NYTHA Lasix Primer & Letter to NYS RWB

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i'd rather use something i know i won't have to worry about sticking.

did i'll have another run on lasix?

You'd rather drug a horse than use something that might come undone one in 100 times? You act as though Lasix is 100% effective.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Your writing skills are horrid. I don't think your reading skills are much better judging by the things you attribute to me. I think it is best if I just ignore your posts from now on, sorry.

05-10-2012, 09:22 PM
cmorioles
Churchill Downs Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 1,959



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot
Here's your challenge: give any objective evidence at all to prove that lasix is harmful to horses.



you, cm replied:


Where have I ever said it was harmful? I am quite sure I have never said that. Feel free to keep making things up though.


then there's this exchange:

05-10-2012, 09:11 PM
cmorioles
Churchill Downs Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Moore, OK
Posts: 1,959



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danzig
and i will ask for a third time, how can you know if a horse will bleed? or when?

and thinking isn't a fact, it's an opinion.


this was your reply cm:




'You can't.'


but yeah, you're right on....i don't know what you've written. feel free to attack my writing skills rather than stick to the points. i've never claimed to be an english or writing major, so i'm sorry if i don't put things together too well. however, i do remember what i've read, and who wrote it.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

You'd rather drug a horse than use something that might come undone one in 100 times? You act as though Lasix is 100% effective.

you mean use a drug that you said doesn't cause harm? sure. if there's no harm, why wouldn't you?


again, what is best for the horse?

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Riot

Just cutting and pasting words.

Interesting. You asked me to directly quote the study that states that lasix is associated with superior performance. I did. Now you say I'm "just cutting and pasting".

Cute. But anyone with a pulse sees right through it. Refute Dr. Hinchcliff's (you know, the guy who proved lasix was effective under actual race conditions) conclusions.

You have every right to have a position on drugs in racing. Stand up and say you don't want any drugs whatsoever on race day. Nothing wrong with that.

I don't need you to tell me that I have a right to have an opinion. I'm trying to participate in a discussion like most of the others in this thread. I'm not pushing an agenda or climbing all over someone who posts something I don't agree with or questions my own posts. Try using some tact for once.

However, you should probably come up with a reason why you oppose the direct and specific medical advice of the veterinary profession, who says that doing what you want is not best for the health and welfare of the horse.

I like how questioning something is apparently the same as opposing it.

We say these lay person interpretations (such as published by some of the anti-lasix folks) of the scientific information surrounding lasix use is wrong and off base. We advise the very opposite of what some lay people in racing are proposing.

Why are 60,000 medical professionals wrong, but lay people with no scientific education, correct?

I highly doubt all 60,000 medical professionals are comfortable with you being their self-appointed spokesman.

But enough of that duck-and-dive tactic you're so good at. You're cherry-picking my last post. Why don't you comment on the mechanism of action of furosemide and how, according to your claim, it does not affect acid-base balance in a racing Thoroughbred?

The lay people want to know.

No, the TCO2 threshold used for detecting milkshaking is "not higher than the level signifying alkalosis". That's false. You've misunderstood and confused two different concepts.

Interesting, once again. Dr. Kenneth McKeever noted in a paper in 2005 that several studies have shown that the mean plasma concentration of total CO2 of normal horses is ~30 mmol/L. Yet, in many racing jurisdictions, the total CO2 threshold is 37 mmol/L. Is 37 higher than 30? Anyone? Anyone? Is there a mathematician in the house?

Ironically, some states, such as New York have two thresholds for total CO2. 37 mmol/L and 39 mmol/L. Anyone know which horses are held to the higher (that's the 39 level for the non-mathematicians here) threshold?

Yep, you guessed it. It's for horses that were administered lasix.

Interesting that the rules of racing seem to suggest that lasix alters the acid-base status (specifically, has an alkalinizing effect) of a horse. No?

Have you read the paper Steve posted in the first post of this thread? Have you READ it yet? The first page is 100% accurate. There is absolutely zero scientific dissent with what is stated in that lay person synopsis.

I read it. It has an obvious bias, as someone else mentioned. Once again, I'm trying to eliminate any bias in the discussion. We're being fed half-truths by both sides.

It's not "controversial" What do you think is "controversial"?

Dr. Kenneth Hinchcliff: "Therapy for EIPH is controversial..." (2004) and "Given...the finding that furosemide can improve the performance of Thoroughbred racehorses, the use of furosemide to prevent EIPH remains controversial." (2009)

Dr. Warwick Bayly: "...this review emphasizes issues that relate to the highly controversial subject of furosemide use in racehorses." (2000)

Do we need those pesky lay people to voice their concern, too? Or are we good here?

