NYTHA Lasix Primer & Letter to NYS RWB

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Danzig

ok, from everything i've read here and the other thread, as well as in other discussions, let me see if i have this right:


pro's of removing lasix on race day:

no longer have horses on drugs on race day.


are there any others?

facts on lasix:

not harmful
not proven to enhance performance (note, i said proven-opnion/belief isn't proof)
prevents bleeding and any accompanying lung damage
not a masking agent. (as the study i linked said, with plasma testing, better testing(for what they know what to test for!), lasix can't be considered as a masking agent
used either in training and/or race day in practically every racing jurisdiction on the planet

cons of removing lasix on race day:

bleeders with a history have lost their bleeding prevention, prone to worsening episodes as well as more and more damage.
no way of knowing what horse will have a bleeding episode, or when, or how severe. that in turn means no prevention of lung damage, which can be permanent
an alternative to lasix is removal of water and food for 24-48 hours before racing. (that's some alternative)

One thing not mentioned was the dose of lasix used on raceday.

One of the reasons behind the banning of "milkshaking" is that horsemen can alter the outercome of a race by employing an "on-and-off" regimen (one race given, one race not given) of bicarbonate.

With lasix, most jurisdictions allow a range of lasix from 150mg to 500mg. Is there room there to alter a horse's performance? If I have a severe bleeder whose bleeding is controlled only with the higher dose of lasix, what happens if I up and decide to give him the bare minimum in his next race?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

One thing not mentioned was the dose of lasix used on raceday.

One of the reasons behind the banning of "milkshaking" is that horsemen can alter the outercome of a race by employing an "on-and-off" regimen (one race given, one race not given) of bicarbonate.

With lasix, most jurisdictions allow a range of lasix from 150mg to 500mg. Is there room there to alter a horse's performance? If I have a severe bleeder whose bleeding is controlled only with the higher dose of lasix, what happens if I up and decide to give him the bare minimum in his next race?

i don't know, what will happen?


one other question...what benefits do you anticipate if lasix is banned?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i don't know, what will happen?


one other question...what benefits do you anticipate if lasix is banned?

Danzig: these two guys hold medical opinions completely opposite from the consensus white papers of the American Veterinary Medical Association and the American Association of Equine Practitioners.

There's a reason for that.

Bad science and bad logic is nothing more than that. Again, think Jenny McCarthy, vaccination, autuism.

[Calzone Lord]

Originally Posted by Danzig

one other question...what benefits do you anticipate if lasix is banned?

In terms of who benefits...probably the horses who don't need it.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

In terms of who benefits...probably the horses who don't need it.

Lasix is an extremely safe drug with a wide margin of safety. How are the 7% of horses that suffer no EIPH harmed by receiving lasix?

[Calzone Lord]

Originally Posted by Riot

Lasix is an extremely safe drug with a wide margin of safety. How are the 7% of horses that suffer no EIPH harmed by receiving lasix?

I'm talking in terms of performance on the racetrack.

If a drug benefits members of your competition more than it benefits you ... it brings you closer together and you lose a performance edge.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

I'm talking in terms of performance on the racetrack.

If a (fill in the blank) benefits members of your competition more than it benefits you ... it brings you closer together and you lose a performance edge.

Certain bits, certain shoes, leg wraps, blinkers and hoods, FLAIR strips all benefit some horses more than others.

Do you think lasix is a therapeutic drug, or not?

[Calzone Lord]

Originally Posted by Riot

Certain bits, certain shoes, leg wraps, blinkers and hoods, FLAIR strips all benefit some horses more than others.

I never said some equipment like bits, blinkers, and types of shoes don't benefit some horses more than others in situations.

Originally Posted by Riot

Do you think lasix is a therapeutic drug, or not?

You're asking the wrong person.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

I'm talking in terms of performance on the racetrack.

If a drug benefits members of your competition more than it benefits you ... it brings you closer together and you lose a performance edge.

how does lasix benefit some more than others? and if you have no way of knowing if a horse would bleed or not, how would you know if lasix was beneficial or not?


i just wonder if this latest hot topic will be like poly a few years back in california? look where the synthetic mandate ended up. i can't help but think that if you start having hemorraging horses on the track they won't back-pedal in a hurry. and there have been instances where a horse bled so severely they went down in a race.

[Calzone Lord]

Originally Posted by Danzig

how does lasix benefit some more than others?

I can show you a lot of old past performances of horses who would stop on a dime and fade without lasix and perform a whole lot better with it.

I can show you a lot of old past performances of horses who never used lasix and fired big races everytime. Some of them from as recently as the 1990's.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

One thing not mentioned was the dose of lasix used on raceday.

One of the reasons behind the banning of "milkshaking" is that horsemen can alter the outercome of a race by employing an "on-and-off" regimen (one race given, one race not given) of bicarbonate.

With lasix, most jurisdictions allow a range of lasix from 150mg to 500mg. Is there room there to alter a horse's performance? If I have a severe bleeder whose bleeding is controlled only with the higher dose of lasix, what happens if I up and decide to give him the bare minimum in his next race?

