Prominent horse owners vow to run 2-year-olds without race-day drugs

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

It depends on what you call evidence.

Diagnostic evidence of the clinical condition as determined by accepted standards of practice (definition) by doctors of veterinary medicine.

I'm not trying to trick you into any answer I'm just trying to see where you draw your line in the sand, and why.

Are you in favor or against withholding a therapeutic medication proven to decrease the incidence and severity of EIPH in horses with evidence of EIPH?

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Riot

Diagnostic evidence of the clinical condition as determined by accepted standards of practice (definition) by doctors of veterinary medicine.

I'm not trying to trick you into any answer I'm just trying to see where you draw your line in the sand, and why.

Are you in favor or against withholding a therapeutic medication proven to decrease the incidence and severity of EIPH in horses with evidence of EIPH?

Honestly, I don't know. If it were merely a therapeutic medication, I would be all for it. However, there are quite a few that believe it enhances performance. There are plenty of vets on both sides of that argument. Studies are slanted towards those paying for them. Some indicate performance enhancement, others don't.

So, until it can be proven it does not enhance performance, I'm against it. The reason I say that is that it forces those horses that don't need drugs to use them to be competitive if it is indeed a performance enhancer.

My personal belief is that it does make horses run faster, and not just because it reduces EIPH. I don't know the scientific reason, that isn't my field. But I have a lot of experience measuring thoroughbred performance and until proven otherwise, I'll stick with that.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Honestly, I don't know. If it were merely a therapeutic medication, I would be all for it. However, there are quite a few that believe it enhances performance. There are plenty of vets on both sides of that argument. Studies are slanted towards those paying for them. Some indicate performance enhancement, others don't.

So, until it can be proven it does not enhance performance, I'm against it. The reason I say that is that it forces those horses that don't need drugs to use them to be competitive if it is indeed a performance enhancer.

My personal belief is that it does make horses run faster, and not just because it reduces EIPH. I don't know the scientific reason, that isn't my field. But I have a lot of experience measuring thoroughbred performance and until proven otherwise, I'll stick with that.

key word, believe.

as for the latter bolded, there have been studies that show it does not enhance. but again, the key word is all that matters. it's why they have such a muddled mess. facts vs beliefs can be messy. do you believe studies that say it enhances, and disbelieve the ones that say it doesn't? if so, then it's your judgement of right and wrong, not what is.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Danzig

key word, believe.

as for the latter bolded, there have been studies that show it does not enhance. but again, the key word is all that matters. it's why they have such a muddled mess. facts vs beliefs can be messy. do you believe studies that say it enhances, and disbelieve the ones that say it doesn't? if so, then it's your judgement of right and wrong, not what is.

There have been studies shown that it does as well. Perhaps believe wasn't the best word. The people that did the studies probably believe them.

I don't know which studies are right, that was my point. My experience would lean towards it enhancing performance. I measure it for a living, and I've had more than my share of time on the backside as well. I don't trust either side to be honest. If I have to pick one side or the other where there is a vast difference of opinion, for now I'll go with the one that doesn't inject 99% of horses with drugs. It doesn't mean my mind couldn't be changed.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

There have been studies shown that it does as well. Perhaps believe wasn't the best word. The people that did the studies probably believe them.

I don't know which studies are right, that was my point. My experience would lean towards it enhancing performance. I measure it for a living, and I've had more than my share of time on the backside as well. I don't trust either side to be honest. If I have to pick one side or the other where there is a vast difference of opinion, for now I'll go with the one that doesn't inject 99% of horses with drugs. It doesn't mean my mind couldn't be changed.

but that's the thing...if there are two findings, then i guess it does come down to bias. i really don't know myself if it's good or not. on the face of it, blocking hemorraging would be good. and if you don't know who to treat, or not to treat, then what do you do? personally i'd rather prevent than say i wish i'd prevented. after the fact is too late.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Danzig

but that's the thing...if there are two findings, then i guess it does come down to bias. i really don't know myself if it's good or not. on the face of it, blocking hemorraging would be good. and if you don't know who to treat, or not to treat, then what do you do? personally i'd rather prevent than say i wish i'd prevented. after the fact is too late.

So drug them all, then, right? I just have a problem with that I guess. If other places didn't do just fine racing without drugs, maybe I would feel differently.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

So drug them all, then, right? I just have a problem with that I guess. If other places didn't do just fine racing without drugs, maybe I would feel differently.

i don't know. i know i asked you before about harm from lasix. is there? i think you'd said no before.
as for others-yeah, they ship them to where they can use lasix when they bleed, so they know it helps bleeders. wonder where we'll ship ours? or if there is a horse with an issue, it's better to not treat? just seems that we can never find a happy medium with things like this.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Honestly, I don't know. If it were merely a therapeutic medication, I would be all for it. However, there are quite a few that believe it enhances performance.

"Belief" doesn't matter in science and medicine.

There is no objective evidence that lasix is a performance enhancer.

There is overwhelming, unassailable evidence that lasix is a valuable therapeutic medication that attenuates the severity and frequency of EIPH.

There are plenty of vets on both sides of that argument.

No. There are not. The vast, overwhelming majority of veterinarians are in favor of lasix's use as a therapeutic medication, including the American Association of Equine Practitioners, and the American Veterinary Medical Association - both organizations who feel so strongly about the matter, they have published public position papers on the subject.

There are very, very few, outlier vets that think differently, that say no.

Studies are slanted towards those paying for them.

That's a common lay person belief, that is generally wrong. But that is also why studies are published in open, peer-reviewed international magazines, so the methodology and results are open to every scientists opinion and comment.

Thus, studies that stand up to peer-review, scrutiny and question are taken as definitive evidence.

Some indicate performance enhancement, others don't.

No. Those numbers are wrong. I know of one old study with a few horses that indicates an improvement in running in non-EIPH horses, and many, many studies that show the opposite.

So, until it can be proven it does not enhance performance, I'm against it.

It has been proven thus, that it is not a performance-enhancer in non-EIPH horses, via objective examination of all research to date, and thus is the opinion, of the overwhelming majority of scientists and veterinary medical doctors around the world. I am one of them.

Horse racing has a serious problem with performance enhancement, but the water pill that grandma takes for her heart problem, and that horses are given to protect their lungs, isn't it.

As someone whose profession is animal medicine and health, who also cares about horses as an owner/rider/fan, who wants all performance enhancing drugs out of horse racing (and other horse sports), who has experience with published scientific research on lasix, and who puts the welfare of the horse above all else (even client preferences) in my professional life, it is utterly tragic to me that some in horse racing are trying to eliminate a valuable therapeutic medication from use, while true drug problems rage rampant.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Riot

"Belief" doesn't matter in science and medicine.

There is no objective evidence that lasix is a performance enhancer.

There is overwhelming, unassailable evidence that lasix is a valuable therapeutic medication that attenuates the severity and frequency of EIPH.



No. There are not. The vast, overwhelming majority of veterinarians are in favor of lasix's use as a therapeutic medication, including the American Association of Equine Practitioners, and the American Veterinary Medical Association - both organizations who feel so strongly about the matter, they have published public position papers on the subject.

There are very, very few, outlier vets that think differently, that say no.



That's a common lay person belief, that is generally wrong. But that is also why studies are published in open, peer-reviewed international magazines, so the methodology and results are open to every scientists opinion and comment.

Thus, studies that stand up to peer-review, scrutiny and question are taken as definitive evidence.



No. Those numbers are wrong. I know of one old study with a few horses that indicates an improvement in running in non-EIPH horses, and many, many studies that show the opposite.



It has been proven thus, that it is not a performance-enhancer in non-EIPH horses, via objective examination of all research to date, and thus is the opinion, of the overwhelming majority of scientists and veterinary medical doctors around the world. I am one of them.

Horse racing has a serious problem with performance enhancement, but the water pill that grandma takes for her heart problem, and that horses are given to protect their lungs, isn't it.

As someone whose profession is animal medicine and health, who also cares about horses as an owner/rider/fan, who wants all performance enhancing drugs out of horse racing (and other horse sports), who has experience with published scientific research on lasix, and who puts the welfare of the horse above all else (even client preferences) in my professional life, it is utterly tragic to me that some in horse racing are trying to eliminate a valuable therapeutic medication from use, while true drug problems rage rampant.

This simply isn't true. If it were easy to measure performance, which it is not, there would be easy answers. I personally don't think those on the side of non-drug use should have to prove a drug doesn't enhance performance. It should be the other way around. I'm not sure it can be done right now with the tools we have.

Let me ask a simple, yes or no, question. If Frankel raced in the USA or Canada, would he be given Lasix? If so, does he really need it? If not, why not?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

This simply isn't true. If it were easy to measure performance, which it is not, there would be easy answers.