[cmorioles]

"However, you should probably come up with a reason why you oppose the direct and specific medical advice of the veterinary profession, who says that doing what you want is not best for the health and welfare of the horse. "

This part is easy. Given the current state of the game, why in the world should we trust vets? Many are associated with the "move up" trainers that are ruining the game.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Danzig

ok, from everything i've read here and the other thread, as well as in other discussions, let me see if i have this right:


pro's of removing lasix on race day:

no longer have horses on drugs on race day.


are there any others?

facts on lasix:

not harmful
not proven to enhance performance (note, i said proven-opnion/belief isn't proof)
prevents bleeding and any accompanying lung damage
not a masking agent. (as the study i linked said, with plasma testing, better testing(for what they know what to test for!), lasix can't be considered as a masking agent
used either in training and/or race day in practically every racing jurisdiction on the planet

cons of removing lasix on race day:

bleeders with a history have lost their bleeding prevention, prone to worsening episodes as well as more and more damage.
no way of knowing what horse will have a bleeding episode, or when, or how severe. that in turn means no prevention of lung damage, which can be permanent
an alternative to lasix is removal of water and food for 24-48 hours before racing. (that's some alternative)

One thing not mentioned was the dose of lasix used on raceday.

One of the reasons behind the banning of "milkshaking" is that horsemen can alter the outercome of a race by employing an "on-and-off" regimen (one race given, one race not given) of bicarbonate.

With lasix, most jurisdictions allow a range of lasix from 150mg to 500mg. Is there room there to alter a horse's performance? If I have a severe bleeder whose bleeding is controlled only with the higher dose of lasix, what happens if I up and decide to give him the bare minimum in his next race?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

Interesting. You asked me to directly quote the study that states that lasix is associated with superior performance. I did. Now you say I'm "just cutting and pasting".

Yes, indeed. You are just cutting and pasting things with words in it. Because, if you had actually read and understoodthe study you are quoting, you'll see the conclusions are far different than the little part you cut and paste

For example, you say this:

Interesting that the rules of racing seem to suggest that lasix alters the acid-base status (specifically, has an alkalinizing effect) of a horse. No?

No. The reason that laboratory values are set where they are because of simple and usual statistical mathematical distribution. Has nothing at all to do with "lasix altering the acid-base balance". Sorry. BTW - can you name 5 other things that affect TCO2 values? Because you've just put all your eggs in one basket of blame - and you're wrong. Not surprising, considering you don't really know anything about the scope of what you are talking about, and you just jumped to a false conclusion.

I don't need you to tell me that I have a right to have an opinion. I'm trying to participate in a discussion like most of the others in this thread. I'm not pushing an agenda or climbing all over someone who posts something I don't agree with or questions my own posts. Try using some tact for once.

When it comes to the scientific actions of furosemide, you're a bloviating ignoramus.

I highly doubt all 60,000 medical professionals are comfortable with you being their self-appointed spokesman.

I'm not. I'm merely agreeing with my colleagues. As you already know but ignore repeatedly, 60,000 members of AAEP and the AVMA (of which I belong) have come out in full and unwavering support of lasix as a race day therapeutic medication.

But enough of that duck-and-dive tactic you're so good at. You're cherry-picking my last post. Why don't you comment on the mechanism of action of furosemide and how, according to your claim, it does not affect acid-base balance in a racing Thoroughbred?

Your posts deserve cherry-picking, because you post falsehoods about lasix. The details matter.

Why don't you support your own crazy claim that it does? You made a weird claim, completely outside of known medical knowledge and experience, prove it.

Cutting and pasting random quotes, while completely ignoring the basic physiology and misunderstanding what you are reading, is hilarious and sad. Start with chloride and the ascending loop of Henle.

You see, you actually have to understand what you are going on about. Just googling and posting doesn't make you a lasix expert. Believe me - I am a lasix expert, and you've repeatedly demonstrated you are clueless.

Please - stick to gambling. Leave medicine and veterinary advice to the experts. You are free to hold the completely opposite opinion than the entire medical veterinary medical community on this subject, but having you argue basic physiology and pharmacology from a level of zero obvious knowledge - by cutting and pasting - is simply uncomfortable to watch.

But ... you are just repeating what some in this sport are doing, falsifying and ignoring all the relevant information, in an effort to further their own preconceived agenda. But when they step into our realm, the medical realm, and really start with the lies, we're calling bull.sh.i.at. on that stuff.

