NYTHA Lasix Primer & Letter to NYS RWB

[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.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Riot

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.

You like to pretend like you have the answers, but curiously, you never actually put them out there in black-and-white. That is to say, you never actually help propel the discussion (which is what this is) along. It's not a street fight.

Some of us here are trying to investigate all the nooks and crannies that bog down the issue of lasix, so that as honest a picture as possible can be obtained. Some issues/questions might prove to support the use of lasix while others might illustrate why it is justifiable to ban it.

But apparently, you've already made your decision (because you know 10,000x more than us), so you feel the need to barge around like a cow in a china shop.

Good for you.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

You like to pretend like you have the answers, but curiously, you never actually put them out there in black-and-white.

Nope. I have absolutely put the facts out there in black and white in our previous discussions. They sit in the other thread. Hard to ignore. Why do you say something that clearly isn't true?

Yes, I have an opinion on using lasix in race horses, but my opinion is formed as a result of the decades of fact and science surrounding the use of lasix in race horses.

Yes, indeed - I do know about 10,000 times more about lasix than you do. You might try and learn something. You have shown zero interest in finding the answers to your questions.

Your question was: "How much is a horse's performance actually affected by bleeding at grades below the most severe?" I said we have that information.

So please, don't pretend you want to know all the "nooks and crannies" of the lasix question, when you've clearly shown you have zero desire to hear anything at odds to your current opinion.

You? You have an opinion unfiltered and unaffected by the facts.

And calling me a cow in a china shop may make you feel more like a big tough guy, but the fact of that is that you are just another proof of Jonathan Gabriel's Law of the Internet.

I know you guys want to come on here and throw around "facts" about lasix. I'm calling you guys out on your "facts". Because, again, we need to base what we do medically for our race horses on fact - not guesses. Don't you agree?

[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 Riot

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?

I think it was fairly obvious from both cmorioles question and my own, that we were satisfied with the most accessible and commonplace method of diagnosing EIPH (ie endoscopy) as a means of quantifying severity.

You're attempt to roadblock any further discussion of the issue at hand with your bluster about lab coats, plastic catheters, and half liters of saline is duly noted.

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?

Actually, we were discussing the signficance of bleeding on performance. That in and of itself need not include discussing lasix.

A good scientist would be able to separate and isolate the components of a multi-variable problem. Investigate each independently to ensure the most accurate definitions. Only later will those components be put back together, so that all the information can be integrated to form a cohesive whole from which to draw a logical, and hopefully valid, conclusion.

Try harder.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

I think it was fairly obvious from both cmorioles question and my own, that we were satisfied with the most accessible and commonplace method of diagnosing EIPH (ie endoscopy) as a means of quantifying severity.

But that is not the most accurate method of quantifying severity. You know that. In fact, it's known that endoscopy misses the diagnosis the majority of time.

You're attempt to roadblock any further discussion of the issue at hand with your bluster about lab coats, plastic catheters, and half liters of saline is duly noted.

Damn! Science! Truth! How dare I!

Even though I've not mentioned "lab coats, plastic catheters, and half liters of saline". Seriously: does reality ever intrude upon you?

Actually, we were discussing the signficance of bleeding on performance. That in and of itself need not include discussing lasix.

Yet it means everything when one wants to ban the use of a valuable therapeutic drug - lasix - on race day.

But let's discuss your first premise: tell me, what does science tell us about the significance of EIPH, bleeding, on performance? We have that answer. Tell us what science has found about the significance of EIPH on performance.

A good scientist would be able to separate and isolate the components of a multi-variable problem. Investigate each independently to ensure the most accurate definitions. Only later will those components be put back together, so that all the information can be integrated to form a cohesive whole from which to draw a logical, and hopefully valid, conclusion. Try harder.

Yeah. You might take your own advice. Because believe me, you aren't doing any of that. You are deliberately ignoring any science at odds to your opinion.

The question is not if lasix should be used on race day. The question is: do we want to allow the use of proven effective therapeutic medications on race day, or not?

[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?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

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?

From the horses point of view? From the gamblers? From the track's profit line? From horse breeders point of view? Whose interest should be put first in the racing industry?

What it says is only that uncontrolled EIPH on race day will not prevent a viable racing industry from existing.

Do you think we should base our use of race day medications on what scientific facts tell us is best for the horse, or not?

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

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?

...and these very same horses routinely destroy our horses when they don't use Lasix.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

...and these very same horses routinely destroy our horses when they don't use Lasix.

Not only that, but apparently most of the scientific evidence that validates the use of lasix comes from a single study (from 2009--took a while to prove, didn't it?) done under racing conditions in...wait for it...South Africa.

I thought we weren't supposed to care what happened with racehorses across the Atlantic.

Their system and methods are totally different. Right?