NYTHA Lasix Primer & Letter to NYS RWB

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Riot

Just cutting and pasting words.

Interesting. You asked me to directly quote the study that states that lasix is associated with superior performance. I did. Now you say I'm "just cutting and pasting".

Cute. But anyone with a pulse sees right through it. Refute Dr. Hinchcliff's (you know, the guy who proved lasix was effective under actual race conditions) conclusions.

You have every right to have a position on drugs in racing. Stand up and say you don't want any drugs whatsoever on race day. Nothing wrong with that.

I don't need you to tell me that I have a right to have an opinion. I'm trying to participate in a discussion like most of the others in this thread. I'm not pushing an agenda or climbing all over someone who posts something I don't agree with or questions my own posts. Try using some tact for once.

However, you should probably come up with a reason why you oppose the direct and specific medical advice of the veterinary profession, who says that doing what you want is not best for the health and welfare of the horse.

I like how questioning something is apparently the same as opposing it.

We say these lay person interpretations (such as published by some of the anti-lasix folks) of the scientific information surrounding lasix use is wrong and off base. We advise the very opposite of what some lay people in racing are proposing.

Why are 60,000 medical professionals wrong, but lay people with no scientific education, correct?

I highly doubt all 60,000 medical professionals are comfortable with you being their self-appointed spokesman.

But enough of that duck-and-dive tactic you're so good at. You're cherry-picking my last post. Why don't you comment on the mechanism of action of furosemide and how, according to your claim, it does not affect acid-base balance in a racing Thoroughbred?

The lay people want to know.

No, the TCO2 threshold used for detecting milkshaking is "not higher than the level signifying alkalosis". That's false. You've misunderstood and confused two different concepts.

Interesting, once again. Dr. Kenneth McKeever noted in a paper in 2005 that several studies have shown that the mean plasma concentration of total CO2 of normal horses is ~30 mmol/L. Yet, in many racing jurisdictions, the total CO2 threshold is 37 mmol/L. Is 37 higher than 30? Anyone? Anyone? Is there a mathematician in the house?

Ironically, some states, such as New York have two thresholds for total CO2. 37 mmol/L and 39 mmol/L. Anyone know which horses are held to the higher (that's the 39 level for the non-mathematicians here) threshold?

Yep, you guessed it. It's for horses that were administered lasix.

Interesting that the rules of racing seem to suggest that lasix alters the acid-base status (specifically, has an alkalinizing effect) of a horse. No?

Have you read the paper Steve posted in the first post of this thread? Have you READ it yet? The first page is 100% accurate. There is absolutely zero scientific dissent with what is stated in that lay person synopsis.

I read it. It has an obvious bias, as someone else mentioned. Once again, I'm trying to eliminate any bias in the discussion. We're being fed half-truths by both sides.

It's not "controversial" What do you think is "controversial"?

Dr. Kenneth Hinchcliff: "Therapy for EIPH is controversial..." (2004) and "Given...the finding that furosemide can improve the performance of Thoroughbred racehorses, the use of furosemide to prevent EIPH remains controversial." (2009)

Dr. Warwick Bayly: "...this review emphasizes issues that relate to the highly controversial subject of furosemide use in racehorses." (2000)

Do we need those pesky lay people to voice their concern, too? Or are we good here?

[cmorioles]

"However, you should probably come up with a reason why you oppose the direct and specific medical advice of the veterinary profession, who says that doing what you want is not best for the health and welfare of the horse. "

This part is easy. Given the current state of the game, why in the world should we trust vets? Many are associated with the "move up" trainers that are ruining the game.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

Interesting. You asked me to directly quote the study that states that lasix is associated with superior performance. I did. Now you say I'm "just cutting and pasting".

Yes, indeed. You are just cutting and pasting things with words in it. Because, if you had actually read and understoodthe study you are quoting, you'll see the conclusions are far different than the little part you cut and paste

For example, you say this:

Interesting that the rules of racing seem to suggest that lasix alters the acid-base status (specifically, has an alkalinizing effect) of a horse. No?

No. The reason that laboratory values are set where they are because of simple and usual statistical mathematical distribution. Has nothing at all to do with "lasix altering the acid-base balance". Sorry. BTW - can you name 5 other things that affect TCO2 values? Because you've just put all your eggs in one basket of blame - and you're wrong. Not surprising, considering you don't really know anything about the scope of what you are talking about, and you just jumped to a false conclusion.

I don't need you to tell me that I have a right to have an opinion. I'm trying to participate in a discussion like most of the others in this thread. I'm not pushing an agenda or climbing all over someone who posts something I don't agree with or questions my own posts. Try using some tact for once.

When it comes to the scientific actions of furosemide, you're a bloviating ignoramus.

I highly doubt all 60,000 medical professionals are comfortable with you being their self-appointed spokesman.

