Derby Trail Forums
Page 7 of 10 « First < 56 7 89 > Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Derby Trail Forums (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/index.php)
-   The Paddock (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   Kentucky's ongoing attempt to end racing in state proceeds.. (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46330)

Rupert Pupkin 04-20-2012 11:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot (Post 854272)
Then buy a box of FLAIR nasal strips, and drop it off at the barn, and see if your trainer will still train for you using those. I'm serious - they have proven efficacy for EIPH. You can get them for $10-15 a strip (single use).

By the way: if we eliminate lasix, I imagine that many will go back to what they used to use before lasix - removing water from the horse for a day or two. That type of severe forced dehydration (which is unlike the diuresis induced by lasix for multiple reasons) is NOT a scenario I'd like to see.
In your opinion, how effective are the FLAIR nasal strips in comparison to lasix?

Riot 04-20-2012 11:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RolloTomasi (Post 854273)
No doubt a lasix ban will result in a more episodes of performance-significant bleeding. However, whether the majority are for or against a lasix ban, I don't think it's realistic to presume that the economics of the issue do not affect the veterinarian segment of the racetrack industry.
The veterinarian segment will make thousands more treating EIPH if lasix is eliminated. Lasix is an inexpensive injection, a pain in the ass to give as the vets have to run all over the place to give them, takes up time out of the day better spent doing other procedures, and requires paperwork. The financial argument, aside from being inherently insulting, is absurd on it's face.

Riot 04-20-2012 11:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin (Post 854276)
In your opinion, how effective are the FLAIR nasal strips in comparison to lasix?
Go back about 3-4 pages, I think. There were multiple posts about the efficacy of FLAIR nasal strips, including Sightseek posting the link http://www.flairstrips.com/wp-conten...-Camp-2011.pdf to a wonderful FLAIR company brochure describing EIPH in an easy-to-understand manner, describing how FLAIR works, and listing all the efficacy data studies for their product.

Bottom line: FLAIR has the same measurable efficacy as lasix in decreasing the frequency and severity of EIPH episodes. That is why other maximally-exerting horse sports, who cannot use lasix, use the FLAIR strips universally at advanced and professional levels.

Many trainers don't care for them. Cannon? You ever try them?

RolloTomasi 04-20-2012 11:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot (Post 854265)
And your insulting passive-aggressive attempt to say that vets care more about money than the horses is duly noted.
I said that? I don't thinks so.

However, you said that veterinary world cares only about the welfare of the horse. I simply pointed out that a lot of money is thrown around treating bleeders.

Money that goes to the veterinary world.

Abstract:

Your half-truthed, holier-than-thou, cut-and-pasting crusade only weakens the reasonable platform built up by the sensible sorts who are against a lasix ban. Results suggest that you are effective at reducing confidence in pro-lasix sentiment and may cause complete reversal of opinion in extreme (> Grade 2) cases.

Tomasi, Rollo. "Kentucky's Ongoing Attempt To End Racing". Derby Trail: The Paddock. p120-240. derbytrail.com

Riot 04-20-2012 11:39 PM
Quote:
UOTE=RolloTomasi;854279]I said that? I don't thinks so.
I do. Why would you otherwise bring it up, discuss it in depth? How much money vets make from giving a lasix injection has no bearing on the efficacy of lasix, nor upon why the veterinary world advises the racing world to not eliminate lasix.

You don't have to believe that. And I don't have to pretend you haven't insulted veterinarians by saying that the financial aspect is one of their concerns when they make this medical recommendation.

The only financial concerns vets routinely have is being unable to treat an animal that needs help, because an owner won't pay for it.

But believe me: diagnosing and treating a horse for a bleeding episode, inflammation of the lungs, chronic cough or respiratory infection for a few weeks will pay much, much better than giving that horse a lasix injection. I wonder if owners who want to eliminate lasix have thought the cost argument through?

Rupert Pupkin 04-20-2012 11:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot (Post 854278)
Go back about 3-4 pages, I think. There were multiple posts about the efficacy of FLAIR nasal strips, including Sightseek (I believe) posting the link a wonderful FLAIR company brochure describing EIPH in an easy-to-understand manner, describing how FLAIR works, and listing all the efficacy data studies for their product.

