NYTHA Lasix Primer & Letter to NYS RWB

[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.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

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.

So if you were a trainer and you knew that giving a shot of lasix would make it far less likely that your horse would bleed and in the even it did would in most cases reduce the severity of the episode you would still not spend the $20?

How can you get an edge if everyone else is using the same thing?

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

So if you were a trainer and you knew that giving a shot of lasix would make it far less likely that your horse would bleed and in the even it did would in most cases reduce the severity of the episode you would still not spend the $20?

How can you get an edge if everyone else is using the same thing?

You can't get an edge, but you can certainly put yourself at a disadvantage. Not using Lasix is a HUGE disadvantage, even when horses don't bleed. You would look as silly debating that as I would if I said Lasix doesn't help with bleeding. Both are indisputable, if you take the blinkers off.

[Fearless Leader]

Is it possible that CMORIOLES is Barry The Hypocrite Irwin in disguise ? He is making the same stupid, baseless arguments.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Fearless Leader

Is it possible that CMORIOLES is Barry The Hypocrite Irwin in disguise ? He is making the same stupid, baseless arguments.

No, I'm not, but I can assure you my arguments are not baseless. Please though, tell me which arguments you think are stupid and/or baseless?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Fearless Leader

Is it possible that CMORIOLES is Barry The Hypocrite Irwin in disguise ? He is making the same stupid, baseless arguments.

No Barry would have insulted me, the entire board and left in a huff.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

You can't get an edge, but you can certainly not put yourself at a disadvantage. Not using Lasix is a HUGE disadvantage, even when horses don't bleed. You would look as silly debating that as I would if I said Lasix doesn't help with bleeding. Both are indisputable, if you take the blinkers off.

So are you making the case that those w/o lasix are actually the problem? I'm just pointing out the ludicrous rantings of cleanracing.org.

If everyone has the same opportunity to use lasix in a highly regulated (except seemingly Maryland) fashion, therefore giving no one a bulit in advantage (because there is a choice) then what is the problem especially considering that the horses who do bleed or are predisposed to bleed (often unknowingly until it happens) benefit physically from it?

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

So are you making the case that those w/o lasix are actually the problem? I'm just pointing out the ludicrous rantings of cleanracing.org.

If everyone has the same opportunity to use lasix in a highly regulated (except seemingly Maryland) fashion, therefore giving no one a bulit in advantage (because there is a choice) then what is the problem especially considering that the horses who do bleed or are predisposed to bleed (often unknowingly until it happens) benefit physically from it?

Now we've come full circle. The only problem I have is that all horses, whether they need it or not, are virtually forced to race on a drug. I realize that horse racing operates in its own little world, but where else in the world would this be considered acceptable, or even tolerated?

[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"?