NYTHA Lasix Primer & Letter to NYS RWB

[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.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

...the majority of the time these Euro's ARE using lasix... so again no conclusion can be reached.

That does nothing to heal previous damage, unless I'm misunderstanding the properties of this miracle drug.

Your assertion that lung damage does affect performance, just not enough to make our horses win, doesn't really hold up under scrutiny. Races over long distances are decided by very small distances. Even a tiny decrease in performance would cost a horse a few lengths. Maybe if horses raced a hundred times it would start to be a factor, but they don't.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

That does nothing to heal previous damage, unless I'm misunderstanding the properties of this miracle drug.

Your assertion that lung damage does affect performance, just not enough to make our horses win, doesn't really hold up under scrutiny. Races over long distances are decided by very small distances. Even a tiny decrease in performance would cost a horse a few lengths. Maybe if horses raced a hundred times it would start to be a factor, but they don't.

so the fact that euro's train on lasix means nothing to you?

You are reaching conclusions through information that you are just assuming.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

so the fact that euro's train on lasix means nothing to you?

You are reaching conclusions through information that you are just assuming.

Most of them don't train on Lasix.

[Antitrust32]

questions that i have with regards to bleeding.

In theory, could dirt racing cause a horse to bleed more often than turf racing? with all the kickback in dirt racing.. could dirt or dust go into the horses lungs and cause it to bleed when maybe it wouldnt?

Also.. would sprinters be more inclined to bleed than distance horses? Could putting maximum effort through a 6 or 7 furlong race be more taxing than galloping along with a full out sprint at the end in a distance race?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

questions that i have with regards to bleeding.

In theory, could dirt racing cause a horse to bleed more often than turf racing? with all the kickback in dirt racing.. could dirt or dust go into the horses lungs and cause it to bleed when maybe it wouldnt?

No. Foreign body inhalation (although yes, that occurs, and worse on dirt than turf) does not cause Exercise Induced Pulmonary Hemorrhage. Particles of dirt and dust cannot physically enter the parts of the lung (the alveolar-capillary interface) where EIPH occurs. They are too big.

EIPH is thought to be caused mainly by huge pressure differences that occur during maximal exercise between the capillaries of the lung (oxygenation) blood system and the alveoli (air sacs) in the lungs, and physical damage (sheer) in the dorsocaudal lung lobes due to forelegs pounding during intense exercise.

Also.. would sprinters be more inclined to bleed than distance horses? Could putting maximum effort through a 6 or 7 furlong race be more taxing than galloping along with a full out sprint at the end in a distance race?

Yes. More intense exercise, maximal respiratory effort by the horse, is associated directly with EIPH.

A hard dirt track seems to induce more EIPH than a soft turf course, but that's observational. EIPH is associated with maximal respiratory effort and physical pounding, no matter the discipline, hemisphere or breed of horse.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Riot

No. Foreign body inhalation (although yes, that occurs, and worse on dirt than turf) does not cause Exercise Induced Pulmonary Hemorrhage. Particles of dirt and dust cannot physically enter the parts of the lung (the alveolar-capillary interface) where EIPH occurs. They are too big.

Small airway disease resulting from inhalation of environmental contaminants is not thought to cause or exacerbate EIPH?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

so the fact that euro's train on lasix means nothing to you?

You are reaching conclusions through information that you are just assuming.

What percentage of Euro horses train on lasix? I bet you it is an extremely low percentage. In the US, there is a small percentage of trainers that train practically all their horses on lasix. I'm sure there are a few trainers over in Europe that do this too, but I can guarantee you that it is not a large percent.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

That does nothing to heal previous damage, unless I'm misunderstanding the properties of this miracle drug.

Your assertion that lung damage does affect performance, just not enough to make our horses win, doesn't really hold up under scrutiny. Races over long distances are decided by very small distances. Even a tiny decrease in performance would cost a horse a few lengths. Maybe if horses raced a hundred times it would start to be a factor, but they don't.

So lung damage doesnt decrease performance? Are you really going to stand behind that statement?

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

So lung damage doesnt decrease performance? Are you really going to stand behind that statement?

If it does, then these horses shipping in from Europe that don't race with Lasix over there don't have any.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

If it does, then these horses shipping in from Europe that don't race with Lasix over there don't have any.

