I weigh 220, I wouldn't want to lose over 3 pounds of water before I went out running.

Seriously, isn't the fact that a nasal strip can do just as good a job reason enough, especially since it is cheaper?

I laughed :D

But don't you empty your bladder before you run, and ensure you haven't eaten a meal? Pretty much the same thing. I did 2 miles today, and I'll bet I lost half a percent in dehydration (sweating).

If a horse loses 1% of it's body weight to sweating/lasix, that's 4.5 kg, that's replaceable by a few buckets of water back in the barn over the few hours post-race.

That's the first time I've ever heard that as a reason ;)

More Joyous just won the Doncaster Mile, so goodnight.

How could you say that is the same thing? Having a full bladder has nothing to do with being hydrated. A person is no more dehydrated after taking a whiz than before taking a whiz. Lasix dehydrates you by making your fluids go into your bladder. The fluid leaving the bladder is not the part that dehydrates you.

Hey Cmorioles. Don't take a whiz before you go running. It will dehydrate you. LOL. Riot must think we are really stupid.

The only thing I put on the table was that money was involved in the decision. Whether or not in the face of a lasix ban horsemen freak out and start spending more money trying to curtail bleeding or resign themselves to their fate and focus on issues they can manage effectively is anyone's guess. But the instigation for my post was Riot's claim that veterinarians have no financial interest in these decisions to overhaul medication rules. I find that a dubious claim.

Again, where did I say this? Your overreacting and squaring up into a defensive posture simply because someone has the audacity to question your chapter and verse.

It might stay in their pockets if Riot posts some links explaining why all the adjuncts have been proven by the scientific community to not help a horse's lungs. Plus, what veterinarian would be willing to recommend using a non-efficacious drug to treat bleeding? There could be no benefit to the veterinarian in any way shape or form. Certainly not in a papery, rectangular form with the likeness of a past president on it.

I think that's exactly what the guys from Office Space thought when they started skimming pennies off the company account. Bernie tried a similar stunt, but Andy McCarthy was on to him. Bernie ended up dead. Mind the decimals.

Why? If lasix is banned, does that mean that trainers will suddenly want to start taking radiographs of multiple joints on their $10k plater? What trainer doesn't have work done on their horse because their vet is too busy giving lasix? At least there's always the 3 dark days a week to get all the major stuff done.

The small dose of lasix given race horses barely dehydrates them.

I was trying to point out - very clumsily, it appears - a weight comparison type of thing of urine to volume - empty stomach and full bladder = 2 pounds in a big man. Replacing the water lost in one small dose of lasix in a race horse is a couple of buckets of water.

Horses still sweat with lasix. That means there's plenty of water there for cooling.

No bet on More Joyous, went off at only 7/5. What a terrific mare :tro:

If the FLAIR strips really do work just as well (or practically as well), then why would it be so bad to ban lasix? Everyone could just use the FLAIR strips instead.

They are sitting right there at Pub Med. Help yourself. That has also been extensively discussed at racing roundtables on medication.

If something will do no harm, and the vet says it really doesn't help, but the trainer says, "use it", then it is used. Shame you disparage an entire profession assuming they would act as you would. I'm not saying there are not vets that will take advantage of clients, but I absolutely resent your repeated hammering on the financial aspect as a reason the AVMA and AAEP recommend continuing lasix use in the race horse. It's ignorant and insulting.

What part of, "eliminating lasix would increase veterinary incomes" is too hard for you to understand?

Sounds like a competitive atmosphere. I wonder if any of those useless adjuncts might actually "impair" performance? Is that the same as "no harm" (we'll ignore the hypodermic injection part and the potential for drug reaction or anaphylaxis)?

Whoa! What kind of verbal maneuver was this? The only way I can describe it is: A pot-calling-the-kettle back-pedal.

Has a nice ring to it.

What in the holy...? When did I mention the AVMA or the AAEP? Feel free to throw UNICEF and the Red Cross in there as well.

Why don't you cut-and-paste how you really feel?

Obviously money is a factor in everything but it is pretty clear that this is not going to be a major loss but rather an increase in revenue for racetrack vets on the whole. The idea that trainers and vets will just "resign themselves to fate" is absurd.

