NYTHA Lasix Primer & Letter to NYS RWB

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Kasept

Good. That means it's at least level with the omitted and biased information promulgated by the opposition.

Of course. Are you going to post that side as well?

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Of course. Are you going to post that side as well?

No. You can if you want to though.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Kasept

No. You can if you want to though.

I've given my thoughts. I'll have to check the thread others mention since I didn't see it.

The biggest thing I have trouble with is that nobody wants to test if horses that don't need Lasix run faster with it than without it. Everything I've learned about racing in 30 years of following the sport seems to point to the fact that it does, but nobody wants to address this.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I've given my thoughts. I'll have to check the thread others mention since I didn't see it.

The biggest thing I have trouble with is that nobody wants to test if horses that don't need Lasix run faster with it than without it. Everything I've learned about racing in 30 years of following the sport seems to point to the fact that it does, but nobody wants to address this.

as i've asked before, how can you tell if a horse needs it? it's my understanding that eiph can occur at any time without warning, and that severe enough episodes can cause permanent lung damage. so, how does one determine when a horse will bleed? and if you can't tell, isn't it better to prevent something that could happen, rather than have regret for not preventing it, and having permanent consequences as a result?
it is also my understanding that the only enhancement is that a horse hindered by bleeding is no longer hindered when given lasix. that way he can run to his talent-not below, not above.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Danzig

as i've asked before, how can you tell if a horse needs it? it's my understanding that eiph can occur at any time without warning, and that severe enough episodes can cause permanent lung damage. so, how does one determine when a horse will bleed? and if you can't tell, isn't it better to prevent something that could happen, rather than have regret for not preventing it, and having permanent consequences as a result?
it is also my understanding that the only enhancement is that a horse hindered by bleeding is no longer hindered when given lasix. that way he can run to his talent-not below, not above.

So we are back to this...just drug all horses whether they need it or not.

I keep hearing this about only helping a horse run to its ability, but I don't think it is true.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

So we are back to this...just drug all horses whether they need it or not.

I keep hearing this about only helping a horse run to its ability, but I don't think it is true.

It clearly helps in preventing bleeding but for some reason that is always ignored.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

It clearly helps in preventing bleeding but for some reason that is always ignored.

I'm not ignoring this at all. I'm ceding that point. I'd be foolish not to do so. If you want to pretend there aren't trainers using Lasix because they think it gives the horse an edge, we'll just have to disagree. I know better.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

So we are back to this...just drug all horses whether they need it or not.

I keep hearing this about only helping a horse run to its ability, but I don't think it is true.

and i will ask for a third time, how can you know if a horse will bleed? or when?

and thinking isn't a fact, it's an opinion.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Danzig

and i will ask for a third time, how can you know if a horse will bleed? or when?

and thinking isn't a fact, it's an opinion.

You can't. I've been around a long time though. I don't remember any irreparable damage done to horses that didn't get Lasix until they actually visibly bled. Horses that bled profusely through the nostrils were then given Lasix and went on to be champions. Why can't we wait? Why does nearly every single horse have to be given drugs "just in case"?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I've given my thoughts. I'll have to check the thread others mention since I didn't see it.

The biggest thing I have trouble with is that nobody wants to test if horses that don't need Lasix run faster with it than without it. Everything I've learned about racing in 30 years of following the sport seems to point to the fact that it does, but nobody wants to address this.

Some horses run faster in blinkers than without them but no one is suggesting that they are performance enhancers when they clearly can be.

Just sayin...

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Some horses run faster in blinkers than without them but no one is suggesting that they are performance enhancers when they clearly can be.

Just sayin...

They aren't a drug...just sayin...

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

They aren't a drug...just sayin...

Either is a buzzer/joint

However under the definition of performance enhancer that you are placing on lasix they all can produce the same result. Yet one is illegal, one no one even mentions as a performance enhancer though it clearly can enhance performance and the other is lasix.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Either is a buzzer/joint

However under the definition of performance enhancer that you are placing on lasix they all can produce the same result. Yet one is illegal, one no one even mentions as a performance enhancer though it clearly can enhance performance and the other is lasix.

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with the debate on Lasix. Buzzers are illegal, so who cares? You want to ban blinkers because they enhance performance, be my guest. I don't care. But clearly the public is going to see a big difference between legal equipment and legal drugs. What is next, tongue ties? Bandages? Different bits? I say we stick to drugs.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

The biggest thing I have trouble with is that nobody wants to test if horses that don't need Lasix run faster with it than without it. Everything I've learned about racing in 30 years of following the sport seems to point to the fact that it does, but nobody wants to address this.

It is so rewarding to do measurable science in a vacuum. Why have Gluck, with million of dollars in donations dedicated to equine science? You know, get the answers people want? Answers like, "How fast do horses run on lasix, versus off lasix?

I don't know what's worse: not knowing it exists, or repeatedly and deliberately ignoring it exists.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Riot

It is so rewarding to do measurable science in a vacuum. Why have Gluck, with million of dollars in donations dedicated to equine science? You know, get the answers people want? Answers like, "How fast do horses run on lasix, versus off lasix?

I don't know what's worse: not knowing it exists, or repeatedly and deliberately ignoring it exists.

I tried running this through babblefish, but it couldn't translate the post either. I seem to remember you quoted a study that said some horses run faster, others do not. In any case, the studies I saw were vague and the conclusions dubious at best. Surely we can do better in 2012.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I tried running this through babblefish, but it couldn't translate the post either. I seem to remember you quoted a study that said some horses run faster, others do not. In any case, the studies I saw were vague and the conclusions dubious at best. Surely we can do better in 2012.

You don't have a clue how to read a scientific study. Your dismissal of what you don't like is ridiculous.

"Deliberately ignore" it is. Don't walk in here and pretend you want to find out any "truth" about lasix. It's obvious you have an agenda, you're sticking to it, and it's not based upon any objectivity of what is best for horses.

Here's your challenge: give any objective evidence at all to prove that lasix is harmful to horses.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Riot

Here's your challenge: give any objective evidence at all to prove that lasix is harmful to horses.

Where have I ever said it was harmful? I am quite sure I have never said that. Feel free to keep making things up though.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I tried running this through babblefish, but it couldn't translate the post either. I seem to remember you quoted a study that said some horses run faster, others do not. In any case, the studies I saw were vague and the conclusions dubious at best. Surely we can do better in 2012.

As vague and conclusive as the assertion that Lasix is a performance enhancer?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Of course. Are you going to post that side as well?

I believe the cleanracing.org thread would qualify.