I'm not. I'm merely agreeing with my colleagues. As you already know but ignore repeatedly, 60,000 members of AAEP and the AVMA (of which I belong) have come out in full and unwavering support of lasix as a race day therapeutic medication.

But enough of that duck-and-dive tactic you're so good at. You're cherry-picking my last post. Why don't you comment on the mechanism of action of furosemide and how, according to your claim, it does not affect acid-base balance in a racing Thoroughbred?

Your posts deserve cherry-picking, because you post falsehoods about lasix. The details matter.

Why don't you support your own crazy claim that it does? You made a weird claim, completely outside of known medical knowledge and experience, prove it.

Cutting and pasting random quotes, while completely ignoring the basic physiology and misunderstanding what you are reading, is hilarious and sad. Start with chloride and the ascending loop of Henle.

You see, you actually have to understand what you are going on about. Just googling and posting doesn't make you a lasix expert. Believe me - I am a lasix expert, and you've repeatedly demonstrated you are clueless.

Please - stick to gambling. Leave medicine and veterinary advice to the experts. You are free to hold the completely opposite opinion than the entire medical veterinary medical community on this subject, but having you argue basic physiology and pharmacology from a level of zero obvious knowledge - by cutting and pasting - is simply uncomfortable to watch.

But ... you are just repeating what some in this sport are doing, falsifying and ignoring all the relevant information, in an effort to further their own preconceived agenda. But when they step into our realm, the medical realm, and really start with the lies, we're calling bull.sh.i.at. on that stuff.

The funny thing is that on the equine veterinarian private blogs, we are talking about this, too. Very different discussion, as you might guess.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Riot

Yes, indeed. You are just cutting and pasting things with words in it. Because, if you had actually read and understoodthe study you are quoting, you'll see the conclusions are far different than the little part you cut and paste

For example, you say this:

Duck.

Again, refute the statement: "...we believe our results present clear and unequivocal evidence of an association between use of furosemide and superior performance in Thoroughbred racehorses."

No. The reason that laboratory values are set where they are because of simple and usual statistical mathematical distribution. Has nothing at all to do with "lasix altering the acid-base balance". Sorry. BTW - can you name 5 other things that affect TCO2 values? Because you've just put all your eggs in one basket of blame - and you're wrong. Not surprising, considering you don't really know anything about the scope of what you are talking about, and you just jumped to a false conclusion.

Dive.

You are completely trying to steer away from what was said. There are two separate threshold levels for total carbon dioxide used in New York to identify "milkshaked" horses, not a range. One for horses not receiving lasix. One for horses receiving lasix. The latter is allowed a higher threshold (ie more total carbon dioxide ergo more bicarbonate). Why is that?

You trying to cover up this fact with a blanket of statistical nonsense is pathetic beyond belief.

As to "other things" that affect total CO2 values, I never said lasix was the only thing that did. Why would I? The point of testing for total CO2 is to discover horses that have been "milkshaked", not administered lasix.

When it comes to the scientific actions of furosemide, you're a bloviating ignoramus.

How do you know? I'll I ever said was that furosemide caused a 3% drop in body weight and that it had an alkalinizing effect. Are these untrue? Simply refute them without evasion and maybe we can get down to business.

Why don't you support your own crazy claim that it does? You made a weird claim, completely outside of known medical knowledge and experience, prove it.

Duck and dive. I made a weird claim? Where? By quoting a recognized (by the magical, all-knowing veterinary community) authority on lasix?

The onus is on you. This is not hot potato.

Cutting and pasting random quotes, while completely ignoring the basic physiology and misunderstanding what you are reading, is hilarious and sad. Start with chloride and the ascending loop of Henle.

Kicking and scratching from a scared creature trapped in a corner.

You see, you actually have to understand what you are going on about. Just googling and posting doesn't make you a lasix expert. Believe me - I am a lasix expert, and you've repeatedly demonstrated you are clueless.

If you're an expert, then why are you having trouble refuting what other experts have observed in published, peer-reviewed, scientific papers?

Please - stick to gambling. Leave medicine and veterinary advice to the experts. You are free to hold the completely opposite opinion than the entire medical veterinary medical community on this subject, but having you argue basic physiology and pharmacology from a level of zero obvious knowledge - by cutting and pasting - is simply uncomfortable to watch.

Do you think anyone reading this thread is actually buying into your condescending, weak-willed bullying?

Obviously your bark is loud. Now put up and fucl<ing bite already.

But ... you are just repeating what some in this sport are doing, falsifying and ignoring all the relevant information, in an effort to further their own preconceived agenda. But when they step into our realm, the medical realm, and really start with the lies, we're calling bull.sh.i.at. on that stuff.

That's funny. Because I've only quoted veterinarians with regards to lasix.

The funny thing is that on the equine veterinarian private blogs, we are talking about this, too. Very different discussion, as you might guess.

