NYTHA Lasix Primer & Letter to NYS RWB

[Danzig]

ok, from everything i've read here and the other thread, as well as in other discussions, let me see if i have this right:


pro's of removing lasix on race day:

no longer have horses on drugs on race day.


are there any others?

facts on lasix:

not harmful
not proven to enhance performance (note, i said proven-opnion/belief isn't proof)
prevents bleeding and any accompanying lung damage
not a masking agent. (as the study i linked said, with plasma testing, better testing(for what they know what to test for!), lasix can't be considered as a masking agent
used either in training and/or race day in practically every racing jurisdiction on the planet

cons of removing lasix on race day:

bleeders with a history have lost their bleeding prevention, prone to worsening episodes as well as more and more damage.
no way of knowing what horse will have a bleeding episode, or when, or how severe. that in turn means no prevention of lung damage, which can be permanent
an alternative to lasix is removal of water and food for 24-48 hours before racing. (that's some alternative)

or you can force people who currently have something they can use to prevent bleeding to retire a horse instead. wow. can you imagine? dip deep in your pockets, buy a horse. pay for all the training and what comes with it...the horse runs, bleeds, and you have no way to recoup that money. that sounds like a great plan.



and as for the comment about 'since the 70's' this or that has changed...

isn't that about the same time that commercial breeding took off?

Originally Posted by Danzig

ok, from everything i've read here and the other thread, as well as in other discussions, let me see if i have this right:


pro's of removing lasix on race day:

no longer have horses on drugs on race day.


are there any others?

facts on lasix:

not harmful
not proven to enhance performance (note, i said proven-opnion/belief isn't proof)
prevents bleeding and any accompanying lung damage
not a masking agent. (as the study i linked said, with plasma testing, better testing(for what they know what to test for!), lasix can't be considered as a masking agent
used either in training and/or race day in practically every racing jurisdiction on the planet

cons of removing lasix on race day:

bleeders with a history have lost their bleeding prevention, prone to worsening episodes as well as more and more damage.
no way of knowing what horse will have a bleeding episode, or when, or how severe. that in turn means no prevention of lung damage, which can be permanent
an alternative to lasix is removal of water and food for 24-48 hours before racing. (that's some alternative)

or you can force people who currently have something they can use to prevent bleeding to retire a horse instead. wow. can you imagine? dip deep in your pockets, buy a horse. pay for all the training and what comes with it...the horse runs, bleeds, and you have no way to recoup that money. that sounds like a great plan.



and as for the comment about 'since the 70's' this or that has changed...

isn't that about the same time that commercial breeding took off?

It's good for big pharma. It also was initially used to treat forms of heart disease.

If the majority of horses take it then vets should be held accountable and face license suspension if they can't prove the horse has a heart condition.

It's not a good look for the sport when mostly old humans are taking furosemide and it translates to young horses taking it.

Doesn't make your side seem to0 genuine.

Side note: It's clear to me Black Caviar needs it. That poor horse!!

[Danzig]

but like i said, come up with a way to detect who will bleed and the problem is solved.
if it's not harmful, what's the problem? if there's an alternative to lasix to prevent bleeding, present it.

otherwise right now it appears people want to ban it just to say it's been banned.
what about the horse who needs it, or may need it? are we to just cross our fingers and hope horses don't bleed? and some will, what then? people want horses to race longer, constantly decrying early retirements. but older horses become more prone to episodes, what then?


to say just get rid of it is not enough. it's not a solution, other than to say 'ta da, we don't have race day meds'. is that more important than making sure there aren't medical issues? i think this 'cure' is worse than the 'disease'.

if it doesn't cause harm, doesn't enhance performance, and doesn't mask drugs, what's the problem? what potentially costs more, using it, or not using it and having to deal with eiph?


what's best for the horses?

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Riot

Science doesn't depend upon how hard you "believe". That's called "religion". It appears you've confused the two.

It has nothing to do with believing. It can be proven, if in fact you actually want to prove it. If you don't, you ignore it.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Danzig

or perhaps it's because it could affect others? like i said, as soon as they can identify who will bleed with certainty, by all means, adjust the rules.