Bottom line: FLAIR has the same measurable efficacy as lasix in decreasing the frequency and severity of EIPH episodes. That is why other maximally-exerting horse sports, who cannot use lasix, use the FLAIR strips universally at advanced and professional levels.

Many trainers don't care for them. Cannon? You ever try them?
For the trainers that don't care for them, what is their reason for not liking them?

I'm sure that plenty of trainers would rather use lasix because they think lasix is a performance-enhancer. I'm not just guessing that. I know for a fact that many trainers think lasix is a performance-enhancer because many have told me that.

I have another question for you. As we all know, some horses get small doses of lasix while other horses (usually known bleeders) get much bigger doses. Do you think there would be any downside to giving all horses a big dose of lasix?

cmorioles 04-20-2012 11:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin (Post 854282)
I'm sure that plenty of trainers would rather use lasix because they think lasix is a performance-enhancer. I'm not just guessing that. I know for a fact that many trainers think lasix is a performance-enhancer because many have told me that.
Of course that is the reason, but nobody seems to want to admit it.

Riot 04-20-2012 11:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin (Post 854282)
For the trainers that don't care for them, what is their reason for not liking them?

I'm sure that plenty of trainers would rather use lasix because they think lasix is a performance-enhancer. I'm not just guessing that. I know for a fact that many trainers think lasix is a performance-enhancer because many have told me that.

I have another question for you. As we all know, some horses get small doses of lasix while other horses (usually known bleeders) get much bigger doses. Do you think there would be any downside to giving all horses a big dose of lasix?
Wasting lasix.

The dose that must be given is within the published parameters of efficacy for the drug, usually (depending upon state) 150-200mg up to 500mg, and that legally allowed dose covers dosing a variety of horses by weight at 0.5 - 1.0 mg/kg, which is the lowest established efficacious dose for lasix (cardiac patients in fulminant pulmonary edema will get 4-6 mg/kg)

I don't know why some trainers don't like FLAIRS. Have to ask them.

Riot 04-20-2012 11:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmorioles (Post 854284)
Of course that is the reason, but nobody seems to want to admit it.
Admit what? That horses that are not bleeding into their lungs and suffocating themselves have more air and run better? Not really a secret ;) It's all about the VO2Max rocking that immediate, glycolytic and oxidative energy pathways. He whose ATP lasts the longest, wins.

It's that simple :-)

Cannon Shell 04-20-2012 11:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RolloTomasi (Post 854273)
Wasn't my intent. Nevertheless, there is a monetary aspect to the debate that doesn't disappear into thin air simply because everyone claims to be in it for the horse's health.



In addition, if lasix were to be banned raceday, it would set a precedent for reassessment of all other medications, which one way or another, will force a major disruption to the attending veterinarian's economic niche on the racetrack.


Neither did I say that lasix administration is a major revenue source for vets.

On the hand, do you think $30 million annually is a major expense for racehorse owners collectively?


I understand at an individual level it may seem like small potatoes, but just because lasix shots are potentially spread amongst several different practices, does that mean that the revenue generated simply vanishes?


So, between roughly 8:00am and 12:00pm, veterinarians are doing nothing else but administering lasix shots? No chance within the 30 minute intervals to do anything else? A second ago, you said, being generous, vets might be responsible for only 10 lasix shots per day. Now you make it sound like they are performing 10 lasix shots per race.


This presumes that trainers are willing to do costly diagnostic tests on their horses in the first place. I think you're being a little bit disingenuous as to what horsemen are willing to spend, and what income is being "lost" by racetrack veterinarians by doing raceday lasix shots.

By the way, if it takes only 20 minutes to do a digital radiography study, wouldn't a hustling vet be able to bookend that half-hour with a couple of $30 lasix shots?


So now the main veterinarians aren't even doing these lasix shots. It's the associates they've hired. I guess they actually do have the time to do all that other lucrative stuff. Problem solved.


Is it a given that trainers will become hyper-sensitive to scoping? Are they not already? What percentage of horses are scoped following a race?


