NYTHA Lasix Primer & Letter to NYS RWB

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Well, for one, I stopped drugging myself as soon as humanly possible. Second, I wasn't drugging myself so I could compete in a sport. I was doing it so I could walk. I have no idea how these are remotely related.

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.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

I presume it's because there are negative implications associated with someone administering any substance to a horse on raceday.

Is sodium bicarbonate innocuous and/or beneficial to an athlete?

I would guess your presumption is correct not to mention makes it easier to monitor because it would be pretty hard to say you were using a tube to give lasix.

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

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

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.

This is also true when discussing the significance of bleeding in racehorses as it pertains to actual performance. How much is a horse's performance actually affected by bleeding at grades below the most severe?

It goes back to what cmorioles was saying about the vast majority of racehorses receiving lasix on raceday.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

How much is a horse's performance actually affected by bleeding at grades below the most severe?

Tell us. The proper way to formulate that hypothesis would be that 100% of horses are negatively affected. Prove that hypothesis wrong.

We do not want to assume, or guess, do we? Let's base our opinions on the facts - right?

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Riot

Tell us. The proper way to formulate that hypothesis would be that 100% of horses are negatively affected. Prove that hypothesis wrong.

Horses win races despite bleeding out the nose.

Next.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

Horses win races despite bleeding out the nose.

Next.

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?

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

This is also true when discussing the significance of bleeding in racehorses as it pertains to actual performance. How much is a horse's performance actually affected by bleeding at grades below the most severe?

It goes back to what cmorioles was saying about the vast majority of racehorses receiving lasix on raceday.

I've always wondered if you need a scope to find bleeding, how bad is it really? Does it affect performance? How do we know? Who can give an accurate measurement?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I've always wondered if you need a scope to find bleeding, how bad is it really? Does it affect performance? How do we know? Who can give an accurate measurement?

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?

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Riot

No. That's not what you said at all. And that proves nothing at all about what you said.

I didn't assert anything, Copernicus. I asked a question.

You said: "How much is a horse's performance actually affected by bleeding at grades below the most severe?"

Yep. Thought so. A question.

So tell us: how much is a horses performance affected by bleeding at grades below 4? Do you know the answer? Do you have a percentage of how many are affected, and at what grades? What is that answer?

Funny, I asked the very same question. We must share the same brain.

Of course, I have it all the time.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I've always wondered if you need a scope to find bleeding, how bad is it really? Does it affect performance? How do we know? Who can give an accurate measurement?

One logical course of action would be to observe the quality and success of racing in jurisdictions that don't allow raceday lasix.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

I didn't assert anything, Copernicus. I asked a question.

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.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Riot

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?

The issue at hand, since clearly you don't follow, is the significance of bleeding, not the diagnosis.

Ketchup.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

One logical course of action would be to observe the quality and success of racing in jurisdictions that don't allow raceday lasix.

Heck no. "Observing the quality and success of racing in jurisdictions that don't allow raceday lasix"would give us absolutely zero information about, "finding bleeding, how bad is it really? Does it affect performance? How do we know? Who can give an accurate measurement?"

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?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

The issue at hand, since clearly you don't follow, is the significance of bleeding, not the diagnosis.

Ketchup.

Oh, I love it when those ignorant of science try to use it in an argument, then reveal themselves to be ... well, ignorant of science.

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?

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Riot

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.

You like to pretend like you have the answers, but curiously, you never actually put them out there in black-and-white. That is to say, you never actually help propel the discussion (which is what this is) along. It's not a street fight.

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.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

You like to pretend like you have the answers, but curiously, you never actually put them out there in black-and-white.

Nope. I have absolutely put the facts out there in black and white in our previous discussions. They sit in the other thread. Hard to ignore. Why do you say something that clearly isn't true?

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?

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Riot

Heck no. "Observing the quality and success of racing in jurisdictions that don't allow raceday lasix"would give us absolutely zero information about, "finding bleeding, how bad is it really? Does it affect performance? How do we know? Who can give an accurate measurement?"

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?

[Riot]

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?

From the horses point of view? From the gamblers? From the track's profit line? From horse breeders point of view? Whose interest should be put first in the racing industry?

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?

Attack!! Attack!! Counter Attack!! Feign Weakness!! Scold!! Attack!! Attack!! Vague Explanations!!! Counter Attack!! Snide Retort!!! Trophy!!

[Riot]

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.

What is exercise-induced pulmonary hemorrhage?

A horse affected by EIPH--a bleeder--suffers from ruptured blood vessels in the lungs during the stress of training or competing. This condition affects not just Thoroughbred racehorses, but all equine athletes, including polo ponies, 3-day event horses, barrel racers and steeplechasers.

The severity of the condition is determined by the amount of blood in the horse’s trachea, and graded on a scale of 0 to 4. If a horse is graded as a 4, there is blood covering the entire trachea and performance is severely affected; if the horse is off the charts and in crisis, there is blood draining from one or both nostrils (epistaxis). In those cases, the condition can be critical.

Some 60% of sudden deaths in racing have been attributed to pulmonary
hemorrhage.

Studies have proven that the vast majority of race horses
will suffer EIPH at some point during their careers, and that even a grade
2 can affect a horse’s performance by as many as six lengths.

First documented in the early 1800s, EIPH had long been suspected to
have a negative impact on a racehorse’s ability to perform at its peak level. But, until the early 1970s, the only symptom of EIPH beyond the subpar performance was epistaxis.

That changed with the introduction of the fiberoptic endoscope 40 years ago, which, for the first time, allowed a veterinarian to examine the horse’s upper respiratory system, and determine the origin and severity of the bleeding.

Not only did this ground-breaking advance in diagnostics prove that the
blood originated from the lungs, but also demonstrated that EIPH was prevalent even when epistaxis was not evident.

Dr. Ken Hinchcliff, the recognized leader in EIPH research, was lead author on studies conducted in Australia and South Africa, which proved definitively that EIPH affects the majority of Thoroughbred racehorses.

The results from his Australian study, released in 2005, determined
that 55% of horses suffered some level of EIPH, and was the first to clearly demonstrate the connection between EIPH and poor performance.

Subsequent studies have found that the prevalence of EIPH is even higher. If you scope a horse after three successive strenuous workouts, nearly 100% will be diagnosed with EIPH by the third scope.

Dr. Hinchcliff then set out to determine if the most common treatment for EIPH, the administration of Lasix, was, in fact, effective. The results of the study, conducted under racing conditions in South Africa, were published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association in July of 2009.

Not only was the study able to quantify the impact on performance with regard to the severity of the EIPH, but it proved that Lasix was highly effective in alleviating the condition. A small percentage of the 152 horses involved in the study evidenced the highest degree of bleeding without Lasix-- grades 3 and 4--but not a single horse evidenced a grade higher than 2 after the administration of Lasix.

Twice as many horses were completely unaffected by EIPH when treated with Lasix as when racing without it.

The scientific evidence is irrefutable. Horses bleed. Lasix works.