I ask again, what it the harm in waiting? Nobody seems to want to answer that question. The real reason nobody wants to wait until a horse actually bleeds to get Lasix is everyone knows it puts them at a competitive disadvantage. It really is that simple.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Danzig

if it's not harmful, what's the problem? if there's an alternative to lasix to prevent bleeding, present it.

Nasal strips have been shown to be just as effective. Riot's answer is that she would use both. Yeah, sure, that makes sense. Pay twice for the same effect. Chuck's answer was "the darn things just don't stick too good." Seemed to stick fine on the Derby winner.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Nasal strips have been shown to be just as effective. Riot's answer is that she would use both. Yeah, sure, that makes sense. Pay twice for the same effect. Chuck's answer was "the darn things just don't stick too good." Seemed to stick fine on the Derby winner.

They are not the same "effect". They work on opposite sides of the physical location of the bleeding. Lasix and FLAIR complement, not duplicate.

Furosemide works by attenuating the exercise-induced rise in pulmonary intracapillary pressure on the capillary walls at the alveolar interface, and decreasing plasma volume; and FLAIR strips lower the tearing effect of negative pulmonary airway pressures during inspiration.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

ok, from everything i've read here and the other thread, as well as in other discussions, let me see if i have this right:


pro's of removing lasix on race day:

no longer have horses on drugs on race day.


are there any others?

facts on lasix:

not harmful
not proven to enhance performance (note, i said proven-opnion/belief isn't proof)
prevents bleeding and any accompanying lung damage
not a masking agent. (as the study i linked said, with plasma testing, better testing(for what they know what to test for!), lasix can't be considered as a masking agent
used either in training and/or race day in practically every racing jurisdiction on the planet

cons of removing lasix on race day:

bleeders with a history have lost their bleeding prevention, prone to worsening episodes as well as more and more damage.
no way of knowing what horse will have a bleeding episode, or when, or how severe. that in turn means no prevention of lung damage, which can be permanent
an alternative to lasix is removal of water and food for 24-48 hours before racing. (that's some alternative)

or you can force people who currently have something they can use to prevent bleeding to retire a horse instead. wow. can you imagine? dip deep in your pockets, buy a horse. pay for all the training and what comes with it...the horse runs, bleeds, and you have no way to recoup that money. that sounds like a great plan.



and as for the comment about 'since the 70's' this or that has changed...

isn't that about the same time that commercial breeding took off?

You have the issues well thought out

You did forget one con, however: the increase in the American racing public starting to see horses bleeding out their nose and in respiratory distress as they come back to be unsaddled.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Riot

You have the issues well thought out

You did forget one con, however: the increase in the American racing public starting to see horses bleeding out their nose and in respiratory distress as they come back to be unsaddled.

Nowhere in that study did it suggest using both. It said both were about equally good at controlling EIPH.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Nowhere in that study did it suggest using both. It said both were about equally good at controlling EIPH.

You are confusing efficacy of the treatment with physiology.

The study you are referring to (there are several, by the way, more than one) wasn't about "should one or both be used", and neither did it say "only one should be used" as you are falsely implying.

They do not have the same "effect". They have a similar therapeutic efficacy. They have different "effects".

As I said: the two different therapies complement each other, not duplicate each other.

FLAIR also has other measured benefits that furosemide does not have regarding - GASP! - straight old "performance enhancing" !!! Why are you not mounting an effort to get FLAIR strips outlawed?

[cmorioles]

It has never been shown that using both together helps more.

In any case, of all the things I said, you ignore the rest and try to nitpick that? Very telling...

Time to go bet.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I ask again, what it the harm in waiting? Nobody seems to want to answer that question.

No. It's been answered multiple times. You've deliberately and repeatedly ignored it.

The answer is: 93% of horses experience EIPH when racing. Furosemide decreases that number. That is why the veterinary and scientific world overwhelmingly and without reservation advises furosemides' continued use as a therapeutic race day drug.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

It has never been shown that using both together helps more.

Wrong. You are ignorant of the literature.

In any case, of all the things I said, you ignore the rest and try to nitpick that? Very telling...