The funny thing is that on the equine veterinarian private blogs, we are talking about this, too. Very different discussion, as you might guess.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

One thing not mentioned was the dose of lasix used on raceday.

One of the reasons behind the banning of "milkshaking" is that horsemen can alter the outercome of a race by employing an "on-and-off" regimen (one race given, one race not given) of bicarbonate.

With lasix, most jurisdictions allow a range of lasix from 150mg to 500mg. Is there room there to alter a horse's performance? If I have a severe bleeder whose bleeding is controlled only with the higher dose of lasix, what happens if I up and decide to give him the bare minimum in his next race?

i don't know, what will happen?


one other question...what benefits do you anticipate if lasix is banned?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i don't know, what will happen?


one other question...what benefits do you anticipate if lasix is banned?

Danzig: these two guys hold medical opinions completely opposite from the consensus white papers of the American Veterinary Medical Association and the American Association of Equine Practitioners.

There's a reason for that.

Bad science and bad logic is nothing more than that. Again, think Jenny McCarthy, vaccination, autuism.

[Calzone Lord]

Originally Posted by Danzig

one other question...what benefits do you anticipate if lasix is banned?

In terms of who benefits...probably the horses who don't need it.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

In terms of who benefits...probably the horses who don't need it.

Lasix is an extremely safe drug with a wide margin of safety. How are the 7% of horses that suffer no EIPH harmed by receiving lasix?

[Calzone Lord]

Originally Posted by Riot

Lasix is an extremely safe drug with a wide margin of safety. How are the 7% of horses that suffer no EIPH harmed by receiving lasix?

I'm talking in terms of performance on the racetrack.

If a drug benefits members of your competition more than it benefits you ... it brings you closer together and you lose a performance edge.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

I'm talking in terms of performance on the racetrack.

If a (fill in the blank) benefits members of your competition more than it benefits you ... it brings you closer together and you lose a performance edge.

Certain bits, certain shoes, leg wraps, blinkers and hoods, FLAIR strips all benefit some horses more than others.

Do you think lasix is a therapeutic drug, or not?

[Calzone Lord]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

My problem with doing away with Lasix is that we’re going to go back to how it was before in New York (the last state to permit the drug), where everybody is trying to use things under the table that nobody knows about. I honestly don’t believe that in some of these other countries people don’t use alternative medications to Lasix. It’s better the devil you know than the devil you don’t know.

This is basically the obvious reason why I don't care one way or another about the lasix issue and would probably prefer it doesn't get banned.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

I'm talking in terms of performance on the racetrack.

If a drug benefits members of your competition more than it benefits you ... it brings you closer together and you lose a performance edge.

how does lasix benefit some more than others? and if you have no way of knowing if a horse would bleed or not, how would you know if lasix was beneficial or not?


i just wonder if this latest hot topic will be like poly a few years back in california? look where the synthetic mandate ended up. i can't help but think that if you start having hemorraging horses on the track they won't back-pedal in a hurry. and there have been instances where a horse bled so severely they went down in a race.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Riot

Yes, indeed. You are just cutting and pasting things with words in it. Because, if you had actually read and understoodthe study you are quoting, you'll see the conclusions are far different than the little part you cut and paste

For example, you say this:

Duck.

Again, refute the statement: "...we believe our results present clear and unequivocal evidence of an association between use of furosemide and superior performance in Thoroughbred racehorses."

No. The reason that laboratory values are set where they are because of simple and usual statistical mathematical distribution. Has nothing at all to do with "lasix altering the acid-base balance". Sorry. BTW - can you name 5 other things that affect TCO2 values? Because you've just put all your eggs in one basket of blame - and you're wrong. Not surprising, considering you don't really know anything about the scope of what you are talking about, and you just jumped to a false conclusion.

Dive.

You are completely trying to steer away from what was said. There are two separate threshold levels for total carbon dioxide used in New York to identify "milkshaked" horses, not a range. One for horses not receiving lasix. One for horses receiving lasix. The latter is allowed a higher threshold (ie more total carbon dioxide ergo more bicarbonate). Why is that?

You trying to cover up this fact with a blanket of statistical nonsense is pathetic beyond belief.

As to "other things" that affect total CO2 values, I never said lasix was the only thing that did. Why would I? The point of testing for total CO2 is to discover horses that have been "milkshaked", not administered lasix.

When it comes to the scientific actions of furosemide, you're a bloviating ignoramus.