To hear you tell it, it must be a very one-sided debate about the Cassandra Complex.

Is Madeleine Stowe leading the discussion?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

Duck.

Again, refute the statement: "...we believe our results present clear and unequivocal evidence of an association between use of furosemide and superior performance in Thoroughbred racehorses."

It's within the conclusion of the article you quote.

See, quoting sentences in a vacuum, without understanding, isn't a very good debate tactic when you are ignorant of the subject matter.

You are completely trying to steer away from what was said. There are two separate threshold levels for total carbon dioxide used in New York to identify "milkshaked" horses, not a range. One for horses not receiving lasix. One for horses receiving lasix. The latter is allowed a higher threshold (ie more total carbon dioxide ergo more bicarbonate). Why is that?

There is nothing sadder than a man that bravely makes a definitive statement, then, when it's pointed out by someone who knows more than he that he's completely wrong, says he is not and tries to ask questions and backtrack.

You trying to cover up this fact with a blanket of statistical nonsense is pathetic beyond belief.

Yes. There are two separate levels. They do not exist for the reason you stated. You are not remotely close or accurate as to why those different levels exist, let alone the fact you attribute it to lasix causing metabolic alkalosis (apparently in amazing physiologic ability devoid of compensatory mechanisms).

You don't have the first clue regarding what you are talking about. You don't have the knowledge of pharmacology or physiology. You are cutting and pasting words without meaning.

Again: you are the guy sitting at the corner of the bar, pontificating on how to do open heart surgery. It's sad. Just stop.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Riot

It's within the conclusion of the article you quote.

See, quoting sentences in a vacuum, without understanding, isn't a very good debate tactic when you are ignorant of the subject matter.

I don't see. You haven't posted anything. If there's something in the conclusion that contradicts what was already said in the conclusion (a mighty feat I might add), why don't you post it?

There is nothing sadder than a man that bravely makes a definitive statement, then, when it's pointed out by someone who knows more than he that he's completely wrong, says he is not and tries to ask questions and backtrack.

What the fucl< are you talking about? Are you replying to yourself here? You said I was wrong, so prove how I was wrong. It's simple.

Saying you know more than me so it must be so doesn't cut it. You can't be this daft.

Yes. There are two separate levels. They do not exist for the reason you stated. You are not remotely close or accurate as to why those different levels exist, let alone the fact you attribute it to lasix causing metabolic alkalosis (apparently in amazing physiologic ability devoid of compensatory mechanisms).

Ah, the subtle backpedal. Where did I say compensatory mechanisms don't exist?

Nevertheless, why would there need to be compensatory mechanisms if lasix doesn't have an alkalinizing effect as previously stated?

Wipe off the rearview kids, cuz we're about to go backwards.

You don't have the first clue regarding what you are talking about. You don't have the knowledge of pharmacology or physiology. You are cutting and pasting words without meaning.

Yes. All the statements I made have no meaning. Veterinarians write studies in a cryptic manner that says one think in one section, but the total opposite in another. I'm sure it's designed to sucker us know-nothing lay people into believing the wrong thing and acting on invalid information.

I guess its no surprise then that these idiotic racing officials are ruining racing.

They're listening to the "wrong" veterinary advice. Not the secret, "right stuff".

Chuck Yeager couldn't outrun the BS spewing out of your mouth.

you are the guy sitting at the corner of the bar, pontificating on how to do open heart surgery. It's sad. Just stop.

I guess that makes you the expert veterinarian utilizing the free Wi-Fi at McDonald's, refilling her saved, crinkled cup from Burger King to wheeze Sweet Tea, bullying "less educated" posters on therapeutic medication despite contributing almost nothing. It's hilarious. Keep it up.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

I don't see. You haven't posted anything. If there's something in the conclusion that contradicts what was already said in the conclusion (a mighty feat I might add), why don't you post it?

You've gone through the same discounted circular arguments so many times, I can't even follow what the hell you are trying to "prove" at this point. Your post above made no sense. It was just argumentative bullshi.a.t.

Why don't you read page 2 of the link in the first post of this thread, and anything on that page you think is specifically false, list it here, and we'll discuss it.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Riot

You've gone through the same discounted circular arguments so many times, I can't even follow what the hell you are trying to "prove" at this point. Your post above made no sense. It was just argumentative bullshi.a.t.

Why don't you read page 2 of the link in the first post of this thread, and anything on that page you think is specifically false, list it here, and we'll discuss it.

You did it.

You successfully avoided answering any of the questions I put forth. You've taken us on a merry-go-round ride of BS and have buried the relevant issues I brought to the table. You're such an asset to this board.

Dare I say, in the words of the great Uncle Leon, you've "topsy turvied this motherfucl<er!"

You can rest and breathe easy now. Everyone is still under the impression that you "know" everything.

Is the walkway leading to your front door made from yellow bricks?