NYTHA Lasix Primer & Letter to NYS RWB

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

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

Good, because I never said you did

[Calzone Lord]

Originally Posted by Riot

Good, because I never said you did

Ok, but you did have to remind me that they do in case I somehow forgot or something?

When my father trained horses, one of the horses he moved way up was a speed horse called G. J. From Ioway. He credited all of his improvement to simply changing his bit.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

When my father trained horses, one of the horses he moved way up was a speed horse called G. J. From Ioway. He credited all of his improvement to simply changing his bit.

I have no doubt. I've never trained race horses, but I have trained hunters, and yes, changing bits can do amazing things.

PS: Do you know when Strong Commitment became a $5K claimer at Mountaineer?

[Calzone Lord]

3/24/2012

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Riot

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.

I don't see. You haven't posted anything. If there's something in the conclusion that contradicts what was already said in the conclusion (a mighty feat I might add), why don't you post it?

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.

What the fucl< are you talking about? Are you replying to yourself here? You said I was wrong, so prove how I was wrong. It's simple.

Saying you know more than me so it must be so doesn't cut it. You can't be this daft.

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).

Ah, the subtle backpedal. Where did I say compensatory mechanisms don't exist?

Nevertheless, why would there need to be compensatory mechanisms if lasix doesn't have an alkalinizing effect as previously stated?

Wipe off the rearview kids, cuz we're about to go backwards.

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.

Yes. All the statements I made have no meaning. Veterinarians write studies in a cryptic manner that says one think in one section, but the total opposite in another. I'm sure it's designed to sucker us know-nothing lay people into believing the wrong thing and acting on invalid information.

I guess its no surprise then that these idiotic racing officials are ruining racing.

They're listening to the "wrong" veterinary advice. Not the secret, "right stuff".

Chuck Yeager couldn't outrun the BS spewing out of your mouth.

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

I guess that makes you the expert veterinarian utilizing the free Wi-Fi at McDonald's, refilling her saved, crinkled cup from Burger King to wheeze Sweet Tea, bullying "less educated" posters on therapeutic medication despite contributing almost nothing. It's hilarious. Keep it up.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

I don't see. You haven't posted anything. If there's something in the conclusion that contradicts what was already said in the conclusion (a mighty feat I might add), why don't you post it?

You've gone through the same discounted circular arguments so many times, I can't even follow what the hell you are trying to "prove" at this point. Your post above made no sense. It was just argumentative bullshi.a.t.

Why don't you read page 2 of the link in the first post of this thread, and anything on that page you think is specifically false, list it here, and we'll discuss it.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

3/24/2012

TY. I remember that horse in allowances in Kentucky, but forget when.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Riot

You've gone through the same discounted circular arguments so many times, I can't even follow what the hell you are trying to "prove" at this point. Your post above made no sense. It was just argumentative bullshi.a.t.

Why don't you read page 2 of the link in the first post of this thread, and anything on that page you think is specifically false, list it here, and we'll discuss it.

You did it.

You successfully avoided answering any of the questions I put forth. You've taken us on a merry-go-round ride of BS and have buried the relevant issues I brought to the table. You're such an asset to this board.

Dare I say, in the words of the great Uncle Leon, you've "topsy turvied this motherfucl<er!"

You can rest and breathe easy now. Everyone is still under the impression that you "know" everything.

Is the walkway leading to your front door made from yellow bricks?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

You successfully avoided answering any of the questions I put forth.

Oh, no. I answered plenty of them. The ones that had some basis in reality. You just either didn't like the answer, or didn't know enough to understand the answer.

Again: you read page 2 of the PDF at the top of this thread about lasix, and any thing you think is a lie, or false, or not true about lasix, post it here and we'll discuss it.

[Cannon Shell]

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?

The problem with the questions like this is that it is impossible to isolate a single factor in the performance of a horse. More lasix doesnt mean better treatment. The idea that a horseman can turn a horse off and on with milkshakes is silly. The entire premise that we can stop horses with a lower dose of lasix assumes that all other factors are not pertinent. A lot of what you and CJ want is answers that dont exist and will never exist because this is not an exact science regardless of how hard you scrutinize it.

Making a horse bleed before treating them is asinine and irresponsible. Do you wait to have a heart attack before you go on a aspirin regime? Millions of people take a drug everyday and a large percentage of them will never have a heart attack.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The problem with the questions like this is that it is impossible to isolate a single factor in the performance of a horse. The idea that a horseman can turn a horse off and on with milkshakes is silly. The entire premise that we can stop horses with a lower dose of lasix assumes that all other factors are not pertinent. A lot of what you and CJ want is answers that dont exist and will never exist because this is not an exact science regardless of how hard you scrutinize it.

It's not really a question of provability, though, is it? It's a question of intent and opportunity.

If the possiblity exists that bicarbonate loading affects performance, then ideally administering "milkshakes" should be prohibited.

If the possibility exists that altering the dose of lasix affects performance, then ideally the dose of lasix should be standardized (eg, by body weight) at the very least.

More lasix doesnt mean better treatment.

Two scenarios:

1) Your horse receives 150mg of lasix for a race. The horse wins. Post-race, the horse is found to have bled a Grade 3 (scale 0 to 4). Assuming no further complications, how do you treat the horse for its next start, at the same class level?

2) Your horse receives 150mg of lasix for a race. The horse runs poorly. Post-race, the horse is found to have bled a Grade 3. Assuming no further complications, how do you treat the horse for its next start, at the same class level?

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

A lot of what you and CJ want is answers that dont exist and will never exist because this is not an exact science regardless of how hard you scrutinize it.

