If you read the PDF proposal, the first thing that becomes clear is the overuse of words such as "perceived" advantage of lasix, etc.
Yes, because there isn't any factual scientific support. If there was, they'd quote it.
Secondly, this phrase stands out as the first sentence in their summary:
Quote:
Summary
In summary, all in racing understand that the weaning process from the use of Furosemide has the potential to put some horses at high risk to not only suffer from EIPH but also to potentially suffer secondary orthopedic injuries to the EIPH event.
|
"High Risk".
When you know the high risks of eliminating lasix, against the advice of the veterinary medical community, and you acknowledge those risks as the first sentence in your summary conclusion - why are you persisting in trying to do so?
Again: racing has many problems with illegal medications. They need to be addressed. Furosemide, protecting athletic horses from lung damage, most certainly isn't one of them.