NYTHA Lasix Primer & Letter to NYS RWB

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Because you arent allowed in most states to give anything via tube or needle including electrolytes within 24 hours except lasix.

I presume it's because there are negative implications associated with someone administering any substance to a horse on raceday.

Is sodium bicarbonate innocuous and/or beneficial to an athlete?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

I presume it's because there are negative implications associated with someone administering any substance to a horse on raceday.

Is sodium bicarbonate innocuous and/or beneficial to an athlete?

I would guess your presumption is correct not to mention makes it easier to monitor because it would be pretty hard to say you were using a tube to give lasix.

It wasnt that long ago that you could "legally" milkshake horses on raceday. Some horses seemed to run better with them, some ran worse, most ran about as the same as you would think. Of course there are a lot of other factors that lead to a positive or negative performance so it isnt easy to say with certainty.

I have no idea if it would help a human though I suppose the delevery system would need to be different

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Of course there are a lot of other factors that lead to a positive or negative performance so it isnt easy to say with certainty.

This is also true when discussing the significance of bleeding in racehorses as it pertains to actual performance. How much is a horse's performance actually affected by bleeding at grades below the most severe?

It goes back to what cmorioles was saying about the vast majority of racehorses receiving lasix on raceday.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

How much is a horse's performance actually affected by bleeding at grades below the most severe?

Tell us. The proper way to formulate that hypothesis would be that 100% of horses are negatively affected. Prove that hypothesis wrong.

We do not want to assume, or guess, do we? Let's base our opinions on the facts - right?

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Riot

Tell us. The proper way to formulate that hypothesis would be that 100% of horses are negatively affected. Prove that hypothesis wrong.

Horses win races despite bleeding out the nose.

Next.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

Horses win races despite bleeding out the nose.

Next.

No. That's not what you said at all. And that proves nothing at all about what you said.

You said: "How much is a horse's performance actually affected by bleeding at grades below the most severe?"

So tell us: how much is a horses performance affected by bleeding at grades below 4? None? 100%? 50% By 2 lengths? By 10 lengths? By 0.5 seconds per furlong? Not at all? Do you know the answer? Do you have a percentage of how many are affected, and at what grades? What is that answer?

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Riot

No. That's not what you said at all. And that proves nothing at all about what you said.

I didn't assert anything, Copernicus. I asked a question.

You said: "How much is a horse's performance actually affected by bleeding at grades below the most severe?"

Yep. Thought so. A question.

So tell us: how much is a horses performance affected by bleeding at grades below 4? Do you know the answer? Do you have a percentage of how many are affected, and at what grades? What is that answer?

Funny, I asked the very same question. We must share the same brain.

Of course, I have it all the time.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

I didn't assert anything, Copernicus. I asked a question.

That's right, smarty. Why don't you go find the answer and get back to us? Because it's out there. And it's absolutely germane to this discussion.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

This is also true when discussing the significance of bleeding in racehorses as it pertains to actual performance. How much is a horse's performance actually affected by bleeding at grades below the most severe?

It goes back to what cmorioles was saying about the vast majority of racehorses receiving lasix on raceday.

I've always wondered if you need a scope to find bleeding, how bad is it really? Does it affect performance? How do we know? Who can give an accurate measurement?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I've always wondered if you need a scope to find bleeding, how bad is it really? Does it affect performance? How do we know? Who can give an accurate measurement?

You know that you don't need a scope to find bleeding. You know there are other ways that are far more accurate. Why are your purposely ignoring that? Why are you misleading people with your statements?

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Riot

You know that you don't need a scope to find bleeding. You know there are other ways that are far more accurate. Why are your purposely ignoring that? Why are you misleading people with your statements?

The issue at hand, since clearly you don't follow, is the significance of bleeding, not the diagnosis.

Ketchup.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

The issue at hand, since clearly you don't follow, is the significance of bleeding, not the diagnosis.

Ketchup.

Oh, I love it when those ignorant of science try to use it in an argument, then reveal themselves to be ... well, ignorant of science.

Yes, the issue at hand is the significance of bleeding. And to know if a horse has bleed, you have to ... you know ... see if it bled, first. Then you measure the change in performance.

Right?

Your question was: "How much is a horse's performance actually affected by bleeding at grades below the most severe?"

We have that information. Do you know the answer?

Let's base the use of lasix in race horses on the facts surrounding lasix in race horses. Don't you agree? Let's let the facts tell us what we should do for the horses in our care?

Rather than making up scientific-sounding nonsense, or ignoring the 127 papers published about lasix in race horses, pretending the information we don't want to hear just doesn't exist?

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I've always wondered if you need a scope to find bleeding, how bad is it really? Does it affect performance? How do we know? Who can give an accurate measurement?

One logical course of action would be to observe the quality and success of racing in jurisdictions that don't allow raceday lasix.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

One logical course of action would be to observe the quality and success of racing in jurisdictions that don't allow raceday lasix.

Heck no. "Observing the quality and success of racing in jurisdictions that don't allow raceday lasix"would give us absolutely zero information about, "finding bleeding, how bad is it really? Does it affect performance? How do we know? Who can give an accurate measurement?"

You know what would be a great way to find out how many horses bleed, how bad is the problem "really", does it affect performance? You know who could give us an accurate measurement?

That would be to let scientists actually look at thousands of race horses, and actually measure how badly they bleed, with and without lasix.

We have that information. What is the answer? Do you know?

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Riot

Heck no. "Observing the quality and success of racing in jurisdictions that don't allow raceday lasix"would give us absolutely zero information about, "finding bleeding, how bad is it really? Does it affect performance? How do we know? Who can give an accurate measurement?"

If other jurisdictions are able to successfully maintain a viable racing industry without the permitted use of lasix on raceday, doesn't that suggest something with regards to the signficance of EIPH on racing in general?