NYTHA Lasix Primer & Letter to NYS RWB

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Riot

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?

I think it was fairly obvious from both cmorioles question and my own, that we were satisfied with the most accessible and commonplace method of diagnosing EIPH (ie endoscopy) as a means of quantifying severity.

You're attempt to roadblock any further discussion of the issue at hand with your bluster about lab coats, plastic catheters, and half liters of saline is duly noted.

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?

Actually, we were discussing the signficance of bleeding on performance. That in and of itself need not include discussing lasix.

A good scientist would be able to separate and isolate the components of a multi-variable problem. Investigate each independently to ensure the most accurate definitions. Only later will those components be put back together, so that all the information can be integrated to form a cohesive whole from which to draw a logical, and hopefully valid, conclusion.

Try harder.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

If other jurisdictions are able to successfully maintain a viable racing industry without the permitted use of lasix on raceday, doesn't that suggest something with regards to the signficance of EIPH on racing in general?

...and these very same horses routinely destroy our horses when they don't use Lasix.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

I think it was fairly obvious from both cmorioles question and my own, that we were satisfied with the most accessible and commonplace method of diagnosing EIPH (ie endoscopy) as a means of quantifying severity.

But that is not the most accurate method of quantifying severity. You know that. In fact, it's known that endoscopy misses the diagnosis the majority of time.

You're attempt to roadblock any further discussion of the issue at hand with your bluster about lab coats, plastic catheters, and half liters of saline is duly noted.

Damn! Science! Truth! How dare I!

Even though I've not mentioned "lab coats, plastic catheters, and half liters of saline". Seriously: does reality ever intrude upon you?

Actually, we were discussing the signficance of bleeding on performance. That in and of itself need not include discussing lasix.

Yet it means everything when one wants to ban the use of a valuable therapeutic drug - lasix - on race day.

But let's discuss your first premise: tell me, what does science tell us about the significance of EIPH, bleeding, on performance? We have that answer. Tell us what science has found about the significance of EIPH on performance.

A good scientist would be able to separate and isolate the components of a multi-variable problem. Investigate each independently to ensure the most accurate definitions. Only later will those components be put back together, so that all the information can be integrated to form a cohesive whole from which to draw a logical, and hopefully valid, conclusion. Try harder.

Yeah. You might take your own advice. Because believe me, you aren't doing any of that. You are deliberately ignoring any science at odds to your opinion.

The question is not if lasix should be used on race day. The question is: do we want to allow the use of proven effective therapeutic medications on race day, or not?

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

...and these very same horses routinely destroy our horses when they don't use Lasix.

Not only that, but apparently most of the scientific evidence that validates the use of lasix comes from a single study (from 2009--took a while to prove, didn't it?) done under racing conditions in...wait for it...South Africa.

I thought we weren't supposed to care what happened with racehorses across the Atlantic.

Their system and methods are totally different. Right?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

...and these very same horses routinely destroy our horses when they don't use Lasix.

Can you please provide some quantitative proof to that? Thanks!

Like, all the times your horses over 30 years have not used lasix in their races, and have beaten their peers.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Riot

But that is not the most accurate method of quantifying severity. You know that. In fact, it's known that endoscopy misses the diagnosis the majority of time.

Didn't you just post a whole list of purported facts that gush over the advent and widespread use of endoscopy?

Please be consistent.

Damn! Science! Truth! How dare I!

Even though I've not mentioned "lab coats, plastic catheters, and half liters of saline". Seriously: does reality ever intrude upon you?

I was presuming that the more accurate method of diagnosis you were referring to was a bronchial lavage. My bad.

Yet it means everything when one wants to ban the use of a valuable therapeutic drug - lasix - on race day.

I never said I wanted lasix banned.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

Not only that, but apparently most of the scientific evidence that validates the use of lasix comes from a single study (from 2009--took a while to prove, didn't it?) done under racing conditions in...wait for it...South Africa.

False. Completely false. Again, you are simply ignoring that which you do not want to hear. There are 127 studies on lasix in the race horse, including many in the US. In fact, I have posted several on the previous thread, that you have certainly seen.

So are you just ignoring that? Or did you forget it exists? Or are you deliberately misstating in the above paragraph? Because your statement is grossly factually untrue.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

Didn't you just post a whole list of purported facts that gush over the advent and widespread use of endoscopy?
Please be consistent.

Nope. You are, again, mistaken.

I was presuming that the more accurate method of diagnosis you were referring to was a bronchial lavage.

Now you're just making up sentences with words, to try and cover your lack of knowledge of the subject.

I never said I wanted lasix banned

Do you think therapeutic medications should be banned on race day, or not? We both agree that illegal and non-therapeutic medications should be banned, I assume.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Riot

Can you please provide some quantitative proof to that? Thanks!

Like, all the times your horses over 30 years have not used lasix in their races, and have beaten their peers.