The problem with the questions like this is that it is impossible to isolate a single factor in the performance of a horse. More lasix doesnt mean better treatment. The idea that a horseman can turn a horse off and on with milkshakes is silly. The entire premise that we can stop horses with a lower dose of lasix assumes that all other factors are not pertinent. A lot of what you and CJ want is answers that dont exist and will never exist because this is not an exact science regardless of how hard you scrutinize it.

Making a horse bleed before treating them is asinine and irresponsible. Do you wait to have a heart attack before you go on a aspirin regime? Millions of people take a drug everyday and a large percentage of them will never have a heart attack.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The problem with the questions like this is that it is impossible to isolate a single factor in the performance of a horse. The idea that a horseman can turn a horse off and on with milkshakes is silly. The entire premise that we can stop horses with a lower dose of lasix assumes that all other factors are not pertinent. A lot of what you and CJ want is answers that dont exist and will never exist because this is not an exact science regardless of how hard you scrutinize it.

It's not really a question of provability, though, is it? It's a question of intent and opportunity.

If the possiblity exists that bicarbonate loading affects performance, then ideally administering "milkshakes" should be prohibited.

If the possibility exists that altering the dose of lasix affects performance, then ideally the dose of lasix should be standardized (eg, by body weight) at the very least.

More lasix doesnt mean better treatment.

Two scenarios:

1) Your horse receives 150mg of lasix for a race. The horse wins. Post-race, the horse is found to have bled a Grade 3 (scale 0 to 4). Assuming no further complications, how do you treat the horse for its next start, at the same class level?

2) Your horse receives 150mg of lasix for a race. The horse runs poorly. Post-race, the horse is found to have bled a Grade 3. Assuming no further complications, how do you treat the horse for its next start, at the same class level?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

It's not really a question of provability, though, is it? It's a question of intent and opportunity.

If the possiblity exists that bicarbonate loading affects performance, then ideally administering "milkshakes" should be prohibited.

If the possibility exists that altering the dose of lasix affects performance, then ideally the dose of lasix should be standardized (eg, by body weight) at the very least.

The dose of lasix is standardized by body weight.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Riot

The dose of lasix is standardized by body weight.

Not if the same horse can receive 150mg one race and 500mg the next.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

Not if the same horse can receive 150mg one race and 500mg the next.

My. god. you. are. ignorant. Yes, the dose of lasix is determined by body weight. You are making imaginary scenarios up out of thin air.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Riot

My. god. you. are. ignorant. Yes, the dose of lasix is determined by body weight.

So you are saying an individual horse gets the same amount of lasix each time it races?

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

A lot of what you and CJ want is answers that dont exist and will never exist because this is not an exact science regardless of how hard you scrutinize it.

Sure, it isn't an exact science. However, I have no doubt that a study could be conducted to test if Lasix enhances performance in non-bleeders and bleeders alike. If the sample is large enough, reasonable conclusions could be drawn.

The problem is the people currently doing the testing really have no idea how to measure thoroughbred performance during races, and neither do veterinarians. There are plenty of people that do and could be used as consultants if anyone really had the desire to know. The problem is such an experiment would cost a ton of money and also would require people to let their horses be used in the study.

Outside of that, all I can do is draw conclusions based on the data and experience I've accumulated over the years. I would say with 95 percent certainty that it is a performance enhancer. That is my opinion and I'll stand by it until it is proven otherwise.

One good thing has come out of this finally. You admitted it hasn't been proven that Lasix IS NOT a performance enhancer. I do find it funny that the alleged positives can be tested and proven, yet you claim the single biggest negative can never be tested. Of course it can be tested. It just depends on how badly people want to know the answer.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

However, I have no doubt that a study could be conducted to test if Lasix enhances performance in non-bleeders and bleeders alike. If the sample is large enough, reasonable conclusions could be drawn.

That has been done. More than once. Those studies have existed for many years now.

They've even been quoted in the threads about lasix you write in, but apparently don't read.

I would say with 95 percent certainty that it is a performance enhancer. That is my opinion and I'll stand by it until it is proven otherwise.

The veterinary world says you are dead wrong. But you hang in there being a rebel!

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Riot

That has been done. More than once. Those studies have existed for many years now.

They've even been quoted in the threads about lasix you write in, but apparently don't read.

I do read, and I found the results ambiguous. How could they be anything else when different conclusions are reached?

I also would submit that the testing methods were woefully flawed. The performance measurements were obviously designed by people that knew little about actual racing and how to measure performance.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I do read, and I found the results ambiguous.

Really? Which studies specifically have you found "ambiguous"?

How could they be anything else when different conclusions are reached?

Well, you're suffering a confusion common to people who know nothing about science, and less than nothing about critical, objective thinking.

I also would submit that the testing methods were woefully flawed. The performance measurements were obviously designed by people that knew little about actual racing and how to measure performance.

And again: list which studies you are calling "flawed", and which "measurements" you think are inadequate. Be specific.