No doubt a lasix ban will result in a more episodes of performance-significant bleeding. However, whether the majority are for or against a lasix ban, I don't think it's realistic to presume that the economics of the issue do not affect the veterinarian segment of the racetrack industry. They are not simply custodians "on the sidelines" keeping an all-knowing eye on the little ignorant kiddie horsemen rough-housing with their toy horses on racetrack playgrounds. They've got dirt under their fingernails, too.
I hardly know where to start. I tried to explain how vets would make MORE money so that $30 million dollar number may be dwarfed.

Again the idea that horses will stop getting sick or hurt is insanity. Why do you think medications are given? Prevention or treatment. Why dont people get this?

Lasix is not a major revenue source and no the $30 million dollar expense is not significant considering the replacement therapy will be far more expensive. That $30 million just wont revert to the owners pockets.

What difference does a small amount of revenue matter especially if it is spread out. Again vets will make more money without lasix.

You realize that barns are spead out, the shots have to be drawn out, not every horse is agreeable to getting a shot and there is a time factor which greatly limits what you can do inbetween. Yeah maybe you will have a gap where you go 3 races without a client horse in but giving lasix is still a bigger pain in the ass than anything. Especially when you consider that life at the racetrack starts at 5am and most barns are wrapping thing up by 11am.

I wont even answer the next one since it makes no sense.

No because you have to travel between barns, unload the equipment, shoot the xrays and load it back up again. In an emergency you may be able to pull it off but vets are real keen on leaving a barn w/o their $80000 xray machines.

As I said some of the larger practices hire vets to do the dirty work, most dont have the luxury.

Of course it is a given that trainers will be more apt to scope. You will have to be even more vigilant in treating even really minor incidences. I have no idea what the average is because when you are talking nationwide you have extremes. In NY probably 50%. In PA probably 20%. At River Downs probably 5%. I would guess in NY it would be closer to 90% if there was no lasix. Another issue that isnt addressed is that we have wide variances in this country between the top and bottom tracks. At the lower levels noone has the money to do the extra work and as a result those horses will suffer the most which Im sure is a fact that doesnt elude some of the high horse anti lasix people.

You want to make money? If they ban lasix come up with some sort of treatment for bleeders (call is sameaslasix), make it out of innocuous materials, call it all natural, spend some money marketing and you will do great, at least for awhile till people figure out it doesnt work.

cmorioles 04-21-2012 12:00 AM
NO, what has been said many times, that Lasix enhances performance even for those that don't bleed.

I'm curious to hear these reasons for using Lasix when a cheaper nasal strip that doesn't involve an injection and dehydration does just as well. This should be good.

Rupert Pupkin 04-21-2012 12:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot (Post 854285)
Wasting lasix.

The dose that must be given is within the published parameters of efficacy for the drug, usually (depending upon state) 150-200mg up to 500mg, and that legally allowed dose covers dosing a variety of horses by weight at 0.5 - 1.0 mg/kg, which is the lowest established efficacious dose for lasix (cardiac patients in fulminant pulmonary edema will get 4-6 mg/kg)

I don't know why some trainers don't like FLAIRS. Have to ask them.
I think they use a 10 point scale in talking about how big a dose a horse is going to get. A bad bleeder would get a 10 point dose, meaning that the bigger dose you get, the less chance there is that you will bleed. If that is the case, why wouldn't trainers give all their horses a 10 point dose, if there was no downside?

There obviously is downside. The bigger dose you give them, the more dehydrated they get. In addition, if you give them the biggest dose allowable, it may make the horse too dull. Several trainers have told me that lasix can dull a horse. Do you agree with that?

Cannon Shell 04-21-2012 12:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin (Post 854274)
Of course they could develop a training program without lasix. I wasn't saying that they would have any trouble changing their program. I was simply saying that they would rather not change their program. Why would they possibly want to change things when things are going so well for them? Not only that, lasix is somewhat effective in lessening (and even preventing) bleeding. Most traines use it. They think it works. It's part of their program. I wouldn't expect that many of them would want to get rid of it.
If i was in their position I would surely believe a lasix ban would give me an advantage. They already have really good horses, access to whaever vet care needed including expensive therapy like hyperbaric oxygen and the ability to pretty much run whernever they want to. The trainers who dont have these things would be at a huge disadvantage.

