View Full Version : Grand National
Well it is the Grand National on Saturday afternoon. Who will be having a Punt on a Horse and do you have particular horse that you favour?
In the early 60's I used to have a Bet on the National but have not done so for 45 years now. MMMM I might do so this year, dont know why but you never know I could pick the winner ;)
Shabbychic
09-Apr-10, 13:46
I don't watch it or bet on it, as I don't support animal cruelty.
I know the horses are supposed to love it, but these horses (http://www.horsedeathwatch.com/) didn't. :~(
Ruby walsh is 1 i watch quite often,i will be putting a few bets on,last year a 25 to 1 won the national so its anybody's race!
Used to pick a horse out of a hat for the sweep at work and as im not there I wont even do that!
Havent got a clue about how to bet or choose a horse anyway:lol:
I don't watch it or bet on it, as I don't support animal cruelty.
I know the horses are supposed to love it, but these horses (http://www.horsedeathwatch.com/) didn't. :~(
Well said Shabbychic.
A very cruel race which could easily be made more humane, and still retain the excitement for the punters.
I don't watch it or bet on it, as I don't support animal cruelty.
I know the horses are supposed to love it, but these horses (http://www.horsedeathwatch.com/) didn't. :~(
100 % agree.
Anyone that bets on it is supporting animal cruelty.
*waits for the hypocrital, normally animal loving, horsey bunch to appear*
Amy-Winehouse
09-Apr-10, 14:51
Well, I was going to ask if anyone wanted a cyber sweep . a horse for each org member but after that response, I dont think Ill bother:confused
The Drunken Duck
09-Apr-10, 15:09
Well, I was going to ask if anyone wanted a cyber sweep . a horse for each org member but after that response, I dont think Ill bother:confused
Why ?? .. Go ahead Amy with the Cyber Sweep .. I'll have "Comply or Die" please.
If certain people dont approve of the race thats their view and their entitled to it. Just like others are entitled to ignore it, and have a cyber sweep if THEY want.
Five horses were killed at the Grand National meeting in 2009 and in the last 10 years, 30 horses have been killed at Aintree
Since March 2007 over 500 horses have died on British race courses.
That extremely radical organisation, the RSPCA have made two suggestions to the organisers for this years race
(1) To stop jockeys "overusing" whip
(2) For jockeys to pull up "tired" horses.
At time of posting their requests have fallen on deaf ears and the race will continue tomorrow as normal.
Now forgive me as I have never been a jockey, and my experience of riding is limited to a few goes down country lanes on a friends horse, but why do jockeys need to use whips in the first place?.
Surely if a horse is enjoying running in the national, or any other horse race for that matter, they would not need to be viciously whipped as we see time and time again on TV.
As for riding a horse that can not complete course, that is animal cruelty and organisers should face charges for it. The jockeys volunteer/get picked for race, the horse does not and is forced to undertake a long and hazardous race.
Why can't the race be shorter and the fences lower? you only have to look at the fences after the horses have jumped them to see that the horses can not clear them.
I had the pleasure of being at the grand national meeting a few years back as we had a horse run in the foxhunter race which is run over the national fences but just one circuit as opposed to the 2 circuits in the grand national so i also had the pleasure of walking the course to see where best to try and place our horse and whilst i agree that yes some of the fences are huge they still remain inviting and if the horses do hit them which of course happens the tops of the fences are soft pine as opposed to the stiff birch of normal chase fences hence they can go through the top of them so what may appear to be a 6ft hedge is actually about 4ft but i do think that the 2 circuits can be to much of a strain on some of the horses as like i said the foxhunters only do 1 and that was tiring enough needless to say ours came a very credable 4th so having gone on abit which i apologise for i will have a bet on last years winner and tricky trickster
If you look carefully 8/10 times the jockeys don't actually hit the horse they wave along thier flanks but don't touch the horse as they are only allowed to hit a certain amount of times as they get a racing ban of 3days+and a fine
I‘m in a quandary, :eek: after looking at the link posted by Shabbychic I’m quite shocked. After reading Anfield’s, “Aintree - The Killing Fields or They Shoot Horses Don't They”; I can’t decide.
Keeping and training a horse for racing is expensive so I can’t imagine owners would be blasé about any loses. So what is it that makes them risk all that expense and the possible death of a horse in the off chance that they might win a race?
Well it is the Grand National on Saturday afternoon. Who will be having a Punt on a Horse and do you have particular horse that you favour?
In the early 60's I used to have a Bet on the National but have not done so for 45 years now. MMMM I might do so this year, dont know why but you never know I could pick the winner ;)
I pulled "The Package" out the sweepstake and im chuffed with that, the race is a bit of a cavlary charge though so it could be any horse.
I dont like to hear that a racehorse has died but it is there profession, man and horse have always taken risks together be it in racing or the warfare of old so any outright ban on what is a noble sport for a noble animal I am totally against
I do think however the big races do need to look at the pressure they are putting on the horses. Accidents will happen but like any sport we need to make sure we reduce the risk to both rider and horse as much as possible.
personally, im pulling for black apalachie... couldnt tell you what hubby has bets on though! *G*
just read the aintree one.. looks like a lot of then dropped dead from heart attacks or similar. i know from past races the aintree grand national is a very exhausting one.. and have seen where horses have collapsed after crossing the finish line.
now i wonder purley out of curiosity how many horses are killed or die in a year outside of races? in the show rings, cross country, on a hack or even in a field where they should be safe. i know for a fact horses quite often have fatal accidents in their own fields.
we live in a very horsey community would like to hear from any of the horsey folks what they think on these questions.. thanks brandy
Perhaps if all the do gooders hadn't been so quick to bring in the ban on foxhunting, where most point to point, hurdle and steeplechasers learnt their trade we would not see so many 'novice' horses competing. How would Red Rum have felt if the National had been banned?
The Package & Niche Market
Perhaps if all the do gooders hadn't been so quick to bring in the ban on foxhunting, where most point to point, hurdle and steeplechasers learnt their trade we would not see so many 'novice' horses competing. How would Red Rum have felt if the National had been banned?
I think you will find that the ban on hunting does NOT include horses.
Only a small point I know but very important.
p.m. me if you require further clarification on Hunting Ban!
Amy-Winehouse
09-Apr-10, 22:29
Can I just ask,for sure, Do horses like to gallop then run and sprint ?? then jump ??
And I can I also ask, are there people nowadays who are offended by absolutely everything that everyone else used to call a tradition ?
If Horse racing is cruel, the RSPCA will surely put an end to it? And how many races are there in the UK in 365 days a year ??
Some people just , imo, live to be offended or am I just mad ?
An open question to all:-
If all Horse Racing was Banned what do you think would happen to the Horses?
Would as many Horses be still bred at the Stud Farms if all Horse Racing was Banned?
I really do not want to think what would happen to the Horses if racing was Banned, the thought is just too horrible.
changilass
09-Apr-10, 23:14
Glue factory workers would get a lot of overtime and the french would have a feast day.
An open question to all:-
If all Horse Racing was Banned what do you think would happen to the Horses?
Would as many Horses be still bred at the Stud Farms if all Horse Racing was Banned?
I really do not want to think what would happen to the Horses if racing was Banned, the thought is just too horrible.
Nobody is asking for all horse racing to be banned, just that the Grand National course is changed so that it is more horse friendly.
