Because he doesn't agree with you? :zz:

I read the reports. They don't know how. They did the best they could with what they had to work with, but that is about the best I can say.

Really? Which studies specifically have you found "ambiguous"?

Well, you're suffering a confusion common to people who know nothing about science, and less than nothing about critical, objective thinking.

And again: list which studies you are calling "flawed", and which "measurements" you think are inadequate. Be specific.

How am I uncaring? I very much care about horses like Anew. Ignorant? I know more about the actual sport of horse racing than you will ever hope to know. There is a lot more to racing than sticking them with needles. I guess I struck a nerve...oh well, too bad. Everything I said is true about the horse and the people involved, like it or not. Actions speak a lot louder than words.

I'm not playing your games.

How about John Fort of Peachtree Stable entering his multiple graded stakes winner Mythical Power (over $800k in earnings) in a $12.5k claiming event at Hollywood Park today?

His previous start was in a Grade 2 at Churchill Downs on Derby Day last year.

The public loves a good reverse-Cinderella story.

Because you don't have a clue about lasix or studies or methods or peer review and scientific quality. You're only good at throwing out mindless and ignorant accusations and invented crap about trainers and veterinarians. You know what you know, and dammit, you're not gonna let any facts or reality change your mind.

Your games are beyond tiresome. It's not about you. It's about the horses.

No. Because he's impervious to reality. He's the typical "set my opinion first, and any facts that counter it be damned" fool that is ruining this sport.

Yeah, sure it is. I've already addressed this and you went off on a ridiculous, unfounded rant.

Not if the same horse can receive 150mg one race and 500mg the next.

What the hell are you talking about? There are multiple studies out there, some in the research lab and some retroactive studies of actual racing results.

You just dissed them all as to results and methodology.

You don't have the first clue what you are talking about. You have no idea how veterinarians measured "performance".

My. god. you. are. ignorant. Yes, the dose of lasix is determined by body weight. You are making imaginary scenarios up out of thin air.

The retroactive studies using actual racing results are particularly laughable. I have a database with nearly a million races in it that can easily disprove any of the conclusions they drew from the data they had.

So you are saying an individual horse gets the same amount of lasix each time it races?

CMorioles says he can disprove 100% of any published scientific study by his personal computer database.

Please - the climate deniers and conspiracy theorists need your help desperately :tro:

That isn't what I said, and you know it. I guess you are still sore I said it isn't always about the horse, even though you know it is true. So you twist things and make others up instead of admitting your psychotic rant was totally out of line.

Nope. I said the dose is determined by body weight. Those are two different things, even keeping with your concern.

Try learning about what you are talking about, before you declare "how things are"?

No, that's exactly what you said. Here. Read your words:

I'll inform Gluck and NIH that it is worthless to do any research using actual horses races or laboratory imitation of racing conditions, because cmorioles has a database that can easily disprove any of the conclusions they draw from the data they have.

You might want to look up "psychotic". It doesn't mean how you are using it. And, again:the climate deniers need men who think like you.

It's nice to know that, throughout weeks of discussion regarding lasix, you and your buddy Rollo have absolutely refused to acknowledge any piece of evidence that even remotely negatively impacts your preformed opinions.

Good luck with that, guys.

You're the undisputed master at turning things on their heads and driving them into the ground.

What I said was that instead of allowing individual horses to receive a variable amount of lasix (3cc to 10cc), it would be more ideal to standardize the amount. That is to say, every horse would receive lasix at the same dosage--for example, 0.5mg/kg bw--every time it runs.

What you are arguing is anyone's guess.

I clearly was referencing the studies about Lasix and performance that used actual race results, nothing more. Only an idiot could stretch that to other fields.like weather. Well, an idiot or a psycho.

How about if we use a dose of lasix that is both efficacious and legal, instead? Just a suggestion. From a medical person.

Nope. All you said was, "I read the reports". I asked you which specific studies you have determined, in your infinite wisdom, were inadequate, poor methodology, etc.

You declined to answer. You still haven't.

So answer now. Name one of those hundreds of peer-reviewed, published study where you have determined the methodology is wrong making the results wrong.

Here we go again. Fine, let's change the example to 1.0 mg/kg.

What I said was that instead of allowing individual horses to receive a variable amount of lasix (3cc to 10cc), it would be more ideal to standardize the amount. That is to say, every horse would receive lasix at the same dosage--for example, 1.0 mg/kg bw--every time it runs.

Better?

It's great you know how to google :tro:

Why do you think a horse may get a different dose of lasix the next time it's used?

I really think you should go over to England and some of the other countries where lasix is banned on race day. I think if you explained to them how beneficial lasix is to the horses, I'm sure they would legalize it. Nobody over there understands. They are just ignorant in all of those countries. I think you need to enlighten them. I mean the arguments in favor of lasix are so strong, I don't know how anyone could be against it.

