NYTHA Lasix Primer & Letter to NYS RWB

[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?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

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.

False. Completely false. Again, you are simply ignoring that which you do not want to hear. There are 127 studies on lasix in the race horse, including many in the US. In fact, I have posted several on the previous thread, that you have certainly seen.

So are you just ignoring that? Or did you forget it exists? Or are you deliberately misstating in the above paragraph? Because your statement is grossly factually untrue.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Riot

False. Completely false. Again, you are simply ignoring that which you do not want to hear. There are 127 studies on lasix in the race horse, including many in the US. In fact, I have posted several on the previous thread, that you have certainly seen.

So are you just ignoring that? Or did you forget it exists? Or are you deliberately misstating in the above paragraph? Because your statement is grossly factually untrue.

From the same person who conducted the South African study in 2009, when reviewing EIPH in 2004:

The currently favored treatment for EIPH is administration of furosemide
before intense exercise....However, it should be borne in mind that neither the relationship between severity of EIPH and red cell count in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid nor the efficacy of furosemide in reducing severity of EIPH in racehorses in the field have been demonstrated. In fact, there is strong evidence that furosemide does not reduce the prevalence of EIPH and other evidence that it does not reduce the severity of EIPH under field conditions. The association between furosemide administration and superior performance in Standardbred and Thoroughbred racehorses should be considered when recommending use of this drug.

Level-headedness and an open mind when targeting a problem are good things.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

Level-headedness and an open mind when targeting a problem are good things.

So does intellectual honesty, and not changing the subject to a straw man, as you just did. Let alone quoting sentences out of context.

So let's go back to what you are trying to avoid.

You said: " ... 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 said: That is false. Your statement is false. "most of the scientific evidence that validates the use of lasix" comes from multiple studies - 127, to be closer - done in multiple countries, the vast majority being America.

There are multiple studies - over a hundred - that validate the use of lasix in the race horse.
Most were done in America.
Some use laboratory science duplicating racing conditions. Some use actual race horses on the track in racing conditions.
The studies vary from as long as 50-60 years ago (the origins of lasix) to the explosion of knowledge in the 1990's.

Your statement is grossly, factually incorrect.

Please - stop making stuff about lasix up out of thin air. Stop making statements of 'fact' when you are ignorant of the extent of the topic. It adds nothing to the discussion.

If you are sincerely interested in finding out the truth of the effect of EIPH on performance, and lasix on EIPH, you've spent pages proving the opposite. Again: do you want science to tell you what your opinion of lasix and EIPH should be, or is your mind already made up about it?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

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

Can you please provide some quantitative proof to that? Thanks!

Like, all the times your horses over 30 years have not used lasix in their races, and have beaten their peers.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Riot

Can you please provide some quantitative proof to that? Thanks!

Like, all the times your horses over 30 years have not used lasix in their races, and have beaten their peers.

I think you misunderstand. I'm asking why we can't seem to win any race that matters overseas? Sure, our turf horses aren't the greatest, but they do win a decent number of BC races. Overseas, without Lasix, well, it is getting embarrassing. I'd settle for a horse that could run 10th at this point.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I think you misunderstand. I'm asking why we can't seem to win any race that matters overseas? Sure, our turf horses aren't the greatest, but they do win a decent number of BC races. Overseas, without Lasix, well, it is getting embarrassing. I'd settle for a horse that could run 10th at this point.

If horses without lasix do better, why don't you take all your horses off lasix and gain that performance advantage here in the states?

Is there any scientific evidence, in those 127 published papers on lasix in race horses, supporting your impression that horses without lasix perform better than horses with lasix?

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Riot

If horses without lasix do better, why don't you take all your horses off lasix and gain that performance advantage here in the states?

Is there any scientific evidence, in those 127 published papers on lasix in race horses, supporting your impression that horses without lasix perform better than horses with lasix?

I'd have better luck talking to a wall. I don't think you even read the posts.

Lets try again. I never said horses without Lasix have an advantage. I actually have said just the opposite many times. I said our horses can't beat horses overseas when NONE of the horses have Lasix.