Imagine the outcry if 5 jockeys were killed over a 3 day period, Health & Safety WOULD close down all racecourses whilst they undertake a 2/3 year enquiry
Nobody is asking for all horse racing to be banned, just that the Grand National course is changed so that it is more horse friendly.
Imagine the outcry if 5 jockeys were killed over a 3 day period, Health & Safety WOULD close down all racecourses whilst they undertake a 2/3 year enquiry
I cant really argue with that to be honest, risk of accidents is always there but it should be made safe for both horse and rider.
The Grand National is exciting though and im looking forward to watching it.
Can I just ask,for sure, Do horses like to gallop then run and sprint ?? then jump ??
And I can I also ask, are there people nowadays who are offended by absolutely everything that everyone else used to call a tradition ?
If Horse racing is cruel, the RSPCA will surely put an end to it? And how many races are there in the UK in 365 days a year ??
Some people just , imo, live to be offended or am I just mad ?
(1) I like running and cycling but I would not if I was forced to do these things to a state of exhaustion, and at the same time, have someone whipping me to make me go faster. Mind you it would depend on who was whipping me!
I enjoy horse racing when it does not involve long and hazardous courses and the use of a whip
(2) Sending children up factory chimneys used to be a tradition, as did killing people because of their religion, burning witches, bear baiting, dog fighting, slavery, giving your 1st born daughter to the estate owner etc etc.
Would you not be offended if any of the above was reintroduced.
(3) The RSPCA have as much clout in making laws as what you and I do, read my post (#9), my reference to RSPCA being radical was meant to be sarcastic.
According to the official British Race Horse web site there were, in 2008:
15,349 horses in training.
855 Training Yards
1,423 racing fixtures (which are usually 3 days long)
98,014 horses starting a race
http://www.britishhorseracing.com/resources/media/publications_and_reports/Stats-SectionERacecourses.pdf
As to your comment about people being "..imo, live to be offended or am I just mad.." I will reprint a verse, from WW2, which I think is very apt even today:
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me."
An open question to all:-..........
I really do not want to think what would happen to the Horses if racing was Banned, the thought is just too horrible.
Well not really horrible. It's like if we all went vegetarian, they would not be bread.
There would simply be less horses. OK, for a short period of "transition" they might be some abandoned horses but after that people wouldn't breed them.
Demand and supply!
at the moment there are so many unwanted and neglected horses its scary. what tends to happen is that owners run out of funds to take the horses , and then just abandon them. i couldnt tell you how many times ive seen on the tv or net about equine cruelty. i dont know why but in a way it seems so much worse than other animal cruelty.. i know its not.. but to me.. it just seems that way. the reason a horse is often destroyed is because its easier on the animal when the cure would be worse that the disease so to speak.. or a break is bad enough it isnt going to heal.
from what i understand,l horses are a lot more harder to treat than most pet like animals.. as they need all four legs, can not lay down for long periods of time without their own weight causing problems.. and can become seriouslly ill in a very short ammount of time.
im not a vet, nor even a real horsey person, but just from watching tv on animal rescue it seems to suggest the above.
i may be totally wrong but that was what i picked up.
KEEP_ON_TRUCKIN
10-Apr-10, 10:29
I'm vouching for Dream Alliance....the peoples choice....bred on an allotment in Wales...come on Dream Alliance!!!!!!!!!
"..So what is it that makes them risk all that expense and the possible death of a horse in the off chance that they might win a race?"
This may well be the incentive:
"A total of £925,000 will be won in the 2010 race, which will be held at Aintree racecourse on Saturday 10 April.."
http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/395/293352.html
northener
10-Apr-10, 12:00
I don't like the Grand National at all. It's not a horse race - as someone else has said on this thread - it's a cavalry charge.
The course is too punishing on the horses in my opinion. I've nothing against over the sticks racing, point to point or anything but every GN is just another horse crippler.
But I do not subscribe to the notion that people who put their horses into the race are uncaring brutes, either.
i keep remembering the 2001 grandnational the ground was super soft.. and water logged.. only 4 horses finished and two of those were remounts! no one was injured or killed horse or riders but it was an insane race!
todays race will more than likley be very dangerous as the ground is going to be good and fast.. which means it will be harder. so falls can potentially be a lot more dangerous. fingers crossed that all the horses and jockeys come thru safe and sound.. and heres to a good race!!!!
Kevin Milkins
10-Apr-10, 13:26
I'm vouching for Dream Alliance....the peoples choice....bred on an allotment in Wales...come on Dream Alliance!!!!!!!!!
I don't follow horse racing or particularly object to it and may have a flutter on Dream Alliance.
I have been reliably informed by a mutual friend that I used to work down Oakdale pit with a couple of the part owners, (they now work in the pot noodle factory). Good luck to them all, and I believe they may be making a film about this horse and there unlikely owners.
The Grand National is a tough race but owners put their horses into the race knowing that they have been bred for the job, trained for the job and schooled extensively by experts. Anyone who has ever seen a lad or lass who looks after a racehorse can see that they love the animal they look after every day. Horses die on a racecourse due to several reasons, a jumping error, unluckily being brought down by another faller, an injury caused on landing or simply breaking down whilst galloping. This is not unique to Aintree, horses can injure themselves on any racecourse, jump or flat, or simply whilst exercising at home. Anyone who follows racing will know that the fences at Aintree have already been modified to make them safer for the horses. The overall quality of runners in the race has risen in recent times and it is the intention that Gold Cup winner Denman will run next year if the going is suitable. Bad jumpers and poor grade horses will not get into the race anymore and very young horses are not allowed in either. Jockeys carry a whip to help keep a horse straight and to provide the encouragement to finish the race well. There are rules on how many times the whip can be used and for when a jockey uses the whip again without giving the horse a chance to respond. The whip can only be administered from a certain height and onto specific areas of the horse. Jockeys who break these rules are fined and/or banned. Any Jockey who leaves a mark on the horse through use of the whip is punished in the same way. Take a look at any racehorse and you will see an animal in peak condition, well looked after and thriving. Horses love to run and if you watch a horse who has lost his jockey, he will usually carry on running with the other horses and jumping every fence. As far as the race being a horse crippler, many horses come back to run year after year with no ill effects. The National is an easy target for animal rights activists with an agenda. It is a high profile event providing publicity for nut-cases who seem to forget that far greater cruelty and neglect of animals (and children) goes on every day in this country. Most, if not all, owners love their horses and there are very few owners who operate at a profit in horse racing. Good horses cost a lot of money and they are very expensive to keep in training and have travel and entry fees to pay before they ever earn a penny. The prize money is totally secondary to the joy of owning a winner of the most famous jumps race in history. Long may it continue.
riggerboy
10-Apr-10, 16:19
I think you will find that the ban on hunting does NOT include horses.
Only a small point I know but very important.
p.m. me if you require further clarification on Hunting Ban!
does that mean i can go out and hunt horses ????
Invisible
10-Apr-10, 16:32
ma horse got 3rd
arghh mine got second but only bet to win
If the horses don't want to run, surely they won't? Look at the start of the race today. was it King John's Castle that wouldn't start? The jockey was urging like mad, but I laughed to see it just standing there as if to say 'Sod off, I might get hurt!'
Mr P Cannop
10-Apr-10, 17:02
how much would i get back if i bet £2 each way ?? 10-1
how much would i get back if i bet £2 each way ?? 10-1
£22 for the win part of the bet and £7 for the place part = £29
Place odds are one quarter of the SP ie 10/4 or 5/2
wickscorrie
10-Apr-10, 17:11
hi brandy, i was slightly luckier £5 e/w on black apalachie, so i get some pennies back mind you my first win on the national so enjoying that even more
No horses were killed in today's race. In a race over only half of the same fences yesterday two horses were, sadly, killed. That proves that deaths are caused by misfortune and not wanton cruelty.