Guys like myself, Cmorioles, and RolloTomassi are just stubborn. We know that lasix is great for the horses. Lasix has improved Amercian racing immensely. There is no chance that lasix is one of the contributing factors to horses having fewer starts per year now than they did 30 years ago.

Not sure how you missed that. Maybe they turned the lights out at Burger King and the juice on your phone is running out.

I know you are a veterinarian and not an MD, but I'm sure you have some knowledge about medication for humans. Do you believe in fosamax for people with osteoporosis? The studies have proven that fosamax increases bone density.

Yep, I'm sure racing with 20 pounds lost before the race is great for them. I know when I run, I always take a water pill to shed myself of 4 or 5 pounds of water weight. It is a great way to compete. I'm also sure that these vets know everything there is to know about the after effects of Lasix in the short time it has been used regularly and that is has absolutely nothing to do with the pathetic state of the game today.

How do you know that you shouldn't shed 4 or 5 pounds of water before you run? Since you are not a doctor, how would you possibly know that it is not good to dehydrate yourself before exercising? LOL.

I'm going to shoot myself up with Lasix next time. I bet I run faster! I just won't recover as well. Those weekly runs will turn into monthly runs.

Whatever. You've accomplished nothing other attempting to derail my posts with total and utter BS. Frankly, you should be fucl<ing banned for your behavior.

Clearly you didn't understand the point I was making, you should have just asked.

a) an attempt to alter performance and thus "fix" a race- decreased dose
b) an attempt to control bleeding not controlled at a lower dose- increased dose
c) an attempt to avoid unwanted side effects, ie "reactions to lasix": excessive dehydration, "thumps", colic-like symptoms, dullness- decreased dose
d) an attempt to achieve unproven effects, ie calming- increased dose
e) an attempt to improve poor performance not caused by bleeding- increased dose
f) an attempt to mitigate environmental factors, eg heat, high humidity, poor air quality

You definitely would not recover as well. Even if you heavily hydrated yourself after the run, it still would not totally undue the damage. You don't have to be a doctor to know that. That is common sense.

When it comes to horses, they are probably going to get pretty dehydrated from racing on a 90 degree day, even without lasix. Running with lasix on a 90 degree day cannot be good. You don't have to be a veterinarian to know that.

How dare you come up with such a list. You're not a veterinarian. I think there should be a new rule on this board. Riot should be the only one allowed to give an opinion on lasix. Nobody else on this board is qualified.

Is she even employed? Is she is, it must be as an internet poster.

Yes, you guys are quite the show. You are the very picture of 12-year-old boys in a locker room, comparing sizes.

Unfortunately, no matter how often you curse those you disagree with, your obvious stubbornness and ignorance, your refusal to change poorly-informed dogma in the face of experts pointing out your fallacy and falsehood, is a danger to this sport.

The fact remains that your guys uninformed, outdated and wrong opinions are a tiny minority. You're the equivalent of conspiracy theorists and Jenny McCarthy. You do scream ever more loudly and rudely, however, in an attempt to compensate for the lack of fact and truth. Insecurity must be a scary thing for the uninformed and uninformable, to have their dogmatic ideas assaulted but not be able to comprehend or change with the times.

You "know what you know", and dammit, you don't need to consider that you might possibly be entirely wrong.

It has to be very, very dark where your heads are at. But stop trying to ruin horse racing for the rest of us.

You don't need us for that. We already have drugs and plenty of unscrupulous trainers.

Then why are you wasting time screaming about lasix? Racing has plenty of real drug problems.

Keep it up you could get a de facto license one day to practice in Argentina?

It must be very dark where your head is. You think that because you are a vet, you are the only one with a valid opinion? That is ridiculous. And by the way, there are plenty of vets who don't think horses need lasix.

By the way, you don't exactly improve your credibility by saying "eliminating lasix will ruin horseracing". That is one of the most absurd comments I have ever heard. Not even the most ardent supporters of lasix would make such a claim. That is even more absurd than someone claiming that the elimination of lasix will be the cure-all for the sport.

The truth of the matter is that you are not an iota more qualified than anyone else to decide whether lasix is good for racing or not. I think everyone knows that lasix is somewhat effective in lessening a horse's chances of bleeding. We all know what. That is not the question. If that was the question, I would agree that you have more expertise than most. But that is not the question. The question is whether lasix is good for racing or not. When it comes to that question, most countries believe the answer is "no". Are they right? They're not necessarily right but they weighed all the pros and cons of racing with lasix and they decided the cons outweigh the pros. What is it that you know that these countries don't know? The answer is nothing. You both have all the information. You both looked at all the arguments (in favor of lasix and against lasix) and you came to opposite conclusions. There is not necessarily a right or wrong answer. It is just a matter of opinion.

There is a right and wrong answer as to whether lasix lessens a horse's chance of bleeding. But there is not a right or wrong answer as to whether lasix is good for horseracing.