Lasix again

[cmorioles]

This seems to fly in the face of the all those statistics that were trotted out in the past year or so:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/17/sp...ding-drug.html

I know it isn't a huge sample, but it is big enough to know that Lasix clearly isn't the wonder drug some are making it out to be.

[Indian Charlie]

The only thing wondrous about any drugs are the marketing efforts made to push them.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

This seems to fly in the face of the all those statistics that were trotted out in the past year or so:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/17/sp...ding-drug.html

I know it isn't a huge sample, but it is big enough to know that Lasix clearly isn't the wonder drug some are making it out to be.

The sample size is not big enough to make good determinations about the individual horses themselves let alone any sweeping generalizations about bleeding or lasix. You could scope 55 different horses and get the exact opposite results.

This is stuff that any statistics class goes over right after reading the syllabus.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The sample size is not big enough to make good determinations about the individual horses themselves let alone any sweeping generalizations about bleeding or lasix. You could scope 55 different horses and get the exact opposite results.

This is stuff that any statistics class goes over right after reading the syllabus.

We were told 90+% of horses bleed (I don't remember the exact number). I've taken enough statistics classes to know the results in the article would be enough to think that number is totally bogus. 15 out of 41 bled, not near the high percentage that was quoted. That would be statistically significant given the base of 90+% that has been cited. In other words, if horses really bled at such a high rate, the odds of finding a sample of 41 where only 36% match the criteria are basically nil.

And 10 out of 14 WITH Lasix bled? Yeah, that doesn't sound too effective to me. And we are talking the best (and best cared for) horses.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

We were told 90+% of horses bleed (I don't remember the exact number). I've taken enough statistics classes to know the results in the article would be enough to think that number is totally bogus. 15 out of 41 bled, not near the high percentage that was quoted. That would be statistically significant given the base of 90+% that has been cited. In other words, if horses really bled at such a high rate, the odds of finding a sample of 41 where only 36% match the criteria are basically nil.

And 10 out of 14 WITH Lasix bled? Yeah, that doesn't sound too effective to me. And we are talking the best (and best cared for) horses.

90% bleed at some point, not necessarily on Breeders Cup weekend. If 90% of horses bled every race there would be no racing. You see what people don't seem to understand is that we don't have any idea of when it will happen.

The fact that 45% of them showed some sign of EIPH was surprisingly high to me considering these are lightly raced, young horses in a good weather environment.

Of course I realize that the numbers here are completely random and nothing can really be gleaned from them with any degree of accuracy.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

90% bleed at some point, not necessarily on Breeders Cup weekend. If 90% of horses bled every race there would be no racing. You see what people don't seem to understand is that we don't have any idea of when it will happen.

The fact that 45% of them showed some sign of EIPH was surprisingly high to me considering these are lightly raced, young horses in a good weather environment.

Of course I realize that the numbers here are completely random and nothing can really be gleaned from them with any degree of accuracy.

Completely random is a stretch. It isn't like it was 3 horses. What about the horses that bled through Lasix, 10 of 14. That random too?

I would like to know level "bled significantly" represents.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Completely random is a stretch. It isn't like it was 3 horses. What about the horses that bled through Lasix, 10 of 14. That random too?

I would like to know level "bled significantly" represents.

Horses bleed. Sometimes with lasix, sometimes without. Sometimes they race poorly and don't bleed. Sometimes they race well and do. Until a horse becomes a chronic bleeder it is almost always a random act. being that these were almost all lightly raced 2 year olds it is hard to imagine that there are too many chronic cases here.

I actually know what these things mean. I actually have seen the results of thousands scope reports. I have actual practical experience with racehorses, EIPH and lasix.

So just continue to disregard my posts, hell put them on ignore them if you'd prefer. Why understand the reality of a situation when you can be part of a "revolution" as I saw the anti-lasix cartel being described as on the internet this afternoon?

[PatCummings]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The sample size is not big enough to make good determinations about the individual horses themselves let alone any sweeping generalizations about bleeding or lasix. You could scope 55 different horses and get the exact opposite results.

This is stuff that any statistics class goes over right after reading the syllabus.

It seemingly proves nothing, and I am skeptical about the "statistical significance" factor being tossed around. What it is, in my opinion, is interesting. No more, no less.

Maybe it leads to some much more scientifically controlled study. Under no circumstance could anyone take anything away from this "study" and apply it to horses at Beulah in December, nor should that point be argued by anyone. Could it be the basis for a more comprehensive study - I'd love that...but doubtful you will find a legitimate sample size of horses racing without Lasix in America.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by PatCummings

It seemingly proves nothing, and I am skeptical about the "statistical significance" factor being tossed around. What it is, in my opinion, is interesting. No more, no less.

Maybe it leads to some much more scientifically controlled study. Under no circumstance could anyone take anything away from this "study" and apply it to horses at Beulah in December, nor should that point be argued by anyone. Could it be the basis for a more comprehensive study - I'd love that...but doubtful you will find a legitimate sample size of horses racing without Lasix in America.

I am certainly not proclaiming it to be decisive, but it certainly shows that the issue is worthy of more study.