No horses were killed in today's race. In a race over only half of the same fences yesterday two horses were, sadly, killed. That proves that deaths are caused by misfortune and not wanton cruelty.
Here Here,!!
changilass
10-Apr-10, 18:02
If the horses don't want to run, surely they won't? Look at the start of the race today. was it King John's Castle that wouldn't start? The jockey was urging like mad, but I laughed to see it just standing there as if to say 'Sod off, I might get hurt!'
What about all the horses that managed to get the weight off their backs and carried on, does that not disprove the point you are trying to make.
Only one failed to start, where as quite a few, minus jockeys carried on regardless.
J C Denton
10-Apr-10, 18:15
Nobody is asking for all horse racing to be banned, just that the Grand National course is changed so that it is more horse friendly.
Fence heights at Aintree were reduced some years ago, and almost all fences on the National course are the standard 4ft 6in of chase fences throughout the UK.
Horses will NOT race if they dont want to.
Those that lose their riders still carry on long after a herd instict would have dropped off. It's what they know and love, being bred to win is one thing but anyone who's ridden will know that they can be stubborn and you cant make them do what they dont want to do.
Loved the race this year :)
Amy-Winehouse
10-Apr-10, 18:20
Did anybody apart from Wickscorrie manage to get a winner ? I had beat or beating the boys ;) Is it still running ?
i was gutted! i was screaming at the tv... if pure will alone could have done it my horse would have flown to the 1st!
i think he was pulled up , but he was running
my one fell at the fifth fence my daughter got the winner 5.00 each way
No horses were killed in today's race. In a race over only half of the same fences yesterday two horses were, sadly, killed. That proves that deaths are caused by misfortune and not wanton cruelty.
Oh, thats OK then.
The Aintree fences are the softest there are which is why a horse can brush through them and why they need an army of chaps to rebuild the fences before they come round again. It is the distance that is the test just as with a marathon. If a horse is trained for the race, it will not present a problem for it. Horses are flight, herd animals and that is why racing is natural to them.
mike.mckenzie
10-Apr-10, 19:28
I got the winner! Well I'm pleased. 3rd year on the trot.
Oh, thats OK then.
It sure is good news that all today's runners made it round safely. That must have come as a great disappointment to those perverse minded animal rights extremists, as it did not provide them with the soapbox to deliver their ill-informed rants from. Many of the people who talk about the Grand National being cruel know as much about horse racing as a Coo kens aboot taking a half holiday!!
Fence heights at Aintree were reduced some years ago, and almost all fences on the National course are the standard 4ft 6in of chase fences throughout the UK.
The landing side on Becher's Brook was also flattened out to make it a better landing site for the horses and the brook itself has been filled in. Plenty of people are willing to waffle on about the cruelty without the depth of knowledge regarding the matter. Knee-jerk armchair pundits!!
Five horses were killed at the Grand National meeting in 2009 and in the last 10 years, 30 horses have been killed at Aintree
Since March 2007 over 500 horses have died on British race courses.
That extremely radical organisation, the RSPCA have made two suggestions to the organisers for this years race
(1) To stop jockeys "overusing" whip
(2) For jockeys to pull up "tired" horses.
At time of posting their requests have fallen on deaf ears and the race will continue tomorrow as normal.
Now forgive me as I have never been a jockey, and my experience of riding is limited to a few goes down country lanes on a friends horse, but why do jockeys need to use whips in the first place?.
Surely if a horse is enjoying running in the national, or any other horse race for that matter, they would not need to be viciously whipped as we see time and time again on TV.
As for riding a horse that can not complete course, that is animal cruelty and organisers should face charges for it. The jockeys volunteer/get picked for race, the horse does not and is forced to undertake a long and hazardous race.
Why can't the race be shorter and the fences lower? you only have to look at the fences after the horses have jumped them to see that the horses can not clear them.
You clearly know little about the Grand National fences or the art of horse riding.
On the subject of statistics, you state that 500 horses were killed on British racecourses since 2007. Here is another statistic for you:-
From 2005 to 2007 some 431 CHILDREN were killed on British roads. Now that IS cruelty!!
What about all the horses that managed to get the weight off their backs and carried on, does that not disprove the point you are trying to make.
Only one failed to start, where as quite a few, minus jockeys carried on regardless.
My point is, if they didn't want to run, they wouldn't. The horses that carried on, ran because they wanted to, not because they had to.
It sure is good news that all today's runners made it round safely. That must have come as a great disappointment to those perverse minded animal rights extremists, as it did not provide them with the soapbox to deliver their ill-informed rants from. Many of the people who talk about the Grand National being cruel know as much about horse racing as a Coo kens aboot taking a half holiday!!
What an idiot you are.
No horses were killed in today's race. In a race over only half of the same fences yesterday two horses were, sadly, killed. That proves that deaths are caused by misfortune and not wanton cruelty.
If you are going to quote figures, then check them first.
4 Horses died at Aintree this year:
Plaisir d'Estruval
Prudent Honour
Schindlers Hunt
Pagan Starprincess
Amy-Winehouse
11-Apr-10, 12:36
It sure is good news that all today's runners made it round safely. That must have come as a great disappointment to those perverse minded animal rights extremists, as it did not provide them with the soapbox to deliver their ill-informed rants from. Many of the people who talk about the Grand National being cruel know as much about horse racing as a Coo kens aboot taking a half holiday!!
Hahahahahahahahahaha that is the funniest post ive seen on here in a while.
What an idiot you are.
If you are going to quote figures, then check them first.
4 Horses died at Aintree this year:
Plaisir d'Estruval
Prudent Honour
Schindlers Hunt
Pagan Starprincess
You are entitled to your opinion but the only one looking idiotic here is yourself. I don't know what planet you are on because I did not quote the number of horses killed at Aintree this year. I compared one race run on Friday with one race run on Saturday (over the same fences) but a greater distance. The figures for those races are 2 and 0 respectively. That is totally, indisputably correct and you expose yourself as someone with very poor debating skills by trying to suggest anything other.
I have been watching The Grand National since 1973 and have a good, thorough knowledge of the race's history. You, however, clearly know little other than Googling stats and quoting sensational headlines.
Shabbychic
11-Apr-10, 14:53
It sure is good news that all today's runners made it round safely. That must have come as a great disappointment to those perverse minded animal rights extremists, as it did not provide them with the soapbox to deliver their ill-informed rants from. Many of the people who talk about the Grand National being cruel know as much about horse racing as a Coo kens aboot taking a half holiday!!
I take offence at this. I am not disappointed that all horses made it round safely, on the contrary, I am delighted. I care about animals and their rights, but I am neither perverse nor an extremist. Neither do I deliver ill-informed rants. I do however, on occassion, point out hard facts.
You are entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine, but I at least do not revert to childish name calling. If you are an expert on horse racing, that's great. One does not have to be an expert however to see what is going on. Just because the media seldom report on racehorse casualties, does not mean they don't exist.
I take offence at this. I am not disappointed that all horses made it round safely, on the contrary, I am delighted. I care about animals and their rights, but I am neither perverse nor an extremist. Neither do I deliver ill-informed rants. I do however, on occassion, point out hard facts.
