#301
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#302
|
||||
|
||||
But 93% of all horses bleed. Obviously all the bleeders don't get sent here, only the worst ones. Are you trying to say most of the G1 winners that shipped in from overseas are part of the magic 7%?
|
#303
|
|||
|
|||
What percentage of Euro horses train on lasix? I bet you it is an extremely low percentage. In the US, there is a small percentage of trainers that train practically all their horses on lasix. I'm sure there are a few trainers over in Europe that do this too, but I can guarantee you that it is not a large percent.
|
#304
|
|||
|
|||
That whole thing about 93% being bleeders is totally misleading. A high percentage of those cases is microscopic bleeding. Microscopic bleeding is not going to affect performance at all. That is not to say that microscopic bleeding is necessarily totally insignificant. It could get worse and progress into something more significant over time. It would be something to keep an eye on but there is a good chance that it will never develop into anything significant.
|
#305
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#306
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
My question to you is whether you think the opposite is true. Do you believe that the advent of lasix has actually increased the number of starts per horse, per year (when the other factors that have decreased starts are taken out of the equation)? If everything Riot says about lasix is true, lasix should actually increase the number of starts per year, per horse. Yet I think that all the evidence points to the opposite. Sure there may be other reasons why starts per year have gone down. But I still think the best case scenario is that lasix has had no effect on number of starts per horse, per year. If it has no effect, then I think all the supposed positive benefits are overstated. We know that when a horse bleeds in a race, that horse will need extra time off before his next race. If lasix is doing such a great job of preventing bleeding, then you would expect that lasix would lead to more starts per year, per horse. There is no evidence that this has happened. If anything, the evidence points to the opposite. |
#307
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#308
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Bleeding detected on tracheal wash - seeing blood cells - EIPH - is definitive evidence that each ruptured, bleeding alveoli can no longer exchange oxygen and carbon dioxide. It's called, "early diagnosis". You saying that EIPH doesn't matter until so much microscopic bleeding accrues that it is grossly visible to the naked eye is patently false and absurd. That's as ridiculous as saying bleeding from an amputated leg doesn't matter until you lose so much blood you pass out. It's the same as saying congestive heart failure drowning you in pulmonary edema doesn't matter until you pass out from lack of oxygen. What percentage of lung volume can be lost before it "affects performance"? 3% 10%? 20% It doesn't matter until hundreds of thousands of alveoli are ruptured and the horse is literally drowning? That's beyond absurd. It's made up non-science. And it's a terrible thing to do to a horse. You'll deliberately run a horse through EIPH until it bleeds visibly? That's animal cruelty. And yes - when your lungs start filing with blood, it affects your performance. Even before it comes up your trachea and out your nose.
__________________
"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 Last edited by Riot : 05-15-2012 at 11:05 AM. |
#309
|
||||
|
||||
At this point, it's pretty apparent that cmorioles, Rollo, and Rupert absolutely refuse to change their opinion about in the face of all fact to the contrary.
It's a sad, sad day for racing, when pushing a decidedly minority and disproven opinion is more important than doing what's best for race horses. Racing is owned by rich, out-of-touch, ignorant old men who are more worried about their egos and power and demonstrably don't give a damn about the welfare of the horse. Well, it's on your backs, cmorioles, Rollo and Rupert. You now take personal responsibility for your strong opinions, and forcing a substandard and dangerous medical practice on race horses in the face of overwhelming veterinary opposition to your decision. We veterinarians, in overwhelming numbers, the ones that know medicine and EIPH, have told you the truth, and how wrong you are. But because you don't like to hear opposition to your decisions and your power, you call us hacks, accuse us of lying, accuse us of being as heartless as you are, accuse us of making decisions based upon money rather than caring for the health and welfare of the horse. Screw you. The first horse you force to run without lasix, that suffers at your hands, we'll be pointing directly at you when PETA comes for the sport and it's all over. It shouldn't take long.
