[quote]Sight - not being a vet, and not researching the adjunct scientific data aside, an interesting study will be then be to compare numbers earned by some of these winners outside of Kentucky to what they earned using it in Kentucky last week.[/quote]

I would say comparing numbers (which are not objective datum to start with) with so many variables isn't a good comparison at all. Subjectivity isn't scientific in the least.

[quote]And if it has no scientific basis, which is very possible, why did so many administer it to their horses? As the vet (Alday)on the radio show alluded to mentioned, the adjunct"does not enhance performance but the amicor and estrogens DO enhance clotting resulting in less bleeding for horses",[/quote]

Docs have been saying that for years. Especially for "Kentucky Red". That is the idea behind the mechanism of action of these adjuncts. As I said, however, upon detailed examination, there is no scientific efficacy - examination of horse lungs - to show that it actually works that way in real life.

Many trainers will give anything to their horses. There are plenty of trainers that will swear that this stuff works. But when you actually, objectively check out horses, it doesn't.

If a drug is allowed - like lasix - many trainers perceive those using it to have an advantage, and many trainers will want to use it just because they can.

My point is that the perception or imagination of what these products can do regarding performance is far, far greater than the reality.