You are entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine, but I at least do not revert to childish name calling. If you are an expert on horse racing, that's great. One does not have to be an expert however to see what is going on. Just because the media seldom report on racehorse casualties, does not mean they don't exist.
Some people seem to take offence at the wind changing direction. I don't recall mentioning your name anywhere nor labelling you as one of the extremists I mention. It is a simple fact that some animal rights extremists have no problem with the idea of injuring people in their quest for "Justice" for animals. Some of them even dug up some old wifie's body from her grave in recent times!!
One of my former (female) work colleagues received a threat by telephone from some animal rights protester (also a woman) about 10 years ago for the "crime" of working in a betting office. I defend my right to label that as both perverse and cowardly and the person involved must have been a few fences short of a Grand National in the great Brain steeplechase of life.
You are entitled to your opinion but the only one looking idiotic here is yourself. I don't know what planet you are on because I did not quote the number of horses killed at Aintree this year. I compared one race run on Friday with one race run on Saturday (over the same fences) but a greater distance. The figures for those races are 2 and 0 respectively. That is totally, indisputably correct and you expose yourself as someone with very poor debating skills by trying to suggest anything other.
I have been watching The Grand National since 1973 and have a good, thorough knowledge of the race's history. You, however, clearly know little other than Googling stats and quoting sensational headlines.
OK. I am entitled to my opinion.
In my opinion, you are an idiot.
Were you too embarrassed to advise people on here that 4 horses were killed at Aintree this year?
As for Googling stats, wasn't it you that compared the number of horses killed in races, to the number of children killed in road accidents.
I am still trying to work that connection out.
OK. I am entitled to my opinion.
In my opinion, you are an idiot.
Were you too embarrassed to advise people on here that 4 horses were killed at Aintree this year?
As for Googling stats, wasn't it you that compared the number of horses killed in races, to the number of children killed in road accidents.
I am still trying to work that connection out.
You make no sense at all. How can I be accused of being embarrassed about advising people of 4 horse deaths over the three day meeting, when I freely admitted that 2 were killed in one race?
You are clutching at straws and failing miserably.
My comparison with child deaths on Britain's roads is easy enough to work out. What should be our priority in life, ending deaths of Children on our roads or ranting on about a horse race that is targeted because of its high profile?
Far greater wanton neglect of horse and many other animals goes on every day in this country and represent true cruelty and not misfortune befalling (well looked after and loved) horses on a racecourse.
You have no intention of looking at this argument from behind your own blinkered, and ill educated, viewpoint. It should be reasonable to find out more about the topic you are discussing before making sensational statements (eg Killing Fields)
Coo-holiday-half-ken-much-as
You make no sense at all. How can I be accused of being embarrassed about advising people of 4 horse deaths over the three day meeting, when I freely admitted that 2 were killed in one race?
My comparison with child deaths on Britain's roads is easy enough to work out. What should be our priority in life, ending deaths of Children on our roads or ranting on about a horse race that is targeted because of its high profile?
Far greater wanton neglect of horse and many other animals goes on every day in this country and represent true cruelty and not misfortune befalling (well looked after and loved) horses on a racecourse.
You have no intention of looking at this argument from behind your own blinkered, and ill educated, viewpoint. It should be reasonable to find out more about the topic you are discussing before making sensational statements (eg Killing Fields)
Coo-holiday-half-ken-much-as
The national is not being "targeted" because of its high profile, none of the flat racing Classics attract protests from Animal Aid or the "Extremist" RSPCA.
The Grand National meeting is targeted because it is a cruel event, and every year horses are killed.
It is also interesting to note that only 16 horses finished out of 40 starters.
You state "..Far greater wanton neglect of horse and many other animals goes on every day in this country and represent true cruelty and not misfortune befalling (well looked after and loved) horses on a racecourse.."
You must mean like this video link:
http://www.animalaid.org.uk/h/f/CAMPAIGNS/blog//4//?be_id=92
If over 500 horses are killed on racecourses throughout the UK, I think I am correct to describe them as "The Killing Fields"
I think that by adding in a totally irrelevant topic to thread, that you have ran out of arguments to defend this cruel race.
Sigo pensando que eres un idiota
personally i would call this horse cruelty
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/farmer-jailed-for-grotesque-horse-cruelty-1703931.html
just watched the above video.. dont get the point if its meant to be cruelty.. its not.. they shot it in the head.. it was dead before it would have ever felt anything.
should it had been done? more than likley not.. it could have been rehomed if some one wanted to take the time to do it.
however, this goes back to the throw away society that we live in, not to the race courses.. the pony was of no use to the owners anymore, taking up income more than like,
and the cheap way to get rid of it.. sell it to a slaughter house and you have glue.
is it nice to see.. nope but when have we ever claimed to live in a nice world.. have you ever seen cattle or other animals slaughtered ? its not a pretty sight.. the pony died very quicky and cleanly..
at least it didnt suffer.
Whilst not wanting to add to Annfields distress I would point out that of the thousands of thoroughbred foals born each year only a small percentage ever reach a racecourse due to breaking down in training. National Hunt horses have a much longer competitive life due to many being broken in later and moving up through point to points, hurdles and then on to steeplechasing. Flat racers are usually broken at two years old and are ridden at full race speed soon afterwards so think of the effect on immature bones, muscles and minds.
Whilst not wanting to add to Annfields distress I would point out that of the thousands of thoroughbred foals born each year only a small percentage ever reach a racecourse due to breaking down in training. National Hunt horses have a much longer competitive life due to many being broken in later and moving up through point to points, hurdles and then on to steeplechasing. Flat racers are usually broken at two years old and are ridden at full race speed soon afterwards so think of the effect on immature bones, muscles and minds.
Rhoda, You obviously have more knowledge than Scorrie, and your post is concise and to point, without the waffle and abuse of above person.
I went back to British Horse Racing website (http://www.britishhorseracing.com/resources/media/publications_and_reports/Stats-SectionERacecourses.pdf (http://www.britishhorseracing.com/resources/media/publications_and_reports/Stats-SectionERacecourses.pdf)
and I am a bit confused as to the number of horses for each type of racing i.e. flat & NH.
In 2008 there were 61,998 entrants for flat races but only 36,016 for NH events.
If what you are saying about only a small amount of foals make the grade is correct, how many foals are actually being born and what happens to the ones that do not make it.
Also do you have a figure of NH foals
Shabbychic
12-Apr-10, 00:53
Some people seem to take offence at the wind changing direction. I don't recall mentioning your name anywhere nor labelling you as one of the extremists I mention. It is a simple fact that some animal rights extremists have no problem with the idea of injuring people in their quest for "Justice" for animals. Some of them even dug up some old wifie's body from her grave in recent times!!
One of my former (female) work colleagues received a threat by telephone from some animal rights protester (also a woman) about 10 years ago for the "crime" of working in a betting office. I defend my right to label that as both perverse and cowardly and the person involved must have been a few fences short of a Grand National in the great Brain steeplechase of life.
Some people may very well take offence at the wind changing direction, but I am not one of them. You may not have mentioned my name anywhere, but since I was the first person to speak out about my views on this race, and I have seen no posts from any animal extremists, I can only assume you are directing your comments at posters like Anfield and myself, and I don't believe either of us have dug up any bodies lately.:eek:
You have every right to label whatever you believe to be perverse or cowardly, but as none of these types have posted on this thread, who are you aiming your comments at? Believe it or not, some people can have views without being extremists.