So clearly this EIPH that the shippers must be experiencing isn't causing any long term damage. If it was, our horses, through the miracles of Lasix, would be in much better physical shape. They would drub the horses from around the world. They would also expose those countries as foolish and horse haters for not seeing the light and providing their horses with the wonderful properties of this drug.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I'd have better luck talking to a wall. I don't think you ever read the posts.

I'd have better luck remembering that you cannot jump from one idea to a logical second, but have to go step-by-step without skipping.

I said our horses can't beat horses overseas when NONE of the horses have Lasix.

So clearly this EIPH that the shippers must be experiencing isn't causing any long term damage.

That makes zero logical sense whatsoever. There is zero connection between your conclusion and your first sentence. Zero.

If it was, our horses, through the miracles of Lasix, would be in much better physical shape. They would drub the horses from around the world. They would also expose those countries as foolish and horse haters for not seeing the light and providing their horses with the wonderful properties of this drug.

That makes zero sense, and you clearly have no concept of how lasix actually works in the horse. Your assumptions in the above paragraph are legion and many.

Please: leave science to the scientists. You have to decide, are you going to listen to them, or not? Because right now you've clearly chosen "not". And you are making a hodgepodge of ridiculous arguments taking a snatch of concept from here and there (you are not ridiculous, friend, the arguments are logically ridiculous)

Again, the question is: Is US racing going to continue to allow the use of a proven therapeutic medication on race day, or not?

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Riot

If horses without lasix do better, why don't you take all your horses off lasix and gain that performance advantage here in the states

I'm glad to see you have come around and now admit Lasix enhances performance.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I'm glad to see you have come around and now admit Lasix enhances performance.

Oh, please. I didn't say that and you know it. You said that.

I told you that if it were true that, as you said, our horses used to lasix couldn't beat horses not on lasix overseas, you should take your horses off lasix and gain that performance advantage you perceive.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I think you misunderstand. I'm asking why we can't seem to win any race that matters overseas? Sure, our turf horses aren't the greatest, but they do win a decent number of BC races. Overseas, without Lasix, well, it is getting embarrassing. I'd settle for a horse that could run 10th at this point.

When did we win a lot of races overseas outside of the Dubai races when they were on dirt? When did we even run overseas prior to the Dubai races and occasional foray for the Japan Cup?

Didnt Wes Ward run a clinic last year (or the year before) at Ascot with a bunch of mediorce types?

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

When did we win a lot of races overseas outside of the Dubai races when they were on dirt? When did we even run overseas prior to the Dubai races and occasional foray for the Japan Cup?

The Japan races are what I remember, and our horses at one time were competitive. Now they are just embarrassing.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

The Japan races are what I remember, and our horses at one time were competitive. Now they are just embarrassing.

In the early years of the Japan Cup American horses did well but dont forget that Japanese racing and breeding was nothing close to what it is now. It isnt as though other countries horses are doing much in the race now either as the Japanese have been pretty dominant the last decade.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

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

I'm confused about this.

On turf? On dirt? Both surfaces? are we talking about euro shippers to american or american shippers to europe?

I just cant think of a high number of euro's who routinley destroy our best dirt horses when they do not use lasix.

On turf? sure it seems that way. Though you would think it would be expected considering America focuses on dirt racing and Europe focuses on turf racing... which of course has nothing to do with lasix.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I'm confused about this.

On turf? On dirt? Both surfaces? are we talking about euro shippers to american or american shippers to europe?

I just cant think of a high number of euro's who routinley destroy our best dirt horses when they do not use lasix.

On turf? sure it seems that way. Though you would think it would be expected considering America focuses on dirt racing and Europe focuses on turf racing... which of course has nothing to do with lasix.

i have tried several times without success to find a bloodhorse story from a few years ago that showed even tho some believe euros routinely thrash us when we meet, that it isn't actually the case. very frustrating to say the least that i can remember reading the thing, but can't produce a link.