I am not overreacting at all because when the claim is made that "medication" will be cracked down on I start to wonder if those making that claim really understand what they are claiming? As I said are we not going to be allowed to treat horses with injuries if this hypothetical medication crackdown come to pass? Are we not going to be able to use medication in the preventiong of things like ulcers and joint health? So if this supposed crackdown comes what exactly would be cracked down on? When you ask an open ended question with no basis in reality dont be surprised when you dont like the answer.

How do you think we came to use lasix in the first place? Was lasix originally designed to be used for horses bleeding episode? The idea that substitutes wont crop up is not true because I know of things already being touted as replacement therapy for lasix and they are far, far more expensive. And they may work but are all still in the experimental phase so who knows.

Again you are acting as though the nationwide vet community is acting as a whole and has come up with this pact to stick together because we dont want to lose our lasix revenue. It just isnt true and with racing days being cut the vets have been losing income from this source for years.

I understand your point but some vet practices have hired extra people to help cover raceday medication and prerace shots that would not be needed.

I cant for the life of me figure out why you dont think that vets wont react to a lasix ban with other potential solutions especially given your insistence on money being a factor (which it is). I dont understand why you think that trainers havent been talking about potential replacements already? This is a political issue but not here on this board and I am just trying to give you insight into what is being discussed and what is in the pipeline. If you choose to believe something else that is your perrogative.

So are we still just dismissing nasal strips because they don't stick that great? Is that really the only reason?

An Office Space AND Weekend at Bernie's reference in the same paragraph?

I have a new hero.

http://www.drf.com/news/crist-lasix-...hat-you-preach


crist on the lasix debate.

'A generation ago, administering it could flush illegal substances out of a horse’s system and make them undetectable in post-race tests. Now, though, more precise testing and a greater reliance on plasma than urine has made that argument moot.'

'Banning furosemide will have no positive impact with civilians, who barely know what it is, and who will hardly be reassured or attracted to the game once it has been explained to them that racing has banned a medication that is used to keep horses from hemorrhaging during a race.'

I think they've made them stick better due to the overwhelming use in 3-day eventing (they sweat as badly as race horses on a hot day)

Tradition has alot to do with equipment choices, IMO.

I'd use both FLAIR and lasix. One of the causes of EIPH is thought to be unsustainable pressure differences between pulmonary capillaries and alveolar air, causing tearing of pulmonary capillary walls and bleeding into the alveoli.

FLAIR decreases the massive negative pressure generated during inspiration,that is thought to help tear vessels; and lasix decreases the exercise-induced rise in pulmonary vasculature pressure. Best to reduce pressure on both sides of the aveolar/capillary interface, in order to protect it.

Plus, FLAIR seems to just help them get more air flow - like a human wearing a Breath-right strip

Where are all those massive changes to the sport promised by banning steroids? You know, another drug that, used correctly, helped many horses, but was abused by only a few trainers, so everyone had to stop using them?

We've seen those sudden massive differences in win percentages of certain trainers, right?

And the general public that doesn't give a darn about horse racing now thinks much more positively about the sport?

i would put money that 99% of the guys who play significant minutes do.

But the punter, kicker and they guys who are not active that day probably do not take some sort of painkiller.

You would be wrong. It isn't even remotely close to that number. Treatment, sure, but injections, no way.

you can bet your ass if they all had the potential of hemorraging during a game they'd get a shot!

no doubt. i also forgot we were debating the semantics between getting a pain killer injections or just swallowing a pill.. which apparently is much better than getting an injection!

The number taking pills before a game also isn't remotely close to 99%. What difference does it make anyway? You are talking about a rough, physical contact sport, not running.

It has already been stated in this thread that nasal strips are just as effective as Lasix, yet those so in favor of Lasix offer no real reason why it is better to use the drug.

We all know the reason...it enhances performance for bleeders and non-bleeders alike. Some just don't want to admit it.

Except in post 273, but please - do continue trying very hard not to learn anything about EIPH and how lasix works, especially if it conflicts with your long-held assumptions. You simply choose to ignore what you don't care to hear.