I think you misunderstand. I'm asking why we can't seem to win any race that matters overseas? Sure, our turf horses aren't the greatest, but they do win a decent number of BC races. Overseas, without Lasix, well, it is getting embarrassing. I'd settle for a horse that could run 10th at this point.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Riot

False. Completely false. Again, you are simply ignoring that which you do not want to hear. There are 127 studies on lasix in the race horse, including many in the US. In fact, I have posted several on the previous thread, that you have certainly seen.

So are you just ignoring that? Or did you forget it exists? Or are you deliberately misstating in the above paragraph? Because your statement is grossly factually untrue.

From the same person who conducted the South African study in 2009, when reviewing EIPH in 2004:

The currently favored treatment for EIPH is administration of furosemide
before intense exercise....However, it should be borne in mind that neither the relationship between severity of EIPH and red cell count in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid nor the efficacy of furosemide in reducing severity of EIPH in racehorses in the field have been demonstrated. In fact, there is strong evidence that furosemide does not reduce the prevalence of EIPH and other evidence that it does not reduce the severity of EIPH under field conditions. The association between furosemide administration and superior performance in Standardbred and Thoroughbred racehorses should be considered when recommending use of this drug.

Level-headedness and an open mind when targeting a problem are good things.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I think you misunderstand. I'm asking why we can't seem to win any race that matters overseas? Sure, our turf horses aren't the greatest, but they do win a decent number of BC races. Overseas, without Lasix, well, it is getting embarrassing. I'd settle for a horse that could run 10th at this point.

If horses without lasix do better, why don't you take all your horses off lasix and gain that performance advantage here in the states?

Is there any scientific evidence, in those 127 published papers on lasix in race horses, supporting your impression that horses without lasix perform better than horses with lasix?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

Level-headedness and an open mind when targeting a problem are good things.

So does intellectual honesty, and not changing the subject to a straw man, as you just did. Let alone quoting sentences out of context.

So let's go back to what you are trying to avoid.

You said: " ... apparently most of the scientific evidence that validates the use of lasix comes from a single study (from 2009--took a while to prove, didn't it?) done under racing conditions in...wait for it...South Africa."

I said: That is false. Your statement is false. "most of the scientific evidence that validates the use of lasix" comes from multiple studies - 127, to be closer - done in multiple countries, the vast majority being America.

There are multiple studies - over a hundred - that validate the use of lasix in the race horse.
Most were done in America.
Some use laboratory science duplicating racing conditions. Some use actual race horses on the track in racing conditions.
The studies vary from as long as 50-60 years ago (the origins of lasix) to the explosion of knowledge in the 1990's.

Your statement is grossly, factually incorrect.

Please - stop making stuff about lasix up out of thin air. Stop making statements of 'fact' when you are ignorant of the extent of the topic. It adds nothing to the discussion.

If you are sincerely interested in finding out the truth of the effect of EIPH on performance, and lasix on EIPH, you've spent pages proving the opposite. Again: do you want science to tell you what your opinion of lasix and EIPH should be, or is your mind already made up about it?

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Riot

If horses without lasix do better, why don't you take all your horses off lasix and gain that performance advantage here in the states?

Is there any scientific evidence, in those 127 published papers on lasix in race horses, supporting your impression that horses without lasix perform better than horses with lasix?

I'd have better luck talking to a wall. I don't think you even read the posts.

Lets try again. I never said horses without Lasix have an advantage. I actually have said just the opposite many times. I said our horses can't beat horses overseas when NONE of the horses have Lasix.

So clearly this EIPH that the shippers must be experiencing isn't causing any long term damage. If it was, our horses, through the miracles of Lasix, would be in much better physical shape. They would drub the horses from around the world. They would also expose those countries as foolish and horse haters for not seeing the light and providing their horses with the wonderful properties of this drug.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I'd have better luck talking to a wall. I don't think you ever read the posts.

I'd have better luck remembering that you cannot jump from one idea to a logical second, but have to go step-by-step without skipping.

I said our horses can't beat horses overseas when NONE of the horses have Lasix.

So clearly this EIPH that the shippers must be experiencing isn't causing any long term damage.

That makes zero logical sense whatsoever. There is zero connection between your conclusion and your first sentence. Zero.

If it was, our horses, through the miracles of Lasix, would be in much better physical shape. They would drub the horses from around the world. They would also expose those countries as foolish and horse haters for not seeing the light and providing their horses with the wonderful properties of this drug.

That makes zero sense, and you clearly have no concept of how lasix actually works in the horse. Your assumptions in the above paragraph are legion and many.

Please: leave science to the scientists. You have to decide, are you going to listen to them, or not? Because right now you've clearly chosen "not". And you are making a hodgepodge of ridiculous arguments taking a snatch of concept from here and there (you are not ridiculous, friend, the arguments are logically ridiculous)

Again, the question is: Is US racing going to continue to allow the use of a proven therapeutic medication on race day, or not?

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Riot

I'd have better luck remembering that you cannot jump from one idea to a logical second, but have to go step-by-step without skipping.



That makes zero logical sense whatsoever. There is zero connection between your conclusion and your first sentence. Zero.



