NY Task Force on Racehorse Health & Safety Report, Reccos

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

Do you think lasix is a performance enhancer? I read your post and it's a little confusing because you say things like performance improvement is a disproven wives tale. Then you objected to Freddy saying you were pretending it isn't a performance enhancer.

So let's make it nice and simple. In your opinion is it a performance enhancer?

What I wrote regarding performance (even saying the same thing twice) was:

"Also discussed was disproven old wives tales regarding lasix effect on dilution of urine,
why performance is increased and how much (measurable)
ability to mask drugs,
why the holding period is 4 hours,
why performance improves in the horse and by how much,
why the dose is what it is in the racehorse, etc (background stuff)"

"Some interesting recent stuff about the best efficacy of lasix for initial and chronic use (at what distances) - there is a distinct variance of shown efficacy regarding horse performance between sprint (most), middle distance, and distance (least). Interesting couple pieces of info that would help trainers starting young horses."

My opinion is what the science has always told us is true:

Virtually all TB race horses suffer EIPH.
Suffering EIPH impedes performance.
Lasix attenuates EIPH very successfully.
Horses that don't suffer EIPH regain their performance level.
Yes, lasix improves performance in horses suffering EIPH.
If you give any performance horse lasix (outside of EIPH) does their performance improve?
No. Not at all. No, lasix is not a performance-enhancer.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Riot

Virtually all TB race horses suffer EIPH.

Virtually all, except nearly every 2yo that raced without Lasix at Saratoga this year.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Virtually all, except nearly every 2yo that raced without Lasix at Saratoga this year.

When you look for a EIPH using a testing methodology (1 scope post-work or race within 2 hours) that has been proven to miss an accurate diagnosis 80% of the time, people tend to hold the factually false opinion on morbidity rate that you do.

If you don't look for it, you don't find it.

Virtually all TB race horses suffer EIPH. Every single incidence of EIPH, no matter how minor, or detected grossly or not, damages lung tissue.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Riot

When you look for a EIPH using a testing methodology (1 scope post-work or race within 2 hours) that has been proven to miss an accurate diagnosis 80% of the time, people tend to hold the factually false opinion on morbidity rate that you do.

If you don't look for it, you don't find it.

Virtually all TB race horses suffer EIPH. Every single incidence of EIPH, no matter how minor, or detected grossly or not, damages lung tissue.

And therein lies the rub. Horses raced for a century with all this apparent lung damage and were a much sturdier group of animals by far.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

And therein lies the rub. Horses raced for a century with all this apparent lung damage

Your implication is that EIPH hasn't caused problems for race horses in the past before furosemide. False. EIPH has always harmed race horses.

EIPH has had the same effect on horses since it was first documented in text in the 1600's, and owners and trainers have simply always used methods other than furosemide to attempt to control it.

and were a much sturdier group of animals by far.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Riot

Your implication is that EIPH hasn't caused problems for race horses in the past before furosemide. False. EIPH has always harmed race horses.

EIPH has had the same effect on horses since it was first documented in text in the 1600's, and owners and trainers have simply always used methods other than furosemide to attempt to control it.

I'm not doubting that. I'm just saying this "damage" isn't as severe as people let on. If it was, how do you explain horses racing successfully over 100 times in a career?

While Lasix does help sometimes with EIPH (nobody is denying that), it isn't a cure all and I think there are some negative effects as well. It certainly isn't the only reason horses don't last these days, but it is one of them. I also think it is one of the reasons horses don't recover as quickly as the once did. You know, like when horses could win the Triple Crown and throw in a prep between the Preakness and Belmont.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I'm not doubting that. I'm just saying this "damage" isn't as severe as people let on.

But it is. What makes you think it is not? We have thousands of necropies on horses that shows the damage. We have three centuries of horsemen writing about horses that bleed and don't have wind and quit and can't work.

If it was, how do you explain horses racing successfully over 100 times in a career?

What are you specifically talking about? Horses that raced before lasix? A century ago? Two centuries ago? Other methods were used to control bleeding before lasix. Many things were tried.

While Lasix does help sometimes with EIPH (nobody is denying that),

The hard science is that furosemide has about a 97% effective rate with horses that have been diagnosed with EIPH.

Current science: Virtually all TB racehorses have been found to have evidence of bleeding, thus we consider that rate of EIPH to be 100% in the TB race horse for practical purposes.

it isn't a cure all and I think there are some negative effects as well.

What negative affects concern you?

It certainly isn't the only reason horses don't last these days, but it is one of them.

There is zero scientific evidence that using furosemide shortens a horses career. There is hard proven scientific evidence that says use in race horses lengthens that career by diminishing lung damage.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by Riot

Virtually all TB race horses suffer EIPH.
Suffering EIPH impedes performance.
Lasix attenuates EIPH very successfully.
Horses that don't suffer EIPH regain their performance level.
Yes, lasix improves performance in horses suffering EIPH.
If you give any performance horse lasix (outside of EIPH) does their performance improve?
No. Not at all. No, lasix is not a performance-enhancer.

You are saying two different things.

You're saying it does improve performance in bleeders. But it doesn't improve performance in non bleeders. It just lets them "regain their performance level."

well, if they aren't suffering EIPH, then they shouldn't need lasix right? And what performance level are they regaining if their performance level wasn't impeded to begin with?

[Danzig]

dear sweet baby jesus.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

You are saying two different things.

You're saying it does improve performance in bleeders.

Yes, because lasix stops microscopic EIPH bleeding deep in the lungs and thus the horse gets more oxygen.