__________________
"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 Last edited by Riot : 05-15-2012 at 11:03 AM. |
#310
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Second, as I've said a few times and been ignored, there are plenty of horsemen doing FAR worse things to horses than denying them Lasix. Quote:
You act as though without Lasix horses will be struggling to finish with blood spewing from their nostrils. Funny, I spent 5 years overseas and traveled to many racetracks around the world. I don't recall seeing many horses in distress from bleeding. It can be controlled without a drug obviously. You say there are many worse problems out there and this isn't an issue. Maybe it isn't. But I don't see horsemen, as a group, campaigning for any of those things that could help the game. They do nothing that isn't in their own interests, ever. Sure, you get a few guys like Chuck that have a good grasp of things, but apparently they have no status among their peers. Therefore, I have trouble believing this cry to keep Lasix is all about the horse. It isn't, it never is. You'll have to excuse me me if I don't care if they are a little inconvenienced by people that want drug free races. |
#311
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
When being lasix-free causes horses to suffer, we'll be sure to point directly. at. you. Who will you blame then? The medical world is on record, publicly saying you are wrong. Who will you blame? Hey! I'll bet it will be those horrid trainers, and their evil veterinary accomplices, using all those "illegal drugs we can't detect"! After all, you eliminated "scourge of steroids" three years ago, and look at how the sport has changed ... oh. Whoops. Never mind. Guess that's why lasix is being attacked now. Hint: maybe go after illegal drugs, but more importantly, abuse of currently legal drugs. Through .. testing! Yeah! Testing! Rather than picking on drugs that help horses? But wait, that costs money ... guess we'll just go back to eliminating lasix. Damn! Racing would be so perfect for the rich, old powerful white men, if only it were not for the trainers and veterinarians and public bothering them. Oh, yeah - there are living creatures, horses, involved, too.
__________________
"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 |
#312
|
||||
|
||||
I'll worry about it after horses like Anew are treated differently. That is a much bigger problem than bleeding, and nobody seems to care. Until then, you are all a bunch of hypocrites.
|
#313
|
|||
|
|||
Scat Hats
Push this beaten to death thread to 18 pages and all recieve Scat Daddy hats...
Scat |
#314
|
|||
|
|||
Banning lasix is a tax cut for rich tea party koch brother republicans. For that reason alone lasix should be allowed.
Btw I am a republican and speak with integrity. |
#315
|
|||
|
|||
|
#316
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The hypocrites are those blaming lasix for all of that, and thinking that eliminating lasix will change any of those things. Eliminating lasix will only harm the horses.
__________________
"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 |
#317
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
and i bet it's not because of lasix. that has been and will continue to be my point. does lasix have reasons to be used? yes. so why is it the target, and not trainers with multiple suspensions, multiple positives? using god knows what? but no, the one race day med allowed is what is being target, and that makes no sense. target the true evils, undetectable designer drugs. stiffen rules, stiffen fines, stop re-issuing licenses to cheaters. force owners to hire clean trainers, because they would be all that was left.
__________________
Books serve to show a man that those original thoughts of his aren't very new at all. Abraham Lincoln |
#318
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#319
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I guess all those vets that have said that don't know what they are talking about. With regard to your analogies, I think I have a better analogy. A better analogy is when you go to an honest dentist and he tells you, "You have a tiny cavity. It's not bad and I wouldn't do anything with it right now. We can keep an eye on it and check it every time you come back (once every 6 months). There is a chance that it may get worse and if it does, we will put a filling in. But there is also a good chance that we will never have to fill this cavity." A dishonest dentist would simply tell you, "You have a cavity. We have to fill it." Last edited by Rupert Pupkin : 05-15-2012 at 08:28 PM. |
#320
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
By the way, just because a drug has been determined to have a statistically significant effect on a problem, that doesn't necessarily mean that the drug should be taken. For example, let's say that we test a group of people that say they have a hard time falling asleep. We test these 500 people and we determine that the average length of time it takes them to fall asleep is one hour. So then we give half the people a placebo and we give the other half a sleeping pill. We determine that the placebo group shows no improvement. It still takes them one hour to fall asleep. The experimental group shows a significant improvement. It now only takes them 50 minutes to fall asleep. So on average, the sleeping pill got people to sleep in 50 minutes instead of an hour. They fell asleep 16% faster with the sleeping pill. So that is a statistically significant improvement. But does that mean that it is worth it for these people to start taking this sleeping pill every night? There is no right or wrong answer. It's just a matter of opinion. Some people would say that it's worth it to get to sleep 10 minutes sooner. Other people would say that there is hardly any difference between 50 minutes and an hour and there is no reason to take the pill. It would be one thing if the sleeping pill saved the person 45 minutes. That is a huge improvement. That would be a 75% improvement. I think you could make the same argument with lasix. It would be one thing if lasix had these amazingly dramatic effects that practically eliminated bleeding. But that is not the case. |