Yes. Telling that, as I have said, I am intolerant of people deliberately misrepresenting the scientific information regarding furosemides use in race horses, in order to further a private agenda.

Time to go bet.

Good luck. I hope you have a winning day.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Riot

No. It's been answered multiple times. You've deliberately and repeatedly ignored it.

The answer is: 93% of horses experience EIPH when racing. Furosemide decreases that number. That is why the veterinary and scientific world overwhelmingly and without reservation advises furosemides' continued use as a therapeutic race day drug.

Two questions...what about the other 7%? What is the harm in actually waiting until they bleed? It is obvious to me these bleeding episodes don't do any long term damage to the horse. The facts don't lie.

[Merlinsky]

Bob Baffert on Twitter -‏ @Midnightlute If they take race day lasix away I will recommend to all my clients to sell their broodmares asap. Racing will not survive.

So you'll help it along by telling your clients to sell their broodmares?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Two questions...what about the other 7%? What is the harm in actually waiting until they bleed?

Who is giving those horses lasix? You're the only one saying they are. Is that based upon your own personal experience with your own horses?

It is obvious to me these bleeding episodes don't do any long term damage to the horse. The facts don't lie.

The facts are that the veterinary scientific community says, repeatedly and with emphasis, that you are wrong. The veterinary community says that yes, Exercise-Induced Pulmonary Hemorrhage scars lungs and causes increasing and permanent damage over time.

No. The facts don't lie.

People who are non-scientifically oriented mistakenly think that simply saying something with conviction, and repeating it ever more loudly, makes something true. They are wrong. And it needs to stop.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I ask again, what it the harm in waiting? Nobody seems to want to answer that question. The real reason nobody wants to wait until a horse actually bleeds to get Lasix is everyone knows it puts them at a competitive disadvantage. It really is that simple.

because you said yourself, no one knows til it happens if it'll happen. you also said lasix doesn't harm a horse.

if there is potential harm if you don't use it, and no harm if you use it, why wait?


and 'everybody knows'? makes you wonder why then that some choose not to use it. or maybe that's because everyone doesn't know that. perhaps they paid attention to all the studies linked in the last week or so that said there is no advantage. but then, even tho there is proof there can be permanent lung damage from a severe enough bleeding episode, you're still insisting otherwise.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Riot

Who is giving those horses lasix? You're the only one saying they are. Is that based upon your own personal experience with your own horses?



The facts are that the veterinary scientific community says, repeatedly and with emphasis, that you are wrong. The veterinary community says that yes, Exercise-Induced Pulmonary Hemorrhage scars lungs and causes increasing and permanent damage over time.

No. The facts don't lie.

People who are non-scientifically oriented mistakenly think that simply saying something with conviction, and repeating it ever more loudly, makes something true. They are wrong. And it needs to stop.

I don't own horses, never have, but I've been around plenty of barns. 93% bleed. Do you know the percentage of horses that get Lasix? Are you saying it is 93% or lower? Ummm, I think not.

By damage, I'm saying it doesn't cause a decrease in performance. If it did, we would see it on the track from all those Euro horses that aren't "entitled" to Lasix. Doesn't seem to phase them one bit.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Danzig

because you said yourself, no one knows til it happens if it'll happen. you also said lasix doesn't harm a horse.

if there is potential harm if you don't use it, and no harm if you use it, why wait?


and 'everybody knows'? makes you wonder why then that some choose not to use it. or maybe that's because everyone doesn't know that. perhaps they paid attention to all the studies linked in the last week or so that said there is no advantage. but then, even tho there is proof there can be permanent lung damage from a severe enough bleeding episode, you're still insisting otherwise.

Your writing skills are horrid. I don't think your reading skills are much better judging by the things you attribute to me. I think it is best if I just ignore your posts from now on, sorry.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Nasal strips have been shown to be just as effective. Riot's answer is that she would use both. Yeah, sure, that makes sense. Pay twice for the same effect. Chuck's answer was "the darn things just don't stick too good." Seemed to stick fine on the Derby winner.

i'd rather use something i know i won't have to worry about sticking.

did i'll have another run on lasix?