Sure, it isn't an exact science. However, I have no doubt that a study could be conducted to test if Lasix enhances performance in non-bleeders and bleeders alike. If the sample is large enough, reasonable conclusions could be drawn.

The problem is the people currently doing the testing really have no idea how to measure thoroughbred performance during races, and neither do veterinarians. There are plenty of people that do and could be used as consultants if anyone really had the desire to know. The problem is such an experiment would cost a ton of money and also would require people to let their horses be used in the study.

Outside of that, all I can do is draw conclusions based on the data and experience I've accumulated over the years. I would say with 95 percent certainty that it is a performance enhancer. That is my opinion and I'll stand by it until it is proven otherwise.

One good thing has come out of this finally. You admitted it hasn't been proven that Lasix IS NOT a performance enhancer. I do find it funny that the alleged positives can be tested and proven, yet you claim the single biggest negative can never be tested. Of course it can be tested. It just depends on how badly people want to know the answer.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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.

You act like these horses are pets. It would be comical if it weren't so naive. There are PLENTY of horsemen that don't give a crap about the horses. Why are they so interested in keeping Lasix legal? It surely isn't about the horses.

Before anybody lectures me on how everybody loves horses, I'll offer up Anew, a horse that ran in the last race at Penn National tonight. He is an 11 year old gelding that came back to the races off a 4 and a half layoff. Yes, 4 and a half years. Steve Asmussen was the trainer. He brought the former stakes winner back for 25k claimers, lost, and dropped him to 15k. He lost interest in a hurry. Luckily for him, he washed his hands of the horse when David "the butcher" Jacobson claims him.

Jacobson enters him back for 7.5k and wins a purse, hooray, then runs him for 15k and loses badly. He decides to ship him to Prx where he dumps him in a 7.5k conditioned race, the horse dumps the rider at the start, and runs around the track only to return to a new barn. Yes, some idiot named Richard Vega was dumb enough to claim him.

The horse race tonight for the fourth time under Vega's "care". After three miserable efforts at Prx for 7.5k, the horse was shipped to Pen to run for 4k where again he was not competitive.

So, what is the point? I'm tired of hearing this "the horse comes first" bullsh!t, because that is what it is...bullsh!t. Sure, the guy at Pen is some loser trainer that is probably trying to scrape by and recoup some money. That doesn't excuse him from the way this horse is being handled. But forget him for a minute. The other horses are big names in the game. Jacobson is a leading trainer on the biggest circuit in the game, the NYRA circuit. Asmussen is one of the biggest trainers in the game, period.

So, I ask again, spare me the "it is in the best interest of the horse" crap. We all know that line is only used when it is convenient to use it. We also know for every Anew out there, I could scan the PPs every week and find several horses just like him. Three trainers, two nationally prominent, have had the chance to do the right thing. None of them have.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

It's not really a question of provability, though, is it? It's a question of intent and opportunity.

If the possiblity exists that bicarbonate loading affects performance, then ideally administering "milkshakes" should be prohibited.

If the possibility exists that altering the dose of lasix affects performance, then ideally the dose of lasix should be standardized (eg, by body weight) at the very least.

The dose of lasix is standardized by body weight.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

However, I have no doubt that a study could be conducted to test if Lasix enhances performance in non-bleeders and bleeders alike. If the sample is large enough, reasonable conclusions could be drawn.

That has been done. More than once. Those studies have existed for many years now.

They've even been quoted in the threads about lasix you write in, but apparently don't read.

I would say with 95 percent certainty that it is a performance enhancer. That is my opinion and I'll stand by it until it is proven otherwise.

The veterinary world says you are dead wrong. But you hang in there being a rebel!

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Riot

That has been done. More than once. Those studies have existed for many years now.

They've even been quoted in the threads about lasix you write in, but apparently don't read.

I do read, and I found the results ambiguous. How could they be anything else when different conclusions are reached?

I also would submit that the testing methods were woefully flawed. The performance measurements were obviously designed by people that knew little about actual racing and how to measure performance.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Riot

The veterinary world says you are dead wrong. But you hang in there being a rebel!

The veterinary world has no idea how to measure thoroughbred performance.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

You act like these horses are pets. It would be comical if it weren't so naive. There are PLENTY of horsemen that don't give a crap about the horses. Why are they so interested in keeping Lasix legal? It surely isn't about the horses.

Talk about naive. And offensive. Many trainers differ from you and want their horses to have good veterinary care. Speak for yourself. I'm sure most trainers don't want you speaking for them, especially with your "horses are disposable livestock" attitude.

So, I ask again, spare me the "it is in the best interest of the horse" crap.

And spare us your sanctimonious hard ass act crap. You're the poster child for everything that is bad in this sport: uncaring and deliberately ignorant.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

The veterinary world has no idea how to measure thoroughbred performance.

You don't even know how "the veterinary world" has measured performance.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Riot

Talk about naive. And offensive. Many trainers differ from you and want their horses to have good veterinary care. Speak for yourself. I'm sure most trainers don't want you speaking for them, especially with your "horses are disposable livestock" attitude.



And spare us your sanctimonious hard ass act crap. You're the poster child for everything that is bad in this sport: uncaring and deliberately ignorant.

Differ from me? I'm not a trainer, and I don't have that attitude. I just observe and report. Here is what I see. David Jacobson does what is in the best interest of David Jacobson, not the horses. Steve Asmussen does what is in the best interest of Steve Asmussen, not the horses. There are many others out there just like them. I find that offensive, not my telling of what I see.

Nowhere did I say this was all horsemen. It certainly isn't. But it isn't a rare breed either.