What it all boils down to is, you enjoy horse racing, and I don't. I can live with that. I don't intend to justify myself to you or anyone else, but if you feel the need to do so, carry on.
If you are going to quote figures, then check them first.
4 Horses died at Aintree this year:
How many horses are killed every day in France? just for food [disgust]
How many horses are killed every day in France? just for food [disgust]
And where do they come from?
"..It is not illegal to eat horsemeat in the UK but to most British people it is a taboo food. However, thousands of horses are slaughtered annually for human consumption overseas at three abattoirs in England: Potters Abattoir near Bristol; Cheshire Equine Services, Nantwich; and RE Williams & Son, Weobley, Herefordshire.
FAOSTAT figures reveal the first export of 1606 tonnes of UK horsemeat to Europe was in 1963. After that it steadily increased most years to a peak in 1982 of 7,781 tonnes representing the slaughter of 26,000 horses.[1] By 1997, the UK trade figures for "Meat of horses, asses, mules, hinnies: fresh, chilled, frozen" showed that 2,515 tonnes were exported, mostly to France. In 2000 it was 2857 tonnes (9,500 horses) mainly to France but some to Belgium. After that the quantity declined to 1,576 tonnes exported in 2004.[2] Currently DEFRA estimates that between 6,000 and 10,000 horses are being killed annually for consumption abroad
A spokesperson for Potters Abattoir estimated that 80% of the horses they receive are Thoroughbreds, 10% of which come directly from the racing and breeding sector, some after a varying period of retirement.[4] A further percentage comes from the 4000 or so Thoroughbreds bred in the UK every year with insufficient ability to be worth racing or breeding from,[5] which take a circuitous route to slaughter via a sports and eventing career first. Still others would be the never raced or retired but still sound Thoroughbreds of suitable type and temperament sold on to other disciplines and which in time also take the slaughter road. The abattoirs pay as much as ₤650 for a large Thoroughbred,[5] an attractive proposition to owners faced with the major expense of disposal by other means, anything from £150 for collection and processing by a renderer to £750 or more for home euthanasia and cremation.[4]
http://www.optimail.com.au/berrime/slaughter.htm#UNITED_KINGDOM
And where do they come from?
The Diners here will not care where they come from
http://www.guardian.co.uk/edinburgh/2010/mar/22/horse-meat-served-in-edinburgh
The national is not being "targeted" because of its high profile, none of the flat racing Classics attract protests from Animal Aid or the "Extremist" RSPCA.
The Grand National meeting is targeted because it is a cruel event, and every year horses are killed.
It is also interesting to note that only 16 horses finished out of 40 starters.
You state "..Far greater wanton neglect of horse and many other animals goes on every day in this country and represent true cruelty and not misfortune befalling (well looked after and loved) horses on a racecourse.."
You must mean like this video link:
http://www.animalaid.org.uk/h/f/CAMPAIGNS/blog//4//?be_id=92
If over 500 horses are killed on racecourses throughout the UK, I think I am correct to describe them as "The Killing Fields"
I think that by adding in a totally irrelevant topic to thread, that you have ran out of arguments to defend this cruel race.
Sigo pensando que eres un idiota
I am not running out of arguments (there are only so many to put anyway) you simply aren't willing to listen to anything.
I seem to recall that this was supposed to be about the Grand National in particular, so your mention of 500 horses killed on UK racecourses merely supports my assertion that the Grand National is far from unique in being a site of horse fatalities. If you look at the Cheltenham Festival (run every year in March) you will read that 31 horses have died there since 1999 (from the animal aid website), can you please explain in which way this is less cruel than The Grand National? Horses can fall at any time on any racecourse. Fatal falls are a matter of bad luck and there is a tiny percentage chance that a horse will die at any time. With bigger fields at Aintree, the overall chance of a death increases in accordance.
Only 16 finished the race? Actually it was only 14 plus the one who refused to race. There was the usual mixed bag of fallers, brought down, unseated rider and pulled up runners. All that matters is that they all came home safe. Any horse can fall, Kauto Star, the top rated jump horse and two time Gold Cup winner fell in this year's Gold Cup. It is part of the risk involved. Best Mate, three time Gold Cup winner, fell fatally on a racecourse in France, nothing to do with lack of quality, experience of the horse or the type of fences involved, just bad luck.
I would like to reproduce something from the animal aid website that demonstrates their lack of credibility and undermines themselves. It regards former Gold Cup winner Denman and, interestingly, they describe Cheltenham as the world's most demanding race meeting:-
"Animal Aid has for many years expressed deep concern for all the horses who are forced to compete at the world's most demanding race meeting. This year, Animal Aid call into question the proposed running of Gold Cup challenger, Denman, after a worrying heart problem and a recent poor performance.
The national campaign group wrote to the British Horseracing Authority on March 4th asking what veterinary checks Denman would receive prior to the race. No answer has been received."
Now, do these people, for one minute, think that the trainer and owners would let the horse take his place in the race if they were not 100% CERTAIN of the horse's well being? It is an insult to all concerned for Animal Aid to shout the odds about whether an owner has taken precautions regarding the horse's welfare. Paul Nichols is a champion trainer and, would you believe it, Denman ran in the race finishing a gallant second place, hardly likely if he had a serious heart problem!!
I'm pretty much done with this subject, deaf ears and all that!!
Some people may very well take offence at the wind changing direction, but I am not one of them. You may not have mentioned my name anywhere, but since I was the first person to speak out about my views on this race, and I have seen no posts from any animal extremists, I can only assume you are directing your comments at posters like Anfield and myself, and I don't believe either of us have dug up any bodies lately.:eek:
You have every right to label whatever you believe to be perverse or cowardly, but as none of these types have posted on this thread, who are you aiming your comments at? Believe it or not, some people can have views without being extremists.
What it all boils down to is, you enjoy horse racing, and I don't. I can live with that. I don't intend to justify myself to you or anyone else, but if you feel the need to do so, carry on.
You are free to assume anything you wish. Extremists do not have to post here in order either to exist, nor for me to refer to them!! I believe a large amount of talking is being done on the back of a very little knowledge of the subject in hand. It is my view that readers have the right to see the other side of what started off as a pretty much one-sided decrying of the Grand National. I have watched over Thirty Grand Nationals and seen the changes made to the course and the facilities for dealing with any injured horses. The racecourse is moving in line with criticism but the same old rant comes from people like Animal Aid every single year despite the clear consideration given to improving horse welfare at the racecourse. I see that attitude as being counter productive for Animal Aid and other groups.
Whilst not wanting to add to Annfields distress I would point out that of the thousands of thoroughbred foals born each year only a small percentage ever reach a racecourse due to breaking down in training. National Hunt horses have a much longer competitive life due to many being broken in later and moving up through point to points, hurdles and then on to steeplechasing. Flat racers are usually broken at two years old and are ridden at full race speed soon afterwards so think of the effect on immature bones, muscles and minds.
As you say, two years of age is the youngest category of racing in the UK. The racing calendar is structured however, with only five furlong races at the beginning of the season, this increases to 6 furlong races and later to include 7 furlong races and one mile races later in the season. There is one race of 1 mile 2 furlongs (Zetland Stakes) run at Newmarket in late October, which is the longest race for two year old horses and is contested by stoutly bred individuals who will be stayers the following year. Trainers know how much racing a young horse can take and whether they are bred and ready to race at two or need more time to mature. Good trainers with understanding owners will always be patient with a two year old. Many more flat race horses would have longer careers were it not for the fact that they hold too much potential stud value. Most classic winning flat racers retire at the age of three nowadays. There are some tough old horses on the flat as well though, mostly at a lower grade but I have seen 12 year old horses winning five furlong sprints on the flat.
