A Turning Tide - By Eric Mitchell

re: A Turning Tide - By Eric Mitchell

sceptre — Fri, 01 Nov 2013 18:51:51 GMT

Dear Eric,

Thanks for your comment, and your question, albeit likely rhetorical, allows me to, hopefully, clarify this essential point. The answer is well known from the literature which stresses the cumulative injurious effects of EIPH. This very fact--that it's cumulative--should alone answer your question as to why it's necessary to dispense it to 2 yr. olds. Yes, for them the damage (from EIPH) is generally more minimal (since its effects are cumulative), but in general there is damage nonetheless--at that stage less likely to be evidenced by their performance. But, even minimal damage will set them up for progressively greater damage in later racing and training. Said another way; the damage itself enlarges the physiological consequences from subsequent EIPH insults- it exposes them to cumulatively greater damage. On your other point; I didn't suggest that Salix cannot be performance enhancing, but rather that your anecdotal data could make a case for it being less "enhancing" than some might expect. My main point, however, was that your data should not suggest that horses don't need (for their well being) Salix-the "rest of the world" notwithstanding. Should future research refute my remarks, so be it, but the present scientific literature supports my view. This issue and our decisions should be guided solely by science, and not by anecdote or the long winded rhetoric offered by some (I'm not here referring to you).

re: A Turning Tide - By Eric Mitchell

EJMitchellKy — Fri, 01 Nov 2013 12:42:48 GMT

Sceptre,

I always appreciate your perspective but if 2-year-olds are least likely to be impaired then why are the majority running on a medication they don't need? As to the performance-enhancing aspects of Salix, I think the number of studies done that illustrate the advantage of the lost water weight speak for themselves.

re: A Turning Tide - By Eric Mitchell

sceptre — Fri, 01 Nov 2013 02:27:02 GMT

Eric,

The focus of your article misses the point. EIPH has cumulative effects. The 2 yr. olds are least likely to be impaired, performance-wise, by EIPH, but many will bleed as the cascade of future long-term damage begins. The fact that many of these 2 yr. olds competed well says more about its relative lack of performance enhancing characteristics, and less about the ravages of EIPH...Let's at least be honest about the factors involved.

re: A Turning Tide - By Eric Mitchell

Lise from Maine — Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:23:25 GMT

Hi!

Hopefully performance enhancing drugs are not allowed any more.

Horses should come first meaning their health and care.

Doping them without a medical issue is absolutely wrong. I love these horses, and they should not be used to "just" win.

I make every effort not to bet on horses whom I believe has been doped without a medical issue.

I bet on horses not dope.

It is an exciting race to see a horse win on his or her own merits.

Owners: Love your horses and don't dope them needlessly.

Thank you!

Lise from Maine