NYTHA Lasix Primer & Letter to NYS RWB

[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

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.



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.

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

Yes, episodes of EIPH cause long-term damage.

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

The answer was "yes" to the previous question.

Outstanding, I didn't think you had it in you. But, your answers are exactly what I expected. Unfortunately, they fly in the face of what is happening on the racetrack.

Obviously horses in Europe, without Lasix, are going to have more frequent episodes of EIPH. We know it causes long term damage. The more they race, the more damage it causes.

So, our horses, with the benefit of Lasix, don't suffer as much from EIPH. Therefore, our horses must have less long term damage done.

Therefore, when our horses face those from Europe, we clearly must have a big edge. I don't see how anybody could even debate that given the information you have so kindly provided us.

So, it only leaves two more questions.

1. Why are our horses so inferior when we face them without Lasix?
2. Why aren't shippers at a big disadvantage when they ship here, even with Lasix, if they have all this damage from bouts of EIPH?

I rest my case.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Outstanding, I didn't think you had it in you. But, your answers are exactly what I expected. Unfortunately, they fly in the face of what is happening on the racetrack.

Only if someone is silly enough to attribute 100% of a horses performance to the capability of the alveolar-capillary interface and measurable VO2max.

Dang. That would be you.

Why do you attribute 100% of a horses performance to VO2max? That's beyond absurd. You're ignoring every single other thing that contributes to performance: glycogen storage, quantity of fast- vs. slow-twitch muscle fibers, cardiac output, oxygen unloading, training, conditioning, inflammation, ambient humidity and temperature, etc., etc., etc.

I rest my case.

Science isn't lawyering. Sorry.

In all seriousness:
1) Should American racing allow the continued use of race day therapeutic medications?
2) Is furosemide therapeutic?

The answer to #2 has clearly, beyond a doubt, been proven to be "yes". So it's up to American racing to answer #1.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Riot

Only if someone is silly enough to attribute 100% of a horses performance to the capability of the alveolar-capillary interface and measurable VO2max.

Dang. That would be you.

Why do you attribute 100% of a horses performance to VO2max? That's beyond absurd.



Science isn't lawyering. Sorry.

You've given some weak answers, but this one takes the cake. You would have been better off not answering and just saying you fell asleep. At least your non-answer has basically admitted that the long term damage from EIPH really doesn't amount to much at all.

I'm going to get some sleep now, but tomorrow we'll work on the supposed fact that low levels of EIPH actually hinder performance. I'm sure you'll come around there too.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

You've given some weak answers, but this one takes the cake.

Nonsense. You are attributing 100% of performance changes in every American horse going to Europe or Australasia to VO2max, and that's patently absurd beyond measure.

I'm going to get some sleep now, but tomorrow we'll work on the supposed fact that low levels of EIPH actually hinder performance. I'm sure you'll come around there too.

Flippant may work with other folks that don't have a clue, but sorry. It's a fail here. Your "scientific" assertions are true bullshit. I suggest you go off, learn about EIPH and lasix, and come back when you have the basic facts mastered. Read the link provided would be a good lay person start.

Ignorance is threatening American racing. Stop contributing.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

.

So, it only leaves two more questions.

1. Why are our horses so inferior when we face them without Lasix?
2. Why aren't shippers at a big disadvantage when they ship here, even with Lasix, if they have all this damage from bouts of EIPH?

I rest my case.

these are such ridiculous questions.

when dirt racing becomes more prevalent oversea's.. and when American trainers actually start sending their good horses to race oversea's in a race that is not called the dubai world cup... maybe then they wont be such ridiculous questions.

Or I guess Wesley Ward should just start stepping up his game.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

these are such ridiculous questions.

when dirt racing becomes more prevalent oversea's.. and when American trainers actually start sending their good horses to race oversea's in a race that is not called the dubai world cup... maybe then they wont be such ridiculous questions.

Or I guess Wesley Ward should just start stepping up his game.

The interesting thing is that, with the proliferation of multi-hemisphere breeding, plenty of horses across the world have virtually the same pedigrees.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

these are such ridiculous questions.

when dirt racing becomes more prevalent oversea's.. and when American trainers actually start sending their good horses to race oversea's in a race that is not called the dubai world cup... maybe then they wont be such ridiculous questions.

Or I guess Wesley Ward should just start stepping up his game.

I disagree with your assertion for number 1, but that is fine. You didn't even address #2. If horses running without Lasix are bleeding and it does permanent damage to lung tissue, why are these horses still able to come here and beat our lung tissue protected horses? It seems pretty obvious to me that this so called tissue damage has no affect on thoroughbred performance.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I disagree with your assertion for number 1, but that is fine. You didn't even address #2. If horses running without Lasix are bleeding and it does permanent damage to lung tissue, why are these horses still able to come here and beat our lung tissue protected horses? It seems pretty obvious to me that this so called tissue damage has no affect on thoroughbred performance.

Your premise is completely misguided. You are cherry picking the best horses and using them as a typical example. Even horses who are grade 2 or 3 level are still far superior to the average horse. While good horses can have the same issues that an ordinary horse has it isnt just that they are faster that makes them superior, often it is a higher pain threshold or abilty to run despite issues. I have trained or worked for trainers in which plenty of horses that regressed due to lung tissue damage.

What the breeding theory people dont seem to understand is that very few horses can be bad bleeders and still compete at the highest levels consistently. What they should be more concerned with is the horses with a single graded win that become stallions more than some supposed genetic defect being passed on. No one seems to mind that horses at stud with terrible feet or altered conformation (things that are visably passed on) are breeding large numbers of mares.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I disagree with your assertion for number 1, but that is fine. You didn't even address #2. If horses running without Lasix are bleeding and it does permanent damage to lung tissue, why are these horses still able to come here and beat our lung tissue protected horses? It seems pretty obvious to me that this so called tissue damage has no affect on thoroughbred performance.

but the horses are allowed to and do train on Lasix oversea's, they are just not allowed to do it on raceday, so a definative answer cannot be given. And when these very good European turf horses come over and beat our average at best turf horses, the majority of the time these Euro's ARE using lasix... so again no conclusion can be reached.

Common sense tells us that yes, of course lung tissue damage would affect a thoroughbreds perfomances. Though that is just an opinion of mine, which disagrees with your own personal opinion.


In my opinion all your questions prove is that turf racing is better over sea's than in America. It seems to not have anything to do with lasix.