I can confirm that the greatest Grand National horse of all time (Red Rum) who won the race three times, was broken at the age of two and raced as a two year old, winning a five furlong selling race in the process!!
To me the Race I think was the best Grand National was in 1967 when Foinavon at 100/1 won.
I remember watching this on TV as it happened and was completely Gob-Smacked when all the horses got tangled up and let Foinavon get such a lead that no one could catch him up.
A Genuine classic race this was.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0n--QhZQgI&feature=player_embedded
I wholeheartedly agree with nearly all that scorrie has posted but if it were not for Southport sands and the sea water he was regularly exercised in Red Rum would have gone the way of the majority of broken down racehorses. Ginger Maccain at the time could not afford top class chasers and was happy to take on Rummy and nurse him back to health and lets face it what a job he made. By the way how many remember when Red Rum came to Caithness for the opening of the indoor school at Halkirk?
I wholeheartedly agree with nearly all that scorrie has posted but if it were not for Southport sands and the sea water he was regularly exercised in Red Rum would have gone the way of the majority of broken down racehorses. Ginger Maccain at the time could not afford top class chasers and was happy to take on Rummy and nurse him back to health and lets face it what a job he made. By the way how many remember when Red Rum came to Caithness for the opening of the indoor school at Halkirk?
I don't recall Red Rum being in Caithness, I was still at School back then but would have loved to have seen him.
I thoroughly agree that the attrition rate is high with racehorses. I was once given the comparison that a racehorse running was like humans trying to run on their fingernails. That is the nature of the beast but we have used horses for transport, ferrying goods etc for a very long time. Horse racing was a progression from that and I wish that welfare groups would get real and move the focus away from well looked after Grand National runners and do more to concentrate on horses who are not lucky enough to make that grade or who are simply treated like rubbish by their owners.
Equine care is much improved at Aintree, there are seven vets on-hand, five mobile and two stationed in the hospital. There are treatment boxes, an x-ray unit, a solarium and video endoscopy available and if the horse needs further treatment it is rushed, under Police escort to the equine hospital at The University of Liverpool. I do not know if animal welfare groups are aware of this but they never acknowledge any of it, that is for sure!!
".. I wish that welfare groups would get real and move the focus away from well looked after Grand National runners and do more to concentrate on horses who are not lucky enough to make that grade or who are simply treated like rubbish by their owners.
Equine care is much improved at Aintree, there are seven vets on-hand, five mobile and two stationed in the hospital. There are treatment boxes, an x-ray unit, a solarium and video endoscopy available and if the horse needs further treatment it is rushed, under Police escort to the equine hospital at The University of Liverpool. I do not know if animal welfare groups are aware of this but they never acknowledge any of it, that is for sure!!
The lady doth protest too much, methinks
The lady doth protest too much, methinks
"Methinks"?
I see no evidence of that whatsoever. Your debating skills are non-existent.
http://i73.photobucket.com/albums/i237/scorrie57/280.png
"Methinks"?
I see no evidence of that whatsoever. Your debating skills are non-existent.
I take it you have never heard of Shakespeare's Hamlet then.
I take it you have never heard of Shakespeare's Hamlet then.
I think YOU don't think, that I think you don't think enough.
Can I ask how many horses were killed during the Ayr meeting compared to the Aintree Grand National Meeting?
It seems to me, that anyone who is prepared to accept the deaths of 3 to 5 horses each time this event is run, doesn't care much about horses.
If you think that is an extreme view, thats your problem.
Can I just ask,for sure, Do horses like to gallop then run and sprint ?? then jump ??
And I can I also ask, are there people nowadays who are offended by absolutely everything that everyone else used to call a tradition ?
If Horse racing is cruel, the RSPCA will surely put an end to it? And how many races are there in the UK in 365 days a year ??
Some people just , imo, live to be offended or am I just mad ?
Sadly Amy, you are indeed mad.
People who are offended by mindless cruelty to animals are not living to be offended.
There seems to be a hiatus from the pro Grand National mob
Times have moved on since the horrific 1855 race recounted below:-
http://www.lateralscience.co.uk/turf/index.html
It seems to me, that anyone who is prepared to accept the deaths of 3 to 5 horses each time this event is run, doesn't care much about horses.
If you think that is an extreme view, thats your problem.
No horses died this year, can you explain why?
Animal Aid condemn Aintree as the worst racecourse in the UK for Horse deaths, except when they are saying that Cheltenham is the worst racecourse in the UK for horse deaths, oh, and, of course, when they are telling you that Sedgefield is the worst racecourse in the UK for horse deaths. These people cannot even put up a consistent front, all they know is looking at numbers and seeing that 11 is bigger than 9 (for example)
The RSPCA asked that Jockeys pull-up tired horses, when Jockeys did that, people then waffle on about less runners finishing the race!! Duh!!
Can I ask how many horses were killed during the Ayr meeting compared to the Aintree Grand National Meeting?
Scorrie
Perhaps you would like to answer the above question
No horses died this year, can you explain why?
Animal Aid condemn Aintree as the worst racecourse in the UK for Horse deaths, except when they are saying that Cheltenham is the worst racecourse in the UK for horse deaths, oh, and, of course, when they are telling you that Sedgefield is the worst racecourse in the UK for horse deaths. These people cannot even put up a consistent front, all they know is looking at numbers and seeing that 11 is bigger than 9 (for example)
The RSPCA asked that Jockeys pull-up tired horses, when Jockeys did that, people then waffle on about less runners finishing the race!! Duh!!
I don't know who Animal Aid are.
I was making an observation.
If you would like to refute that people who are prepared to accept the deaths of horses don't care about horses, I would be interested to hear.
Scorrie
Perhaps you would like to answer the above question
This thread is about the Grand National. I have never denied that horse deaths occur there, or at other courses. No horses were killed at The Grand National this year, the reason for that must be the first issue addressed.
I don't know who Animal Aid are.
I was making an observation.
If you would like to refute that people who are prepared to accept the deaths of horses don't care about horses, I would be interested to hear.
Try googling Animalaid.
We can all make observations, they work better if you know what you are talking about though!!
Most, if not all, racehorse grooms love the horses they look after, it is evident to anyone with even half an eye. Many owners hold similar sentiments, if you knew much about the subject at all, you would well know that. Accidents are the sad reality in horse racing on both the jumps and the flat. After a tragedy, grooms get back to their job and care for the next horse as best as they can, it is an insult to suggest that they don't love the animal they tend to and those who suggest otherwise are on Planet Zanussi!!
This thread is about the Grand National. I have never denied that horse deaths occur there, or at other courses. No horses were killed at The Grand National this year, the reason for that must be the first issue addressed.
I know that there were no fatalities at this years Grand National race at Aintree this year, but just in case you have forgotten 4 horses were killed over the three days of this years meeting.
You have once again failed to answer my question about fatalities at Ayr during Scottish Grand National (SGN).
I have done a search and can not find any details of a horse being killed at Ayr during the SGN.
I did a similar search for the Irish Grand National (IGN) which shows that the race in 2009 resulted in two deaths.
The Welsh Grand National, like the SGN, also failed to find any reports of a death.
