NYTHA Lasix Primer & Letter to NYS RWB

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Some people think that lasix is one of the reasons why horses run less now than they did 30 years ago. I don't know whether this is true or not. I think it is certainly a reasonable hypothesis. I know that you do not think it is true.

My question to you is whether you think the opposite is true. Do you believe that the advent of lasix has actually increased the number of starts per horse, per year (when the other factors that have decreased starts are taken out of the equation)? If everything Riot says about lasix is true, lasix should actually increase the number of starts per year, per horse. Yet I think that all the evidence points to the opposite. Sure there may be other reasons why starts per year have gone down. But I still think the best case scenario is that lasix has had no effect on number of starts per horse, per year. If it has no effect, then I think all the supposed positive benefits are overstated. We know that when a horse bleeds in a race, that horse will need extra time off before his next race. If lasix is doing such a great job of preventing bleeding, then you would expect that lasix would lead to more starts per year, per horse. There is no evidence that this has happened. If anything, the evidence points to the opposite.

Some people think Obama is one of our best presidents too. Most people are stupid. I have no idea why anyone would think this is a reasonable hypothesis because there is ZERO evidence tying lasix to fewer starts except a trend which was already going strong long befre lasix was being used.

The number of starts per year has been decreasing since 1960.

You and many others use "stats" to try to convince yourself that you are right but that ignores that there is no logical reason that lasix would lead to less starts and also ignores every other factor that has an effect. Ask yourself why horses started more in 1960 than they did in 1950. Ask youself why they started less in 1970 than 1960. Lasix has nothing to do with either question obviously.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Some people think Obama is one of our best presidents too. Most people are stupid. I have no idea why anyone would think this is a reasonable hypothesis because there is ZERO evidence tying lasix to fewer starts except a trend which was already going strong long befre lasix was being used.

The number of starts per year has been decreasing since 1960.

You and many others use "stats" to try to convince yourself that you are right but that ignores that there is no logical reason that lasix would lead to less starts and also ignores every other factor that has an effect. Ask yourself why horses started more in 1960 than they did in 1950. Ask youself why they started less in 1970 than 1960. Lasix has nothing to do with either question obviously.

oh, come now cannon. it's obviously connected. and i'm surprised no one has mentioned the fact we haven't had a t.c. winner since the 70's-i have no doubt that's also the fault of lasix. it's obvious, look at the stats. lasix started in the 70's, and that was when we had our last 3. it's far-reaching at that. look at england; has there been a triple winner in england since nijunsky II?
matter of fact, we started having energy issues in the 70's-i bet there's a tie-in with that as well. it's so obvious, just look at the stats.

besides, if you remove lasix, obviously all issues in racing will completely disappear. new fans will line up at gates nationwide, take out will be reduced, there will be no more cheating at all. horses will all do their very best without pernicious race-day meds that are ruining the sport (somehow), the number of starts will double...nay, triple. all of racings ills fixed in one fell swoop!! then we can lead all the others worldwide who allow training and race day use to the promised land.


lol
or not.