It is very easy to measure objective performance parameters scientifically. We have literally thousands of scientific papers, in human and animal medicine, that do this: measure performance. It is the basis of the creation and development of sports medicine, in humans and animals, years ago.

There are two ways that are commonly and frequently used in equine research regarding furosemide and EIPH:

The first is to take horses, train them to run on a high-speed treadmill indoors at racing speeds (where you control environment, temperature, humidity, air quality, absolute feet-per-second of speed, etc). Then subject them to testing conditions and measure the results before, during, after.

The second is to use detailed statistical analysis to examine real-life racing horses retrospectively.

What else do you think "simply isn't true"?

I personally don't think those on the side of non-drug use should have to prove a drug doesn't enhance performance. It should be the other way around. I'm not sure it can be done right now with the tools we have.

It already has been done.

This - the benefit of lasix to race horses, and it's ability to affect performance - is not a subject, within the veterinary and scientific community, where opinion is widely variable, or "50-50" at all. As far as the scientific and veterinary community goes, it is 99.99% to 0.01.

Scientists and veterinarians do not form an opinion, then try to justify it. We have formed our opinions based upon what the objective, repeatable evidence tells us is true and real.

That is why an overwheming, vast majority number of veterinarians and scientists say the evidence shows us that lasix is not performance enhancing in non-EIPH horses, it shows it is a valuable therapeutic medication.

That is why the overwhelming, vast majority of veterinarians and scientists advise the use of lasix in race horses with EIPH.

I have only seen two veterinarians publicly say they think lasix should be banned, that I can recall by name.

That's two out of tens of thousands that treat equines or involved in equine research - let alone the rest of the medical community.

Even if there were 100 vets that felt that way, based upon their reading of the scientific literature (which is why there are not that number), that would still an overwhelming, less than 0.0001% of equine researchers and veterinarians to feel the facts should be interpreted differently than the overwhelming majority say those facts demonstrate.

This is not a subject where there is any significant variance whatsoever in what the medical/scientific community agrees upon.

That is why it is completely shocking to we in the medical community to see lay people ask the medical community what we think, the vets give the answers (which in this case virtually everyone agrees upon!), then the lay people choose to ignore or disregard the professional, educated advice, and say, "Well, gee, I dunno ... " !

Let me ask a simple, yes or no, question. If Frankel raced in the USA or Canada, would he be given Lasix? If so, does he really need it? If not, why not?

I have no idea what Frankel's health record is.

Let's go back to the child with asthma. Let's say the asthma is usually under good control, but exacerbates with exercise. Would a parent let him/her play soccer only using their prevention inhaler after an attack begins? Of course not! We would all use the prevention inhaler to prevent or decrease the severity of an exercise-induced asthma attack.

That is precisely what lasix does to attentuate the severity and frequency of Exercise-Induced Pulmonary Hemorrhage in horses diagnosed with same.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Riot

It is very easy to measure objective performance parameters scientifically. We have literally thousands of scientific papers, in human and animal medicine, that do this: measure performance. It is the basis of the creation and development of sports medicine, in humans and animals, years ago.

I have to admit, this is probably the funniest thing you have posted.

When horses start racing competitively on a treadmill, and they are known to maintain form from day to day, I'll buy into the first test.

Seriously, the second is a joke, right? I've seen the studies. They have no idea how to measure performance.

Your asthma thing is ridiculous. These horses are treated for EIPH before anyone has a clue if they suffer from it or not. Nice dodge on the Frankel question though. The answer is, of course, he would race on Lasix. Would he need it? The answer is, of course, obviously not.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I have to admit, this is probably the funniest thing you have posted.

When horses start racing competitively on a treadmill, and they are known to maintain form from day to day, I'll buy into the first test.

Seriously, the second is a joke, right? I've seen the studies. They have no idea how to measure performance.

That's right. Hundreds of scientists, in human and animal medicine, are not as smart as you about ... doing science.

And of course, measuring speed and distance achievable in a horse tells us nothing about performance. How silly of we scientists! (smacks palm against forehead!)

Pardon me while I laugh hysterically - and sadly - at a man in 2012 believing the earth is flat and 6000 years old.
Good luck with your fantasy cult. Whatever you do, keep ensuring that no reality intrudes upon your religion ... opinion, whatever it is.

And please, start writing the editors of medical journals regarding the deficiencies of various study methodologies ... your opinion, surely, will be as well-received as you imagine it's worth.