#61
|
||||
|
||||
To make a point. You needed drugs to treat a specific medical issue. This doesnt make you a druggie, a bad guy or a cheater. Horses would probably feel the same way about bleeding. Average horse races 6 times a year. I would say 6 shots a year isnt exactly junkie material.
|
#62
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
It wasnt that long ago that you could "legally" milkshake horses on raceday. Some horses seemed to run better with them, some ran worse, most ran about as the same as you would think. Of course there are a lot of other factors that lead to a positive or negative performance so it isnt easy to say with certainty. I have no idea if it would help a human though I suppose the delevery system would need to be different |
#63
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
It goes back to what cmorioles was saying about the vast majority of racehorses receiving lasix on raceday. |
#64
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
We do not want to assume, or guess, do we? Let's base our opinions on the facts - right?
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts |
#65
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Next. |
#66
|
||||
|
||||
No. That's not what you said at all. And that proves nothing at all about what you said.
You said: "How much is a horse's performance actually affected by bleeding at grades below the most severe?" So tell us: how much is a horses performance affected by bleeding at grades below 4? None? 100%? 50% By 2 lengths? By 10 lengths? By 0.5 seconds per furlong? Not at all? Do you know the answer? Do you have a percentage of how many are affected, and at what grades? What is that answer?
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts |
#67
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#68
|
||||
|
||||
You know that you don't need a scope to find bleeding. You know there are other ways that are far more accurate. Why are your purposely ignoring that? Why are you misleading people with your statements?
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts |
#69
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Of course, I have it all the time. |
#70
|
||||
|
||||
One logical course of action would be to observe the quality and success of racing in jurisdictions that don't allow raceday lasix.
|
#71
|
||||
|
||||
That's right, smarty. Why don't you go find the answer and get back to us? Because it's out there. And it's absolutely germane to this discussion.
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts |
#72
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Ketchup. |
#73
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
You know what would be a great way to find out how many horses bleed, how bad is the problem "really", does it affect performance? You know who could give us an accurate measurement? That would be to let scientists actually look at thousands of race horses, and actually measure how badly they bleed, with and without lasix. We have that information. What is the answer? Do you know?
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts |
#74
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Yes, the issue at hand is the significance of bleeding. And to know if a horse has bleed, you have to ... you know ... see if it bled, first. Then you measure the change in performance. Right? Your question was: "How much is a horse's performance actually affected by bleeding at grades below the most severe?" We have that information. Do you know the answer? Let's base the use of lasix in race horses on the facts surrounding lasix in race horses. Don't you agree? Let's let the facts tell us what we should do for the horses in our care? Rather than making up scientific-sounding nonsense, or ignoring the 127 papers published about lasix in race horses, pretending the information we don't want to hear just doesn't exist?
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts |
#75
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Some of us here are trying to investigate all the nooks and crannies that bog down the issue of lasix, so that as honest a picture as possible can be obtained. Some issues/questions might prove to support the use of lasix while others might illustrate why it is justifiable to ban it. But apparently, you've already made your decision (because you know 10,000x more than us), so you feel the need to barge around like a cow in a china shop. Good for you. |
#76
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Yes, I have an opinion on using lasix in race horses, but my opinion is formed as a result of the decades of fact and science surrounding the use of lasix in race horses. Yes, indeed - I do know about 10,000 times more about lasix than you do. You might try and learn something. You have shown zero interest in finding the answers to your questions. Your question was: "How much is a horse's performance actually affected by bleeding at grades below the most severe?" I said we have that information. So please, don't pretend you want to know all the "nooks and crannies" of the lasix question, when you've clearly shown you have zero desire to hear anything at odds to your current opinion. You? You have an opinion unfiltered and unaffected by the facts. And calling me a cow in a china shop may make you feel more like a big tough guy, but the fact of that is that you are just another proof of Jonathan Gabriel's Law of the Internet. I know you guys want to come on here and throw around "facts" about lasix. I'm calling you guys out on your "facts". Because, again, we need to base what we do medically for our race horses on fact - not guesses. Don't you agree?
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts |
#77
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#78
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
What it says is only that uncontrolled EIPH on race day will not prevent a viable racing industry from existing. Do you think we should base our use of race day medications on what scientific facts tell us is best for the horse, or not?
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Attack!! Attack!! Counter Attack!! Feign Weakness!! Scold!! Attack!! Attack!! Vague Explanations!!! Counter Attack!! Snide Retort!!! Trophy!!
|
#80
|
||||
|
||||
This is the first page from the link Kasept posted at the start of this thread. There is nothing scientifically false or questionable in this. There is more scientific evidence, in addition to what is quoted below (you can read the detail by clicking on Kasepts original link), to support and substantiate every single statement without hesitation or question.
In other words: this is not opinion, it is fact and truth. Quote:
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts |