NYTHA Lasix Primer & Letter to NYS RWB

[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?

Attack!! Attack!! Counter Attack!! Feign Weakness!! Scold!! Attack!! Attack!! Vague Explanations!!! Counter Attack!! Snide Retort!!! Trophy!!

[Riot]

This is the first page from the link Kasept posted at the start of this thread. There is nothing scientifically false or questionable in this. There is more scientific evidence, in addition to what is quoted below (you can read the detail by clicking on Kasepts original link), to support and substantiate every single statement without hesitation or question.

In other words: this is not opinion, it is fact and truth.

What is exercise-induced pulmonary hemorrhage?

A horse affected by EIPH--a bleeder--suffers from ruptured blood vessels in the lungs during the stress of training or competing. This condition affects not just Thoroughbred racehorses, but all equine athletes, including polo ponies, 3-day event horses, barrel racers and steeplechasers.

The severity of the condition is determined by the amount of blood in the horse’s trachea, and graded on a scale of 0 to 4. If a horse is graded as a 4, there is blood covering the entire trachea and performance is severely affected; if the horse is off the charts and in crisis, there is blood draining from one or both nostrils (epistaxis). In those cases, the condition can be critical.

Some 60% of sudden deaths in racing have been attributed to pulmonary
hemorrhage.

Studies have proven that the vast majority of race horses
will suffer EIPH at some point during their careers, and that even a grade
2 can affect a horse’s performance by as many as six lengths.

First documented in the early 1800s, EIPH had long been suspected to
have a negative impact on a racehorse’s ability to perform at its peak level. But, until the early 1970s, the only symptom of EIPH beyond the subpar performance was epistaxis.

That changed with the introduction of the fiberoptic endoscope 40 years ago, which, for the first time, allowed a veterinarian to examine the horse’s upper respiratory system, and determine the origin and severity of the bleeding.

Not only did this ground-breaking advance in diagnostics prove that the
blood originated from the lungs, but also demonstrated that EIPH was prevalent even when epistaxis was not evident.

Dr. Ken Hinchcliff, the recognized leader in EIPH research, was lead author on studies conducted in Australia and South Africa, which proved definitively that EIPH affects the majority of Thoroughbred racehorses.

The results from his Australian study, released in 2005, determined
that 55% of horses suffered some level of EIPH, and was the first to clearly demonstrate the connection between EIPH and poor performance.

Subsequent studies have found that the prevalence of EIPH is even higher. If you scope a horse after three successive strenuous workouts, nearly 100% will be diagnosed with EIPH by the third scope.

Dr. Hinchcliff then set out to determine if the most common treatment for EIPH, the administration of Lasix, was, in fact, effective. The results of the study, conducted under racing conditions in South Africa, were published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association in July of 2009.

Not only was the study able to quantify the impact on performance with regard to the severity of the EIPH, but it proved that Lasix was highly effective in alleviating the condition. A small percentage of the 152 horses involved in the study evidenced the highest degree of bleeding without Lasix-- grades 3 and 4--but not a single horse evidenced a grade higher than 2 after the administration of Lasix.

Twice as many horses were completely unaffected by EIPH when treated with Lasix as when racing without it.

The scientific evidence is irrefutable. Horses bleed. Lasix works.