When I worked for Jerkens we ran a lot of horses without lasix and trained them the exact same way unless they were a frail filly or had some other issue. Training a bad bleeder is onething but the training of the others is pretty similar.

Cannon Shell 04-21-2012 12:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot (Post 854278)
Go back about 3-4 pages, I think. There were multiple posts about the efficacy of FLAIR nasal strips, including Sightseek posting the link http://www.flairstrips.com/wp-conten...-Camp-2011.pdf to a wonderful FLAIR company brochure describing EIPH in an easy-to-understand manner, describing how FLAIR works, and listing all the efficacy data studies for their product.

Bottom line: FLAIR has the same measurable efficacy as lasix in decreasing the frequency and severity of EIPH episodes. That is why other maximally-exerting horse sports, who cannot use lasix, use the FLAIR strips universally at advanced and professional levels.

Many trainers don't care for them. Cannon? You ever try them?
I use them on occasion but not enough to draw any conclusions. When it is hot out they dont stay on very well

Riot 04-21-2012 12:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin (Post 854289)
I think they use a 10 point scale in talking about how big a dose a horse is going to get. A bad bleeder would get a 10 point dose, meaning that the bigger dose you get, the less chance there is that you will bleed. If that is the case, why wouldn't trainers give all their horses a 10 point dose, if there was no downside?

There obviously is downside. The bigger dose you give them, the more dehydrated they get. In addition, if you give them the biggest dose allowable, it may make the horse too dull. Several trainers have told me that lasix can dull a horse. Do you agree with that?
The legal dose limit at 40mg/cc is 3-4cc up to 10cc. If you have an exceptionally little 850-900 pound horse (most are 1000-1100 pounds) and fill it up with 10cc of lasix, that's still only 1mg/kg body weight.

Which will not dehydrate a horse more than 0.5-1.5% of it's body weight (not clinically detectable and easily replaceable by a few buckets of water), and is far lower than the dose used in cardiac patients.

If a trainer is withholding water for an exceptionally long time, or really messing with electrolytes (I am not talking good normal electrolyte replacement, or normal water withholding), that can potentiate the effects of lasix, because one is not supposed to do that and give lasix.

Individual animals can respond differently, too - we don't know how great each animals own kidneys are. You have to be careful giving lasix to horses with annhydrosis (non-sweaters), etc. If it's a really hot day, the horse is going to dehydrate standing in it's stall sweating if it doesn't drink enough, lasix or not.

The dose that racehorses get is really on the low end of the furosemide dosage range, even at 10cc for a tiny horse.

Cannon Shell 04-21-2012 12:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmorioles (Post 854288)
NO, what has been said many times, that Lasix enhances performance even for those that don't bleed.

I'm curious to hear these reasons for using Lasix when a cheaper nasal strip that doesn't involve an injection and dehydration does just as well. This should be good.
Because the things dont stay on very well. Remember when Cat Thief won the BC with a nasal strip and all of a sudden we had to report them when entering like blinkers?

Riot 04-21-2012 12:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmorioles (Post 854288)
I'm curious to hear these reasons for using Lasix when a cheaper nasal strip that doesn't involve an injection and dehydration does just as well. This should be good.
Whoa, no - purposeful dehydration by withholding water is NOT the same as a lasix shot. The lasix shot is much milder, with far less possible side effects!

Seriously - can we leave the medical opinions to the medical professionals who advise the industry?

cmorioles 04-21-2012 12:17 AM
I don't recall that being a major issue. I can't believe that couldn't be improved if it was. The reporting it thing was pretty stupid.

Rupert Pupkin 04-21-2012 12:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot (Post 854294)
Whoa, no - purposeful dehydration by withholding water is NOT the same as a lasix shot. The lasix shot is much milder, with far less possible side effects!

Seriously - can we leave the medical opinions to the medical professionals who advise the industry?
You misunderstood what he was saying. He didn't say that you should dehydrate a horse. He was asking why it wouldn't be better to use the strips considering the strips "don't" dehydrate a horse the way lasix does.

