NYTHA Lasix Primer & Letter to NYS RWB

[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 Riot

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.

Didn't you just post a whole list of purported facts that gush over the advent and widespread use of endoscopy?

Please be consistent.

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?

I was presuming that the more accurate method of diagnosis you were referring to was a bronchial lavage. My bad.

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

I never said I wanted lasix banned.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

Didn't you just post a whole list of purported facts that gush over the advent and widespread use of endoscopy?
Please be consistent.

Nope. You are, again, mistaken.

I was presuming that the more accurate method of diagnosis you were referring to was a bronchial lavage.

Now you're just making up sentences with words, to try and cover your lack of knowledge of the subject.

I never said I wanted lasix banned

Do you think therapeutic medications should be banned on race day, or not? We both agree that illegal and non-therapeutic medications should be banned, I assume.