These figures would suggest that the English Grand National is a race with serious horse safety problems which need to be addressed before any further horses are killed
Perhaps with your extensive knowlege of horse racing you could confirm
the accuracy of the statistics I have quoted
Creme_Egg
19-Apr-10, 23:35
poor things! why? all in the name of.........SPORT/FUN
Try googling Animalaid.
We can all make observations, they work better if you know what you are talking about though!!
Most, if not all, racehorse grooms love the horses they look after, it is evident to anyone with even half an eye. Many owners hold similar sentiments, if you knew much about the subject at all, you would well know that. Accidents are the sad reality in horse racing on both the jumps and the flat. After a tragedy, grooms get back to their job and care for the next horse as best as they can, it is an insult to suggest that they don't love the animal they tend to and those who suggest otherwise are on Planet Zanussi!!
So you are not prepared to accept that to put a horse into a race where there is a good chance some horses will die, is at best uncaring?
I am not judging, but have the courage to admit that the risk is worth it for the sport.
BTW. Why do feel the need to use such an insulting tone in your posts?
I have been around horses now for the best part of fifty years, breeding, breaking, showing, competing and working on the land with horses. Unfortunately horses being the animals they are will get themselves in to difficulties and die. I have seen fatalities at local shows, cross country events and with horses at home in their fields and looseboxes. Yes, granted there is a greater risk at speed in the heat of a race over jumps but even on the flat horses break down and break legs, fact of life I'm afraid. I would be the first to admit they are the most noble of gods creatures but would urge that people who feel so passionately about stopping the National would turn their attentions to stopping the dreadful conditions of horses and ponies being travelled throughout Europe to the slaughterhouses. Mares and foals loaded loose with stallions, all ages, all sizes and many not even fit to travel. Dragged off lorries by JCB's, no water, food or rest during travel. Now there is your real cruelty.
I have been around horses now for the best part of fifty years, breeding, breaking, showing, competing and working on the land with horses. Unfortunately horses being the animals they are will get themselves in to difficulties and die. I have seen fatalities at local shows, cross country events and with horses at home in their fields and looseboxes. Yes, granted there is a greater risk at speed in the heat of a race over jumps but even on the flat horses break down and break legs, fact of life I'm afraid. I would be the first to admit they are the most noble of gods creatures but would urge that people who feel so passionately about stopping the National would turn their attentions to stopping the dreadful conditions of horses and ponies being travelled throughout Europe to the slaughterhouses. Mares and foals loaded loose with stallions, all ages, all sizes and many not even fit to travel. Dragged off lorries by JCB's, no water, food or rest during travel. Now there is your real cruelty.
Yes Rhoda, very upsetting. This thread caught my eye because people appeared to be trying to justify endangering horses in the name of sport.
The meat trade is a different matter, one I am equally upset by, but if we take every opportunity to make people think about what they may take for granted, like taking a harmless flutter on the National, for instance, slowly we may change attitudes.
I know that there were no fatalities at this years Grand National race at Aintree this year, but just in case you have forgotten 4 horses were killed over the three days of this years meeting.
You have once again failed to answer my question about fatalities at Ayr during Scottish Grand National (SGN).
I have done a search and can not find any details of a horse being killed at Ayr during the SGN.
I did a similar search for the Irish Grand National (IGN) which shows that the race in 2009 resulted in two deaths.
The Welsh Grand National, like the SGN, also failed to find any reports of a death.
These figures would suggest that the English Grand National is a race with serious horse safety problems which need to be addressed before any further horses are killed
Perhaps with your extensive knowlege of horse racing you could confirm
the accuracy of the statistics I have quoted
I watched the Scottish National, I did not see any horses die. This fact merely confirms that it was the same as the Grand National in regards to fatalities. What big point does that prove in the scheme of this discussion.
Let us now investigate your research:-
No horses died in the Grand National.
No horses died in the Scottish National.
No horses died in the Welsh National.
Two horses died in the Irish National.
YOUR conclusion:-
The ENGLISH National is the one with safety problems!!
This despite the IRISH race being the only one with fatalities in your list.
You are simply Googling on the back of little, or no, real knowledge of the topic being discussed. Just like Animal Aid you are pulling out numbers and trying to make them prove something they cannot do whilst, all the time, true cruelty is running rampant.
I watched the Scottish National, I did not see any horses die. This fact merely confirms that it was the same as the Grand National in regards to fatalities. What big point does that prove in the scheme of this discussion.
Let us now investigate your research:-
No horses died in the Grand National.
No horses died in the Scottish National.
No horses died in the Welsh National.
Two horses died in the Irish National.
YOUR conclusion:-
The ENGLISH National is the one with safety problems!!
This despite the IRISH race being the only one with fatalities in your list.
You are simply Googling on the back of little, or no, real knowledge of the topic being discussed. Just like Animal Aid you are pulling out numbers and trying to make them prove something they cannot do whilst, all the time, true cruelty is running rampant.
Once again I must remind you to read posts fully before replying.
I stated in my post that the two deaths in IGN occurred in 2009 meeting i.e the same year that five horses were killed at Aintree.
And I thought you knew about horse racing.
So you are not prepared to accept that to put a horse into a race where there is a good chance some horses will die, is at best uncaring?
I am not judging, but have the courage to admit that the risk is worth it for the sport.
BTW. Why do feel the need to use such an insulting tone in your posts?
Someone on another forum did a calculation of horse fatalities against the number of races run in the UK. The statistics showed that the chance of a horse dying in a race is a bit less than 0.5%, obviously the Grand National will be a greater risk than that.
I cannot accept that people who enter their horse into the race don't care about the animals though. I watched trainer Jenny Pitman on TV just before the race one year and her sole concern going into the race was not about how her horses would perform but about the fact that they all came back in safe and sound. Owners enter their horses knowing that there is a risk but that the risk is relatively small. You seem to be saying that owners don't care about the horses and I DO NOT accept that this is the case. You say you are NOT judging but I believe that this is EXACTLY what you are doing. You are making judgements about the people who own, train and look after horses, based on what appears to be an outsider's view backed up with little in-depth knowledge.
I believe that groups such as Animal Aid put pressure on the RSPCA to speak up against the Grand National. I am pretty sure that RSPCA resources could/would be better spent tackling far more heinous crimes and I detect a strong sense of self-servicing, rather than horse welfare, at the top of Animal Aid's anti Grand National bluster.
Once again I must remind you to read posts fully before replying.
I stated in my post that the two deaths in IGN occurred in 2009 meeting i.e the same year that five horses were killed at Aintree.
And I thought you knew about horse racing.
So it is OK for you to mix and match years then? Why are you wittering on about THIS years Scottish National, if it is LAST year you are talking about?
Only one horse (Hear the Echo) died in the 2009 Grand National, collapsing AFTER the race. That still leaves the Irish Grand National with the greater death toll with two fatalities.
Talking about unanswered questions, you have still to explain to me why Animal Aid call Cheltenham the most dangerous meeting for racehorses. Can you also explain to me why horses died at this years Aintree meeting over a course only covering half of the fences jumped in the Grand National, yet NONE died over the full course?
If you can answer some of those questions it might create more credibility for yourself.
The meat trade is a different matter, one I am equally upset by, but if we take every opportunity to make people think about what they may take for granted, like taking a harmless flutter on the National, for instance, slowly we may change attitudes.