This makes no sense. Where was it said that all horses would incur lung tissue damage w/o lasix? Why are european shippers being held up as some sort of standard when they make up a miniscule number of the entire population?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

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.

and they also send bleeders elsewhere when they discover them. they aren't kept where they can't race on lasix, and therefore won't suffer damage as they get race day treatment, not just training days.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Danzig

and they also send bleeders elsewhere when they discover them. they aren't kept where they can't race on lasix, and therefore won't suffer damage as they get race day treatment, not just training days.

But 93% of all horses bleed. Obviously all the bleeders don't get sent here, only the worst ones. Are you trying to say most of the G1 winners that shipped in from overseas are part of the magic 7%?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

But 93% of all horses bleed. Obviously all the bleeders don't get sent here, only the worst ones. Are you trying to say most of the G1 winners that shipped in from overseas are part of the magic 7%?

That whole thing about 93% being bleeders is totally misleading. A high percentage of those cases is microscopic bleeding. Microscopic bleeding is not going to affect performance at all. That is not to say that microscopic bleeding is necessarily totally insignificant. It could get worse and progress into something more significant over time. It would be something to keep an eye on but there is a good chance that it will never develop into anything significant.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

That whole thing about 93% being bleeders is totally misleading. A high percentage of those cases is microscopic bleeding. Microscopic bleeding is not going to affect performance at all. That is not to say that microscopic bleeding is necessarily totally insignificant. It could get worse and progress into something more significant over time. It would be something to keep an eye on but there is a good chance that it will never develop into anything significant.

Oh, I'm aware. We all know why it became worth finding...to get Lasix, and not because it stops microscopic bleeding.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

That whole thing about 93% being bleeders is totally misleading. A high percentage of those cases is microscopic bleeding. Microscopic bleeding is not going to affect performance at all.

Wrong. I cannot understand why you stick your fingers in your ears and keep repeating this blatant falsehood, page after page. It's like saying dinosaurs walked the earth with humans.

Bleeding detected on tracheal wash - seeing blood cells - EIPH - is definitive evidence that each ruptured, bleeding alveoli can no longer exchange oxygen and carbon dioxide.

It's called, "early diagnosis".

You saying that EIPH doesn't matter until so much microscopic bleeding accrues that it is grossly visible to the naked eye is patently false and absurd. That's as ridiculous as saying bleeding from an amputated leg doesn't matter until you lose so much blood you pass out. It's the same as saying congestive heart failure drowning you in pulmonary edema doesn't matter until you pass out from lack of oxygen.

What percentage of lung volume can be lost before it "affects performance"? 3% 10%? 20%

It doesn't matter until hundreds of thousands of alveoli are ruptured and the horse is literally drowning?

That's beyond absurd. It's made up non-science. And it's a terrible thing to do to a horse. You'll deliberately run a horse through EIPH until it bleeds visibly? That's animal cruelty.

And yes - when your lungs start filing with blood, it affects your performance. Even before it comes up your trachea and out your nose.

[Riot]

At this point, it's pretty apparent that cmorioles, Rollo, and Rupert absolutely refuse to change their opinion about in the face of all fact to the contrary.

It's a sad, sad day for racing, when pushing a decidedly minority and disproven opinion is more important than doing what's best for race horses.

Racing is owned by rich, out-of-touch, ignorant old men who are more worried about their egos and power and demonstrably don't give a damn about the welfare of the horse.

Well, it's on your backs, cmorioles, Rollo and Rupert. You now take personal responsibility for your strong opinions, and forcing a substandard and dangerous medical practice on race horses in the face of overwhelming veterinary opposition to your decision.

We veterinarians, in overwhelming numbers, the ones that know medicine and EIPH, have told you the truth, and how wrong you are. But because you don't like to hear opposition to your decisions and your power, you call us hacks, accuse us of lying, accuse us of being as heartless as you are, accuse us of making decisions based upon money rather than caring for the health and welfare of the horse.

Screw you.

The first horse you force to run without lasix, that suffers at your hands, we'll be pointing directly at you when PETA comes for the sport and it's all over. It shouldn't take long.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Riot

It's a sad, sad day for racing, when pushing a decidedly minority and disproven opinion is more important than doing what's best for race horses.