How do you know? I'll I ever said was that furosemide caused a 3% drop in body weight and that it had an alkalinizing effect. Are these untrue? Simply refute them without evasion and maybe we can get down to business.

Why don't you support your own crazy claim that it does? You made a weird claim, completely outside of known medical knowledge and experience, prove it.

Duck and dive. I made a weird claim? Where? By quoting a recognized (by the magical, all-knowing veterinary community) authority on lasix?

The onus is on you. This is not hot potato.

Cutting and pasting random quotes, while completely ignoring the basic physiology and misunderstanding what you are reading, is hilarious and sad. Start with chloride and the ascending loop of Henle.

Kicking and scratching from a scared creature trapped in a corner.

You see, you actually have to understand what you are going on about. Just googling and posting doesn't make you a lasix expert. Believe me - I am a lasix expert, and you've repeatedly demonstrated you are clueless.

If you're an expert, then why are you having trouble refuting what other experts have observed in published, peer-reviewed, scientific papers?

Please - stick to gambling. Leave medicine and veterinary advice to the experts. You are free to hold the completely opposite opinion than the entire medical veterinary medical community on this subject, but having you argue basic physiology and pharmacology from a level of zero obvious knowledge - by cutting and pasting - is simply uncomfortable to watch.

Do you think anyone reading this thread is actually buying into your condescending, weak-willed bullying?

Obviously your bark is loud. Now put up and fucl<ing bite already.

But ... you are just repeating what some in this sport are doing, falsifying and ignoring all the relevant information, in an effort to further their own preconceived agenda. But when they step into our realm, the medical realm, and really start with the lies, we're calling bull.sh.i.at. on that stuff.

That's funny. Because I've only quoted veterinarians with regards to lasix.

The funny thing is that on the equine veterinarian private blogs, we are talking about this, too. Very different discussion, as you might guess.

To hear you tell it, it must be a very one-sided debate about the Cassandra Complex.

Is Madeleine Stowe leading the discussion?

[Calzone Lord]

Originally Posted by Riot

Certain bits, certain shoes, leg wraps, blinkers and hoods, FLAIR strips all benefit some horses more than others.

I never said some equipment like bits, blinkers, and types of shoes don't benefit some horses more than others in situations.

Originally Posted by Riot

Do you think lasix is a therapeutic drug, or not?

You're asking the wrong person.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

Duck.

Again, refute the statement: "...we believe our results present clear and unequivocal evidence of an association between use of furosemide and superior performance in Thoroughbred racehorses."

It's within the conclusion of the article you quote.

See, quoting sentences in a vacuum, without understanding, isn't a very good debate tactic when you are ignorant of the subject matter.

You are completely trying to steer away from what was said. There are two separate threshold levels for total carbon dioxide used in New York to identify "milkshaked" horses, not a range. One for horses not receiving lasix. One for horses receiving lasix. The latter is allowed a higher threshold (ie more total carbon dioxide ergo more bicarbonate). Why is that?

There is nothing sadder than a man that bravely makes a definitive statement, then, when it's pointed out by someone who knows more than he that he's completely wrong, says he is not and tries to ask questions and backtrack.

You trying to cover up this fact with a blanket of statistical nonsense is pathetic beyond belief.

Yes. There are two separate levels. They do not exist for the reason you stated. You are not remotely close or accurate as to why those different levels exist, let alone the fact you attribute it to lasix causing metabolic alkalosis (apparently in amazing physiologic ability devoid of compensatory mechanisms).

You don't have the first clue regarding what you are talking about. You don't have the knowledge of pharmacology or physiology. You are cutting and pasting words without meaning.

Again: you are the guy sitting at the corner of the bar, pontificating on how to do open heart surgery. It's sad. Just stop.

[Calzone Lord]

Originally Posted by Danzig

how does lasix benefit some more than others?

I can show you a lot of old past performances of horses who would stop on a dime and fade without lasix and perform a whole lot better with it.

I can show you a lot of old past performances of horses who never used lasix and fired big races everytime. Some of them from as recently as the 1990's.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

I can show you a lot of old past performances of horses who would stop on a dime and fade without lasix and perform a whole lot better with it.

I can show you a lot of old past performances of horses who never used lasix and fired big races everytime. Some of them from as recently as the 1990's.

on the former, were they bleeders? and how old are those pps? it used to be that lasix was a masker, but apparently that's no longer the case.

on the latter-you don't have to use the stuff. i just would hate to see those who need it not be able to have it.