NYTHA Lasix Primer & Letter to NYS RWB

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

.

So, it only leaves two more questions.

1. Why are our horses so inferior when we face them without Lasix?
2. Why aren't shippers at a big disadvantage when they ship here, even with Lasix, if they have all this damage from bouts of EIPH?

I rest my case.

these are such ridiculous questions.

when dirt racing becomes more prevalent oversea's.. and when American trainers actually start sending their good horses to race oversea's in a race that is not called the dubai world cup... maybe then they wont be such ridiculous questions.

Or I guess Wesley Ward should just start stepping up his game.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

these are such ridiculous questions.

when dirt racing becomes more prevalent oversea's.. and when American trainers actually start sending their good horses to race oversea's in a race that is not called the dubai world cup... maybe then they wont be such ridiculous questions.

Or I guess Wesley Ward should just start stepping up his game.

The interesting thing is that, with the proliferation of multi-hemisphere breeding, plenty of horses across the world have virtually the same pedigrees.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

these are such ridiculous questions.

when dirt racing becomes more prevalent oversea's.. and when American trainers actually start sending their good horses to race oversea's in a race that is not called the dubai world cup... maybe then they wont be such ridiculous questions.

Or I guess Wesley Ward should just start stepping up his game.

I disagree with your assertion for number 1, but that is fine. You didn't even address #2. If horses running without Lasix are bleeding and it does permanent damage to lung tissue, why are these horses still able to come here and beat our lung tissue protected horses? It seems pretty obvious to me that this so called tissue damage has no affect on thoroughbred performance.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I disagree with your assertion for number 1, but that is fine. You didn't even address #2. If horses running without Lasix are bleeding and it does permanent damage to lung tissue, why are these horses still able to come here and beat our lung tissue protected horses? It seems pretty obvious to me that this so called tissue damage has no affect on thoroughbred performance.

Your premise is completely misguided. You are cherry picking the best horses and using them as a typical example. Even horses who are grade 2 or 3 level are still far superior to the average horse. While good horses can have the same issues that an ordinary horse has it isnt just that they are faster that makes them superior, often it is a higher pain threshold or abilty to run despite issues. I have trained or worked for trainers in which plenty of horses that regressed due to lung tissue damage.

What the breeding theory people dont seem to understand is that very few horses can be bad bleeders and still compete at the highest levels consistently. What they should be more concerned with is the horses with a single graded win that become stallions more than some supposed genetic defect being passed on. No one seems to mind that horses at stud with terrible feet or altered conformation (things that are visably passed on) are breeding large numbers of mares.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

I disagree with your assertion for number 1, but that is fine. You didn't even address #2. If horses running without Lasix are bleeding and it does permanent damage to lung tissue, why are these horses still able to come here and beat our lung tissue protected horses? It seems pretty obvious to me that this so called tissue damage has no affect on thoroughbred performance.

but the horses are allowed to and do train on Lasix oversea's, they are just not allowed to do it on raceday, so a definative answer cannot be given. And when these very good European turf horses come over and beat our average at best turf horses, the majority of the time these Euro's ARE using lasix... so again no conclusion can be reached.

Common sense tells us that yes, of course lung tissue damage would affect a thoroughbreds perfomances. Though that is just an opinion of mine, which disagrees with your own personal opinion.


In my opinion all your questions prove is that turf racing is better over sea's than in America. It seems to not have anything to do with lasix.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

...the majority of the time these Euro's ARE using lasix... so again no conclusion can be reached.

That does nothing to heal previous damage, unless I'm misunderstanding the properties of this miracle drug.

Your assertion that lung damage does affect performance, just not enough to make our horses win, doesn't really hold up under scrutiny. Races over long distances are decided by very small distances. Even a tiny decrease in performance would cost a horse a few lengths. Maybe if horses raced a hundred times it would start to be a factor, but they don't.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

That does nothing to heal previous damage, unless I'm misunderstanding the properties of this miracle drug.

Your assertion that lung damage does affect performance, just not enough to make our horses win, doesn't really hold up under scrutiny. Races over long distances are decided by very small distances. Even a tiny decrease in performance would cost a horse a few lengths. Maybe if horses raced a hundred times it would start to be a factor, but they don't.

so the fact that euro's train on lasix means nothing to you?

You are reaching conclusions through information that you are just assuming.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

so the fact that euro's train on lasix means nothing to you?

You are reaching conclusions through information that you are just assuming.

Most of them don't train on Lasix.

[Antitrust32]

questions that i have with regards to bleeding.

In theory, could dirt racing cause a horse to bleed more often than turf racing? with all the kickback in dirt racing.. could dirt or dust go into the horses lungs and cause it to bleed when maybe it wouldnt?

Also.. would sprinters be more inclined to bleed than distance horses? Could putting maximum effort through a 6 or 7 furlong race be more taxing than galloping along with a full out sprint at the end in a distance race?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

so the fact that euro's train on lasix means nothing to you?

You are reaching conclusions through information that you are just assuming.

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.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

That does nothing to heal previous damage, unless I'm misunderstanding the properties of this miracle drug.

Your assertion that lung damage does affect performance, just not enough to make our horses win, doesn't really hold up under scrutiny. Races over long distances are decided by very small distances. Even a tiny decrease in performance would cost a horse a few lengths. Maybe if horses raced a hundred times it would start to be a factor, but they don't.

So lung damage doesnt decrease performance? Are you really going to stand behind that statement?

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

So lung damage doesnt decrease performance? Are you really going to stand behind that statement?

If it does, then these horses shipping in from Europe that don't race with Lasix over there don't have any.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

If it does, then these horses shipping in from Europe that don't race with Lasix over there don't have any.

This makes no sense. Where was it said that all horses would incur lung tissue damage w/o lasix? Why are european shippers being held up as some sort of standard when they make up a miniscule number of the entire population?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

but the horses are allowed to and do train on Lasix oversea's, they are just not allowed to do it on raceday, so a definative answer cannot be given. And when these very good European turf horses come over and beat our average at best turf horses, the majority of the time these Euro's ARE using lasix... so again no conclusion can be reached.

Common sense tells us that yes, of course lung tissue damage would affect a thoroughbreds perfomances. Though that is just an opinion of mine, which disagrees with your own personal opinion.


In my opinion all your questions prove is that turf racing is better over sea's than in America. It seems to not have anything to do with lasix.

and they also send bleeders elsewhere when they discover them. they aren't kept where they can't race on lasix, and therefore won't suffer damage as they get race day treatment, not just training days.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Danzig

and they also send bleeders elsewhere when they discover them. they aren't kept where they can't race on lasix, and therefore won't suffer damage as they get race day treatment, not just training days.

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%?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

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%?

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.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

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.

Oh, I'm aware. We all know why it became worth finding...to get Lasix, and not because it stops microscopic bleeding.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

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.

Wrong. I cannot understand why you stick your fingers in your ears and keep repeating this blatant falsehood, page after page. It's like saying dinosaurs walked the earth with humans.

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.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

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%?

Obviously of the 93% that bleed there is a wide variance between severe damage to very minor damage. Naturally it could be pointed out that lasix may be preventing much more severe damage by minimizing incidences.