First, horses still bleed with Lasix, it isn't a cure all. So spare me "the first horse to bleed..." BS.

Second, as I've said a few times and been ignored, there are plenty of horsemen doing FAR worse things to horses than denying them Lasix.

Originally Posted by Riot

Racing is owned by rich, out-of-touch, ignorant old men who are more worried about their egos and power and demonstrably don't give a damn about the welfare of the horse.

There are plenty of not rich men that don't give a damn either.

You act as though without Lasix horses will be struggling to finish with blood spewing from their nostrils. Funny, I spent 5 years overseas and traveled to many racetracks around the world. I don't recall seeing many horses in distress from bleeding. It can be controlled without a drug obviously.

You say there are many worse problems out there and this isn't an issue. Maybe it isn't. But I don't see horsemen, as a group, campaigning for any of those things that could help the game. They do nothing that isn't in their own interests, ever. Sure, you get a few guys like Chuck that have a good grasp of things, but apparently they have no status among their peers.

Therefore, I have trouble believing this cry to keep Lasix is all about the horse. It isn't, it never is. You'll have to excuse me me if I don't care if they are a little inconvenienced by people that want drug free races.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Riot

At this point, it's pretty apparent that cmorioles, Rollo, and Rupert absolutely refuse to change their opinion about in the face of all fact to the contrary.

It's a sad, sad day for racing, when pushing a decidedly minority and disproven opinion is more important than doing what's best for race horses.

Racing is owned by rich, out-of-touch, ignorant old men who are more worried about their egos and power and demonstrably don't give a damn about the welfare of the horse.

Well, it's on your backs, cmorioles, Rollo and Rupert. You now take personal responsibility for your strong opinions, and forcing a substandard and dangerous medical practice on race horses in the face of overwhelming veterinary opposition to your decision.

We veterinarians, in overwhelming numbers, the ones that know medicine and EIPH, have told you the truth, and how wrong you are. But because you don't like to hear opposition to your decisions and your power, you call us hacks, accuse us of lying, accuse us of being as heartless as you are, accuse us of making decisions based upon money rather than caring for the health and welfare of the horse.

Screw you.

The first horse you force to run without lasix, that suffers at your hands, we'll be pointing directly at you when PETA comes for the sport and it's all over. It shouldn't take long.

Like all those poor horse's that race throughout the world. So friggin sad

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

Wrong. I cannot understand why you stick your fingers in your ears and keep repeating this blatant falsehood, page after page. It's like saying dinosaurs walked the earth with humans.

Bleeding detected on tracheal wash - seeing blood cells - EIPH - is definitive evidence that each ruptured, bleeding alveoli can no longer exchange oxygen and carbon dioxide.

It's called, "early diagnosis".

You saying that EIPH doesn't matter until so much microscopic bleeding accrues that it is grossly visible to the naked eye is patently false and absurd. That's as ridiculous as saying bleeding from an amputated leg doesn't matter until you lose so much blood you pass out. It's the same as saying congestive heart failure drowning you in pulmonary edema doesn't matter until you pass out from lack of oxygen.

What percentage of lung volume can be lost before it "affects performance"? 3% 10%? 20%

It doesn't matter until hundreds of thousands of alveoli are ruptured and the horse is literally drowning?

That's beyond absurd. It's made up non-science. And it's a terrible thing to do to a horse. You'll deliberately run a horse through EIPH until it bleeds visibly? That's animal cruelty.

And yes - when your lungs start filing with blood, it affects your performance. Even before it comes up your trachea and out your nose.

I've been there dozens of times with different vets when they have scoped our horses after races. Plenty of times they have said, "There was a drop or two, nothing significant and nothing that would have affected performance."

I guess all those vets that have said that don't know what they are talking about.

With regard to your analogies, I think I have a better analogy. A better analogy is when you go to an honest dentist and he tells you, "You have a tiny cavity. It's not bad and I wouldn't do anything with it right now. We can keep an eye on it and check it every time you come back (once every 6 months). There is a chance that it may get worse and if it does, we will put a filling in. But there is also a good chance that we will never have to fill this cavity." A dishonest dentist would simply tell you, "You have a cavity. We have to fill it."