Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot
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:
"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.
|
From the NY Times quoting the AJVR.
"The study, led by Dr. Corinne Raphel Sweeney and Dr. Lawrence R. Soma of the University of Pennsylvania's School of Veterinary Medicine, confirmed that improvement. The study found that
horses ran an average of 0.48 seconds faster at a mile, roughly three lengths, when treated with Lasix - whether or not they had a bleeding condition. For older geldings, the improvement was as much as nine lengths. The study also found that over 60 percent of bleeders continued to bleed after being given Lasix."
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/05/08/sp...-evidence.html