That makes zero sense, and you clearly have no concept of how lasix actually works in the horse. Your assumptions in the above paragraph are legion and many.

Please: leave science to the scientists. You have to decide, are you going to listen to them, or not? Because right now you've clearly chosen "not". And you are making a hodgepodge of ridiculous arguments taking a snatch of concept from here and there (you are not ridiculous, friend, the arguments are logically ridiculous)

It makes zero sense if you can't read, otherwise I'm sure most can figure it out.

I'll ask some easy questions. If you can answer, great. If you won't, don't bother responding.

1. Do you think most horses that race in Europe suffer from EIPH when racing?
2. Do episodes of EIPH cause any long term damage?
3. If so, shouldn't the horses get worse the more they race?
4. If not, what is the harm in waiting to see if a horse actually bleeds before administering Lasix?

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Riot

If horses without lasix do better, why don't you take all your horses off lasix and gain that performance advantage here in the states

I'm glad to see you have come around and now admit Lasix enhances performance.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

It makes zero sense if you can't read, otherwise I'm sure most can figure it out.

Baloney. It's a completely ridiculous assumption, that if American horses can't beat Euro or Australasian horses on their home turf, it means our lasix doesn't doesn't help our horses be physically better when they are taken off lasix and shipped overseas. Completely absurd.

I'll ask some easy questions. If you can answer, great. If you won't, don't bother responding.

1. Do you think most horses that race in Europe suffer from EIPH when racing?
2. Do episodes of EIPH cause any long term damage?
3. If so, shouldn't the horses get worse the more they race?
4. If not, what is the harm in waiting to see if a horse actually bleeds before administering Lasix?

Here's the easy answers, based upon the breadth and depth of scientific knowledge we have regarding lasix. If you don't want to believe it, you shouldn't have asked.

1. Yes. It's estimated 93% of horses in Europe suffer from EIPH when racing.

2. Yes, episodes of EIPH cause long-term damage.

3. Yes, horses DO get worse the more they race (regarding quantitative EIPH severity and damage)

4. The answer was "yes" to the previous question. My opinion matches the general consensus of the overwhelming majority of the veterinary community, that furosemide attenuates the quantity and quality of EIPH in the race horse, and is a valuable race day therapeutic drug.

Nobody has mentioned that the Derby winner was wearing a Flair nasal strip. If I trained race horses, I would race them all on lasix and with Flair nasal strips on. Both methods help protect their lungs from EIPH damage.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Riot

Baloney. It's a completely ridiculous assumption, that if American horses can't beat Euro or Australasian horses on their home turf, it means our lasix doesn't doesn't help our horses be physically better when they are taken off lasix and shipped overseas. Completely absurd.



Here's the easy answers, based upon the breadth and depth of scientific knowledge we have regarding lasix. If you don't want to believe it, you shouldn't have asked.

Yes. It's estimated 93% of horses in Europe suffer from EIPH when racing.

Yes, episodes of EIPH cause long-term damage.

Yes, horses DO get worse the more they race (regarding quantiative EIPH severity and damage)

The answer was "yes" to the previous question.

Outstanding, I didn't think you had it in you. But, your answers are exactly what I expected. Unfortunately, they fly in the face of what is happening on the racetrack.

Obviously horses in Europe, without Lasix, are going to have more frequent episodes of EIPH. We know it causes long term damage. The more they race, the more damage it causes.

So, our horses, with the benefit of Lasix, don't suffer as much from EIPH. Therefore, our horses must have less long term damage done.

Therefore, when our horses face those from Europe, we clearly must have a big edge. I don't see how anybody could even debate that given the information you have so kindly provided us.

So, it only leaves two more questions.

1. Why are our horses so inferior when we face them without Lasix?
2. Why aren't shippers at a big disadvantage when they ship here, even with Lasix, if they have all this damage from bouts of EIPH?

I rest my case.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I'm glad to see you have come around and now admit Lasix enhances performance.

Oh, please. I didn't say that and you know it. You said that.

I told you that if it were true that, as you said, our horses used to lasix couldn't beat horses not on lasix overseas, you should take your horses off lasix and gain that performance advantage you perceive.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Outstanding, I didn't think you had it in you. But, your answers are exactly what I expected. Unfortunately, they fly in the face of what is happening on the racetrack.

Only if someone is silly enough to attribute 100% of a horses performance to the capability of the alveolar-capillary interface and measurable VO2max.

Dang. That would be you.

Why do you attribute 100% of a horses performance to VO2max? That's beyond absurd. You're ignoring every single other thing that contributes to performance: glycogen storage, quantity of fast- vs. slow-twitch muscle fibers, cardiac output, oxygen unloading, training, conditioning, inflammation, ambient humidity and temperature, etc., etc., etc.

I rest my case.

Science isn't lawyering. Sorry.

In all seriousness:
1) Should American racing allow the continued use of race day therapeutic medications?
2) Is furosemide therapeutic?

The answer to #2 has clearly, beyond a doubt, been proven to be "yes". So it's up to American racing to answer #1.