NYTHA Lasix Primer & Letter to NYS RWB

[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

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.



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



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)

It makes zero sense if you can't read, otherwise I'm sure most can figure it out.

I'll ask some easy questions. If you can answer, great. If you won't, don't bother responding.

1. Do you think most horses that race in Europe suffer from EIPH when racing?
2. Do episodes of EIPH cause any long term damage?
3. If so, shouldn't the horses get worse the more they race?
4. If not, what is the harm in waiting to see if a horse actually bleeds before administering Lasix?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

It makes zero sense if you can't read, otherwise I'm sure most can figure it out.

Baloney. It's a completely ridiculous assumption, that if American horses can't beat Euro or Australasian horses on their home turf, it means our lasix doesn't doesn't help our horses be physically better when they are taken off lasix and shipped overseas. Completely absurd.

I'll ask some easy questions. If you can answer, great. If you won't, don't bother responding.

1. Do you think most horses that race in Europe suffer from EIPH when racing?
2. Do episodes of EIPH cause any long term damage?
3. If so, shouldn't the horses get worse the more they race?
4. If not, what is the harm in waiting to see if a horse actually bleeds before administering Lasix?

Here's the easy answers, based upon the breadth and depth of scientific knowledge we have regarding lasix. If you don't want to believe it, you shouldn't have asked.

1. Yes. It's estimated 93% of horses in Europe suffer from EIPH when racing.

2. Yes, episodes of EIPH cause long-term damage.

3. Yes, horses DO get worse the more they race (regarding quantitative EIPH severity and damage)

4. The answer was "yes" to the previous question. My opinion matches the general consensus of the overwhelming majority of the veterinary community, that furosemide attenuates the quantity and quality of EIPH in the race horse, and is a valuable race day therapeutic drug.

Nobody has mentioned that the Derby winner was wearing a Flair nasal strip. If I trained race horses, I would race them all on lasix and with Flair nasal strips on. Both methods help protect their lungs from EIPH damage.

[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.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

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.

It still doesn't change the fact that if all this damage is done to horses racing without Lasix, how is it that the Euros are the better horses when they come here most years? Clearly this "damage" is being drummed up to be something worse than it is.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

It still doesn't change the fact that if all this damage is done to horses racing without Lasix, how is it that the Euros are the better horses when they come here most years? Clearly this "damage" is being drummed up to be something worse than it is.

Are they ever better horses here on dirt? What happened to Daddy Long Legs in the Derby against our 3 year old dirt lasix diluted horses?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

It still doesn't change the fact that if all this damage is done to horses racing without Lasix, how is it that the Euros are the better horses when they come here most years? Clearly this "damage" is being drummed up to be something worse than it is.

Using this argument as proof is silly. I recall a lot of Europeans coming over here and tharshing our best horses on turf prior to lasix being used.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

It still doesn't change the fact that if all this damage is done to horses racing without Lasix, how is it that the Euros are the better horses when they come here most years? Clearly this "damage" is being drummed up to be something worse than it is.

the euros are better most years at what?
and since you brought it up, regarding euros. don't they train with lasix? and as soon as they get over here, they race them on it. seems hard for them to be holier than thou when they jump at the chance to use it asap. and they'd use it at home the moment it was legalized. many push for it-and with reason.

and in australia, they remove the better bleeders after an episode, because after a second there, they can't breed. so they send them here. why do you suppose they do that? because they can run on lasix to prevent further bleeding and it's potential consequences.