But it doesn't improve performance in non bleeders. It just lets them "regain their performance level."

No, that's not what I said. I said horses that suffer EIPH will regain their performance levels because they are no longer bleeding.

If you give lasix (which is simply a loop diuretic) to a horse that does not experience EIPH due to it's work (such as an elite-level cutting horse, a barrel racer), no, lasix will not improve it's performance.

Lasix is not a stand-alone performance enhancer.

Lasix is a therapeutic medication that attenuates EIPH. Of course, if you eliminate bleeding into a horses lungs, the horse will get more oxygen and perform better.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Riot

If you give lasix (which is simply a loop diuretic) to a horse that does not experience EIPH due to it's work (such as an elite-level cutting horse, a barrel racer), no, lasix will not improve it's performance.

Lasix is not a stand-alone performance enhancer.

Every study I've ever done, and there were many, showed a very high percentage of horses ran faster with 1st time Lasix than they ever did pre-Lasix, so this simply isn't true. Of course these days the sample size is way too small to test because most horses apparently bleed at birth.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Every study I've ever done, and there were many, showed a very high percentage of horses ran faster with 1st time Lasix than they ever did pre-Lasix, so this simply isn't true.

No, that proves actually proves that lasix is efficacious at stopping EIPH. When you can breath, you can run faster and farther. When you can't breath, you slow down until you can breath, or you stop.

Your assumption is that the horses pre-lasix are not bleeding. Hard science says no, that's not true.

You say it is true because of one scope and lack of obvious blood in the nose or trachea. That's a method that misses the diagnosis of bleeding 80% of the time. Other methods with greater detection shows that yes, these horses are bleeding in their dorso-caudal lungs.

[freddymo]

Its really amazing how european horses can drown in their damaged lungs and still drown are wonderfully healthy prestined lunged non bleeding horses.. Dr Hack you are the hack of all hacks

[Riot]

Originally Posted by freddymo

Its really amazing how european horses can drown in their damaged lungs and still drown are wonderfully healthy prestined lunged non bleeding horses.. Dr Hack you are the hack of all hacks

Duly noted.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by freddymo

Its really amazing how european horses can drown in their damaged lungs and still drown are wonderfully healthy prestined lunged non bleeding horses.. Dr Hack you are the hack of all hacks

And many run faster when shipped here and getting Lasix. Horses that don't get Lasix, despite obviously being treated for EIPH the same way as they were overseas, don't have a very good record here. I wonder why.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Riot

No, that proves actually proves that lasix is efficacious at stopping EIPH. When you can breath, you can run faster and farther. When you can't breath, you slow down until you can breath, or you stop.

Your assumption is that the horses pre-lasix are not bleeding. Hard science says no, that's not true.

You say it is true because of one scope and lack of obvious blood in the nose or trachea. That's a method that misses the diagnosis of bleeding 80% of the time. Other methods with greater detection shows that yes, these horses are bleeding in their dorso-caudal lungs.

Again though, this is the problem. How much of a problem is it if it takes that much to detect it? These two year olds at Saratoga that didn't bleed will race faster with Lasix on average, I guarentee it. Of course you say they did bleed without proof, calling those people that said they didn't liars basically. How convenient.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Again though, this is the problem. How much of a problem is it if it takes that much to detect it? These two year olds at Saratoga that didn't bleed will race faster with Lasix on average, I guarentee it. Of course you say they did bleed without proof, calling those people that said they didn't liars basically. How convenient.

Wont the vast majority of two year olds run faster as they get older?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Again though, this is the problem. How much of a problem is it if it takes that much to detect it? These two year olds at Saratoga that didn't bleed will race faster with Lasix on average, I guarentee it. Of course you say they did bleed without proof, calling those people that said they didn't liars basically. How convenient.

No. I said that you are calling those horses "clear" of EIPH using a test which misses that diagnosis 80% of the time. If you don't look for it, you don't find it.

If we did BAL on those horses, they would all show bleeding.

I have posted before the efficacy rate of various testing methodologies for EIPH (BAL vs scope, for example) and you have simply always continued to ignore it exists.

Using an endoscope to diagnose EIPH is like diagnosing chip fractures in the ankles by palpation only, not using radiographs.

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by Riot

No, that's not what I said. I said horses that suffer EIPH will regain their performance levels because they are no longer bleeding.

Yes, it is what you said. One more time, these are YOUR words.

Originally Posted by Riot

My opinion is what the science has always told us is true:

Virtually all TB race horses suffer EIPH.
Suffering EIPH impedes performance.
Lasix attenuates EIPH very successfully.
Horses that don't suffer EIPH regain their performance level.
Yes, lasix improves performance in horses suffering EIPH.
If you give any performance horse lasix (outside of EIPH) does their performance improve?
No. Not at all. No, lasix is not a performance-enhancer.

If it's a typo, just say it. Because your words are contradicting.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Dahoss

Yes, it is what you said. One more time, these are YOUR words.

If it's a typo, just say it. Because your words are contradicting.

No, sorry, it's just written so you couldn't understand what I meant. Try this:

Virtually all TB race horses suffer EIPH.
Suffering EIPH impedes performance.
Lasix attenuates EIPH very successfully.

Thus if you give a horse lasix, he doesn't suffer EIPH - Horses that don't suffer EIPH - because they get lasix - regain their performance level.

Yes, lasix improves performance in horses suffering EIPH.
If you give any performance horse lasix (outside of EIPH) does their performance improve?
No. Not at all. No, lasix is not a performance-enhancer.