Riot 04-21-2012 12:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin (Post 854296)
You misunderstood what he was saying. He didn't say that you should dehydrate a horse. He was asking why it wouldn't be better to use the strips considering the strips "don't" dehydrate a horse the way lasix does.
Ah ... I thought he was talking about not giving lasix, plus going back to the purposeful dehydration of 36-48 hours duration of the past, which would "work as well".

Sorry, cmorioles!

The lasix injection given hardly dehydrates a horse at all. Again, only 0.5 to about 1.5%, which is tiny. Horses still sweat.

I now would like to hear those that think lasix should be eliminated, against the advice of racing veterinarians, to explain why that would be good for the horse, and good for the sport.

cmorioles 04-21-2012 12:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot (Post 854297)
Ah ... I thought he was talking about not giving lasix, plus going back to the purposeful dehydration of 36-48 hours duration of the past, which would "work as well".

Sorry, cmorioles!

The lasix injection given hardly dehydrates a horse at all. Again, only 0.5 to about 1.5%, which is tiny. Horses still sweat.

I now would like to hear those that think lasix should be eliminated, against the advice of racing veterinarians, to explain why.
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?

Riot 04-21-2012 12:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmorioles (Post 854298)
I weigh 220, I wouldn't want to lose over 3 pounds of water before I went out running.
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.

Quote:
Seriously, isn't the fact that a nasal strip can do just as good a job reason enough?
That's the first time I've ever heard that as a reason ;)

More Joyous just won the Doncaster Mile, so goodnight.

Rupert Pupkin 04-21-2012 12:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot (Post 854299)
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 ;)
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.

RolloTomasi 04-21-2012 12:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell (Post 854287)
I hardly know where to start. I tried to explain how vets would make MORE money so that $30 million dollar number may be dwarfed.
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.

Quote:
Again the idea that horses will stop getting sick or hurt is insanity. Why do you think medications are given? Prevention or treatment. Why dont people get this?
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.

Quote:
Lasix is not a major revenue source and no the $30 million dollar expense is not significant considering the replacement therapy will be far more expensive. That $30 million just wont revert to the owners pockets.
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.

Quote:
What difference does a small amount of revenue matter especially if it is spread out. Again vets will make more money without lasix.
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.

Quote:
I wont even answer the next one since it makes no sense.
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.

Riot 04-21-2012 12:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin (Post 854300)
How could you say that is the same thing?
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:

Rupert Pupkin 04-21-2012 12:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot (Post 854302)
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.

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.

Riot 04-21-2012 01:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RolloTomasi (Post 854301)
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.
They are sitting right there at Pub Med. Help yourself. That has also been extensively discussed at racing roundtables on medication.

Quote:
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.
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?

RolloTomasi 04-21-2012 01:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot (Post 854304)
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.
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)?

Quote:
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,
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.

Quote:
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.
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.

Quote:
It's ignorant and insulting.
Why don't you cut-and-paste how you really feel?

Cannon Shell 04-21-2012 06:54 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RolloTomasi (Post 854301)
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.
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.

cmorioles 04-21-2012 07:24 AM
So are we still just dismissing nasal strips because they don't stick that great? Is that really the only reason?

Dahoss 04-21-2012 08:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RolloTomasi (Post 854301)

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

I have a new hero.

Danzig 04-21-2012 03:12 PM
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.'

Riot 04-21-2012 08:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmorioles (Post 854322)
So are we still just dismissing nasal strips because they don't stick that great? Is that really the only reason?
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

Riot 04-21-2012 08:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danzig (Post 854451)
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?

Antitrust32 04-23-2012 08:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmorioles (Post 854166)
Every player gets shot up Steve? You know better than that. I should change that to about 99% to keep it equal with horses. Do you think 99% of NFL players get shot up on game day?
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.

cmorioles 04-23-2012 01:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antitrust32 (Post 854818)
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.

Danzig 04-23-2012 02:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antitrust32 (Post 854818)
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 can bet your ass if they all had the potential of hemorraging during a game they'd get a shot!

Antitrust32 04-23-2012 02:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danzig (Post 854925)
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!

cmorioles 04-23-2012 05:05 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antitrust32 (Post 854936)
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.

Riot 04-23-2012 07:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmorioles (Post 854977)
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.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:46 AM.
Page 7 of 10 « First < 56 7 89 > Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.