NYTHA Lasix Primer & Letter to NYS RWB

[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.

[Riot]

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

Lasix decreases the incidence and severity of EIPH in the race horse. Proven effective beyond a doubt no matter how often you call "BS". So essential to the health and welfare of the horse, that it's the only therapeutic drug the united veterinary world says should be allowed to be administered on race day.

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Therefore, I have trouble believing this cry to keep Lasix is all about the horse. It isn't, it never is.

You're right. It's about a powerful few in racing angry that the veterinary world has the audacity to tell them they are wrong. How dare the underlings speak up! They pay our salaries!

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.

Yes, it's all about our "convenience". Not about the horse. Same old "discredit the messenger" straw man.

When being lasix-free causes horses to suffer, we'll be sure to point directly. at. you. Who will you blame then? The medical world is on record, publicly saying you are wrong. Who will you blame? Hey!

I'll bet it will be those horrid trainers, and their evil veterinary accomplices, using all those "illegal drugs we can't detect"!

After all, you eliminated "scourge of steroids" three years ago, and look at how the sport has changed ... oh. Whoops. Never mind. Guess that's why lasix is being attacked now.

Hint: maybe go after illegal drugs, but more importantly, abuse of currently legal drugs. Through .. testing! Yeah! Testing! Rather than picking on drugs that help horses?

But wait, that costs money ... guess we'll just go back to eliminating lasix. Damn! Racing would be so perfect for the rich, old powerful white men, if only it were not for the trainers and veterinarians and public bothering them.

Oh, yeah - there are living creatures, horses, involved, too.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Riot

Yes, it's all about our "convenience". Not about the horse. Same old "discredit the messenger" straw man.

When being lasix-free causes horses to suffer, we'll be sure to point directly. at. you.

I'll worry about it after horses like Anew are treated differently. That is a much bigger problem than bleeding, and nobody seems to care. Until then, you are all a bunch of hypocrites.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

Lasix decreases the incidence and severity of EIPH in the race horse. Proven effective beyond a doubt no matter how often you call "BS". So essential to the health and welfare of the horse, that it's the only therapeutic drug the united veterinary world says should be allowed to be administered on race day.



You're right. It's about a powerful few in racing angry that the veterinary world has the audacity to tell them they are wrong. How dare the underlings speak up! They pay our salaries!



Yes, it's all about our "convenience". Not about the horse. Same old "discredit the messenger" straw man.

When being lasix-free causes horses to suffer, we'll be sure to point directly. at. you. Who will you blame then? The medical world is on record, publicly saying you are wrong. Who will you blame? Hey!

I'll bet it will be those horrid trainers, and their evil veterinary accomplices, using all those "illegal drugs we can't detect"!

After all, you eliminated "scourge of steroids" three years ago, and look at how the sport has changed ... oh. Whoops. Never mind. Guess that's why lasix is being attacked now.

Hint: maybe go after illegal drugs, but more importantly, abuse of currently legal drugs. Through .. testing! Yeah! Testing! Rather than picking on drugs that help horses?

But wait, that costs money ... guess we'll just go back to eliminating lasix. Damn! Racing would be so perfect for the rich, old powerful white men, if only it were not for the trainers and veterinarians and public bothering them.

Oh, yeah - there are living creatures, horses, involved, too.

It's not like eliminating lasix is an experiment and we don't know what's going to happen. How many years has there been horseracing in the United States? I don't know the answer but I think it has been well over 100 years? How many years have we been racing with lasix, maybe 30 years or so? So what is it going to be like with no lasix? It will probably be like it was 30 years ago. Is there any reason to believe that bleeding is worse now than it used to be?

By the way, just because a drug has been determined to have a statistically significant effect on a problem, that doesn't necessarily mean that the drug should be taken. For example, let's say that we test a group of people that say they have a hard time falling asleep. We test these 500 people and we determine that the average length of time it takes them to fall asleep is one hour. So then we give half the people a placebo and we give the other half a sleeping pill. We determine that the placebo group shows no improvement. It still takes them one hour to fall asleep. The experimental group shows a significant improvement. It now only takes them 50 minutes to fall asleep. So on average, the sleeping pill got people to sleep in 50 minutes instead of an hour. They fell asleep 16% faster with the sleeping pill.

So that is a statistically significant improvement. But does that mean that it is worth it for these people to start taking this sleeping pill every night? There is no right or wrong answer. It's just a matter of opinion. Some people would say that it's worth it to get to sleep 10 minutes sooner. Other people would say that there is hardly any difference between 50 minutes and an hour and there is no reason to take the pill.

It would be one thing if the sleeping pill saved the person 45 minutes. That is a huge improvement. That would be a 75% improvement. I think you could make the same argument with lasix. It would be one thing if lasix had these amazingly dramatic effects that practically eliminated bleeding. But that is not the case.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

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.

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.

so true, and what needs attention right now-but isn't drawing it- and imo is a far bigger concern than lasix. and no, no one else is ignoring it. matter of fact, i think that's why this thread exists. lasix has become the target-not cheaters and whatever the hell they're doing and getting away with. why is doug o'neill the winning trainer this year of the derby? why did asmussen get two hoty to train? why is patrick biancone back in business? why are trainers with positives getting the business?
and i bet it's not because of lasix. that has been and will continue to be my point. does lasix have reasons to be used? yes. so why is it the target, and not trainers with multiple suspensions, multiple positives? using god knows what?
but no, the one race day med allowed is what is being target, and that makes no sense. target the true evils, undetectable designer drugs. stiffen rules, stiffen fines, stop re-issuing licenses to cheaters. force owners to hire clean trainers, because they would be all that was left.

[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."

[Cannon Shell]

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%?

Obviously of the 93% that bleed there is a wide variance between severe damage to very minor damage. Naturally it could be pointed out that lasix may be preventing much more severe damage by minimizing incidences.