Fixed that for you, big guy ;)

You know what, you actually did make my post better and made my point far better than I ever could have.

I offer you a sincere thank you for that.

Good thing there's an alternative that doesn't require a raceday injection in case lasix does end up getting banned.

The people in this sport on that committee, who have "made up their minds" and deliberately and repeatedly refuse to listen to anything that shows the holes in their rather ignorant assumptions are irresponsible fools who are ruining this sport.

Of course, those in this state that think "opinion" and "fact" are the same thing are not in short supply, and have spent millions of Kentucky tax money building the Creation Museum.

Yes. Buy stock. Lasix will never be banned. That would harm too many horses. That the industry is even considering lasix a problem shows the ignorance and absurdity of those in charge.

Maybe they could have run a length faster. Is that worth drugging every horse so now they all run a length faster?

Sturdier is an assumption based on rapidly declining starts per year, which happens to coincide with the use of Lasix. I don't know if it is the cause, but it certainly hasn't helped overall.

As for your science, there have been studies done that show it does enhance performance among non-bleeders. You posted it yourself if I'm not mistaken.

Or the measured difference that a study quoted earlier here found.

If you take an aspirin for a sore knee, are you a "drugged performance enhancer"? And nobody has ever said lasix should be given to every horse.

That also coincides 100% with the advancement of the Mayan calendar.

That's right, I posted three studies about performance. What did they say again?

The thread has now come full circle. Some that are sure lasix is a performance enhancer ruining the sport will not be dissuaded by any evidence to the contrary.

Kasept and Cannon wrote some very insightful posts in the first few pages. Worth a re-read.

Imagine the uproar if every human athlete was stuck with a needle before competition...every time.

This is getting old, as you are clearly biased and admitted as much. All horses don't bleed, so the aspirin thing is silly. Aspirin also wouldn't make humans that compete without a sore knee do it better.

The studies I saw had different conclusions. I saw some that said a small difference, others that said big difference. It is tough to follow your biased snippets.

I haven't learned much about Lasix in this thread that I didn't already know, but I have learned those supporting its use are as stubborn as those against it, and both sides are wrong on some of the issues. TTFN.

You mean like the silly uproar where therapeutic use of anabolic steroid in race horses under veterinary advice was ridiculously compared to illegal steroid drug abuse in human athletes? So we banned steroids? And the sport has been saved and horses are completely different now?

The fact there is a difference at all is the entire point.

Here's a comment on my "admitted bias" for you (and the bias that apparently also encompasses the rest of the veterinary medical and research world who also hold the same opinion)

There is a reason that the American Veterinary Medical Association membership and the American Association of Equine Practitioners membership majorities hold "that opinion".

And it's not because our critical thinking skills are comparable to religious zealots.

My opinion is based upon what science has told me is true. It was formed after I reviewed the evidence. The evidence told me what was true - not the other way around. I can't hold an opinion on a drug that is contrary to the facts in front of my eyes. That would be irresponsible and stupid.

And if different evidence and new information appears, I certainly will be willing to change my opinion. I have in the past. Advancements in medicine happen all the time, and we change our advice and opinions based upon current best knowledge.

Versus holding an opinion in the face of all evidence to the contrary like some appear to do.

We could let the factual evidence tell us what opinion to have. You have a good night, too. Good discussion.

Orioles, seriously, you need your head examined.

You'd have better luck running head first into a brick wall. If you are lucky, you just might hit yourself hard enough to pass out.

I've been laid up for a month with a bad back, what else am I going to do?

Unfortunately that is not true. There is no prove. Yes a study in South Africa seemed to indicate a lessening of EIPH. This certainly was not extensive study. No one seems to every refer to the head Vet who testified before Congress that their extensive study didn't show Lasix to perform as a deterrent of bleeding in horses and was used as a masking agent for other PEDs.That is right in the congressional record.

Opanas. They're healthier than a back and forth with Quiet.

There are a lot of alternative choices that might work for your bad back.

As for arguing with a person, who in thousands upon thousands of posts has never once conceded a point or said "hey, maybe you are right", I'd just as soon stick my hand down into a running garbage disposal unit.

The whole thing with Lasix is beyond retarded.

I would love to see the look on Riot's face if I were able to ask her in person "Doctor, is bleeding in horses caused by a deficiency of Lasix?".

Knowing her, she'd say yes, but most rational people would say no.

In which case, I'd say, "Then why the fugg are you giving Lasix to the horse when the bleeding is not due to a deficiency of Lasix?"

This not true unless lasix was in use in 1960

Humans are often stuck with needles during halftime of our most popular sport and no one seems upset about that.

Perhaps because the preponderance of other evidence doesn't support that postion.

This is not an opinion matter. It's either true, or it isn't. And there are at least 50 current studies that show that yes, lasix mitigates exercise-induced pulmonary hemorrhage. That's not my opinion. It's fact.

You can go check it yourself at the links I have given.

It's scientific, measurable fact as publicly supported by the American Veterinary Medical Association and the American Association of Equine Practitioners.

As said before: does it stop bleeding in all horses? No, as EIPH has multifactoral causes. And nobody has ever maintained that. Does it decrease the extent of bleeding in most, and stop it in some? Yes, indeed.

The comment about not being able to find drugs in dilute urine is laughable nonsense that was last true about 25 years ago.

This type of ridiculous misinformation, deliberate ignoring of facts to support a predetermined political agenda, is exactly what is dangerous to this sport, but more importantly, the health of our horses.

You can't fix deliberate, purposeful ignorance.

Lasix can be banned in US racing, if racing wants no drugs at all to be used. But trying to ban it based upon decades-old falsehoods and ridiculous lies needs to be confronted for the scientifically disproven fantasy it is.

You mean like I've conceded points in this thread? ;)

Please - if all you can contribute is ad hominem, go away.

This thread has alot of good, accurate information in it. I suggest that those that want to become accurately educated on the subject go back and read the first pages, especially the comments by Kasept and Cannon.