc). Then subject them to testing conditions and measure the results before, during, after.

The second is to use detailed statistical analysis to examine real-life racing horses retrospectively.

What else do you think "simply isn't true"?

I personally don't think those on the side of non-drug use should have to prove a drug doesn't enhance performance. It should be the other way around. I'm not sure it can be done right now with the tools we have.

It already has been done.

This - the benefit of lasix to race horses, and it's ability to affect performance - is not a subject, within the veterinary and scientific community, where opinion is widely variable, or "50-50" at all. As far as the scientific and veterinary community goes, it is 99.99% to 0.01.

Scientists and veterinarians do not form an opinion, then try to justify it. We have formed our opinions based upon what the objective, repeatable evidence tells us is true and real.

That is why an overwheming, vast majority number of veterinarians and scientists say the evidence shows us that lasix is not performance enhancing in non-EIPH horses, it shows it is a valuable therapeutic medication.

That is why the overwhelming, vast majority of veterinarians and scientists advise the use of lasix in race horses with EIPH.

I have only seen two veterinarians publicly say they think lasix should be banned, that I can recall by name.

That's two out of tens of thousands that treat equines or involved in equine research - let alone the rest of the medical community.

Even if there were 100 vets that felt that way, based upon their reading of the scientific literature (which is why there are not that number), that would still an overwhelming, less than 0.0001% of equine researchers and veterinarians to feel the facts should be interpreted differently than the overwhelming majority say those facts demonstrate.

This is not a subject where there is any significant variance whatsoever in what the medical/scientific community agrees upon.

That is why it is completely shocking to we in the medical community to see lay people ask the medical community what we think, the vets give the answers (which in this case virtually everyone agrees upon!), then the lay people choose to ignore or disregard the professional, educated advice, and say, "Well, gee, I dunno ... " !

Let me ask a simple, yes or no, question. If Frankel raced in the USA or Canada, would he be given Lasix? If so, does he really need it? If not, why not?

I have no idea what Frankel's health record is.

Let's go back to the child with asthma. Let's say the asthma is usually under good control, but exacerbates with exercise. Would a parent let him/her play soccer only using their prevention inhaler after an attack begins? Of course not! We would all use the prevention inhaler to prevent or decrease the severity of an exercise-induced asthma attack.

That is precisely what lasix does to attentuate the severity and frequency of Exercise-Induced Pulmonary Hemorrhage in horses diagnosed with same.