I completely disagree with the logic here. The British Public can watch the Grand National and make their own minds up about whether it is cruel or not. They see fit, and well looked after, horses doing a job they are bred to do and exhibiting natural instincts to run and jump. When they see an unfortunate fatality, they can make their mind up whether it is cruel and whether they will have a bet in future. Nobody tries to hide the fact that horses sometimes die and plenty of groups love to whoop those deaths from the nearest available soapbox. Meanwhile, Joe Public is often unaware of the casual cruelty that goes on day to day in Britain and worldwide. Bringing THAT cruelty into the spotlight would do far more to begin a change in attitude, if that change can ever take place. Trying to equate one event with another is simply barking up the wrong tree (or Aintree even)
Meanwhile, Joe Public is often unaware of the casual cruelty that goes on day to day in Britain and worldwide. Bringing THAT cruelty into the spotlight would do far more to begin a change in attitude, if that change can ever take place. Trying to equate one event with another is simply barking up the wrong tree
I am sure you will find that there are hundreds of animal welfare groups up and down the country, including the RSPCA & SSPCA who are spotlighting the other forms of cruelty you mention.
I think you will also find it was not myself or Ducati who tried to equate this issue with other aspects of animal welfare, look a bit closer to home.[/quote]
Someone on another forum did a calculation of horse fatalities against the number of races run in the UK. The statistics showed that the chance of a horse dying in a race is a bit less than 0.5%, obviously the Grand National will be a greater risk than that.
Would you like to share the source of the above infomation with us as I can not find a breakdown of deaths by starts at English Racecourses.
I did find an American one though which stated:
"..that during races at the state’s four major thoroughbred tracks, deaths have dropped from 3.05 per 1,000 starts to 1.93 since the installation of synthetic tracks.."
As from previous posts it appears that your maths is not 100% I would inform you that 1.93% is approx. 4 time more than the .5%.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/feb/26/statistics-are-mixed-for-racehorse-deaths/
Talking about unanswered questions, you have still to explain to me why Animal Aid call Cheltenham the most dangerous meeting for racehorses.
If you can answer some of those questions it might create more credibility for yourself.
Take a look at:
http://www.horsedeathwatch.com/table.php
use the Course filter and you will find that since site started in 2007 there has been:
Aintree 17 deaths
Cheltenham 22 deaths
Does that answer your questions for you? and can I have my credibility back
How much deeper a hole are you digging for yourself
Aintree 17 deaths
I thought we were talking hundreds... 17 in 4 years isn't that bad going really. Far more die out in the field every day. Horses that are sometimes bored out of their wits with no stimulation. Racehorses race because they love it - the ones that dont, just don't - as this years national proved. If they don't want to do it they wont...
I am sure you will find that there are hundreds of animal welfare groups up and down the country, including the RSPCA & SSPCA who are spotlighting the other forms of cruelty you mention.
I think you will also find it was not myself or Ducati who tried to equate this issue with other aspects of animal welfare, look a bit closer to home.
Would you like to share the source of the above infomation with us as I can not find a breakdown of deaths by starts at English Racecourses.
I did find an American one though which stated:
"..that during races at the state’s four major thoroughbred tracks, deaths have dropped from 3.05 per 1,000 starts to 1.93 since the installation of synthetic tracks.."
As from previous posts it appears that your maths is not 100% I would inform you that 1.93% is approx. 4 time more than the .5%.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/feb/26/statistics-are-mixed-for-racehorse-deaths/
Take a look at:
http://www.horsedeathwatch.com/table.php
use the Course filter and you will find that since site started in 2007 there has been:
Aintree 17 deaths
Cheltenham 22 deaths
Does that answer your questions for you? and can I have my credibility back
How much deeper a hole are you digging for yourself[/QUOTE]
Your credibility keeps lessening. All you are doing is pulling stats from anywhere and everywhere without any consistency and therefore credibility.
You are trying to take stats from four racecourses in one state of America and trying to make them have some direct comparison with UK racecourses. If your Maths actually stacked up it would merely prove that the UK racing is safer than the US racing. Which supports your argument in what way?
Sadly your mathematics is badly flawed. And I quote:-
"..that during races at the state’s four major thoroughbred tracks, deaths have dropped from 3.05 per 1,000 starts to 1.93 since the installation of synthetic tracks.."
Now, even to the basic mind, 1.93 deaths in 1,000 starts is only 0.193% and not 1.93% as you claim. Tut-tut only a D- for that I'm afraid says Teacher.
Your other magic stat from Horse Death Watch does not mean anything relating to which course is actually more deadly. It only lists the number of horses that have died and not allowed a direct comparison about which tracks are more dangerous. Cheltenham hosts many more race meetings during a year than Aintree does, therefore more horses run there than Aintree in a year and therefore more horses are likely to die there.
I would remind you that you said you are not against horse-racing and this thread was supposed to be about how cruel The Grand National in particular is.
I am still to receive an explanation as to why no horses have fallen to their deaths in the last two Grand Nationals, while horses have died in shorter races over the same fences. Please make that your next port of call, rather than some desperate stats about Horses dying in races in Outer Mongolia!!
All the statistics I have used have come from official sources, and I have provided links for you to check on authenticity.
I on the other hand, am still waiting for details of the “forum” you mentioned which gave a figure, of horse deaths/per thousand starts.
I apologise for my incorrect misinterpretation of the fatalities of horse racing in USA, but if figures are available for the USA why are none available for the UK.
In one of your posts you mention trainer Jenny Pitman. Did you know that she has pleaded with the organisers of the grand national to reduce the number of riders to 30?
966http://www.thefreelibrary.com/NATIONAL+DISGRACE%3F%3B+Every+year+160+magnificent +horses+die+jumping+...-a097476 (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/NATIONAL+DISGRACE%3F%3B+Every+year+160+magnificent +horses+die+jumping+...-a099667476)
As for why there were no deaths in 2010 I do not know. There are so many variable involved in racing e.g. weather, going etc, that it would be impossible to ascertain. But I am sure you know.
I now look forward to receiving details of the forum which has records of UK horse race deaths
As for why there were no deaths in 2010 I do not know. There are so many variable involved in racing e.g. weather, going etc, that it would be impossible to ascertain.
Who was it who said this year good weather/hard ground, likely to be even more fatalities?
All the statistics I have used have come from official sources, and I have provided links for you to check on authenticity.
I on the other hand, am still waiting for details of the “forum” you mentioned which gave a figure, of horse deaths/per thousand starts.
I apologise for my incorrect misinterpretation of the fatalities of horse racing in USA, but if figures are available for the USA why are none available for the UK.
In one of your posts you mention trainer Jenny Pitman. Did you know that she has pleaded with the organisers of the grand national to reduce the number of riders to 30?
966http://www.thefreelibrary.com/NATIONAL+DISGRACE%3F%3B+Every+year+160+magnificent +horses+die+jumping+...-a097476 (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/NATIONAL+DISGRACE%3F%3B+Every+year+160+magnificent +horses+die+jumping+...-a099667476)
As for why there were no deaths in 2010 I do not know. There are so many variable involved in racing e.g. weather, going etc, that it would be impossible to ascertain. But I am sure you know.
I now look forward to receiving details of the forum which has records of UK horse race deaths
Official Sources are only any good if the person who uses the information knows how to interpret it properly and how to then apply it correctly to the topic. I have included the following link for you:-
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16546277
Titled:- "A comparison of survival models for assessing risk of racehorse fatality", the data used came from all races at all 59 British Racecourses from 1990 through to 1999. It would appear the authors are either with, or working on behalf of, The Animal Health Trust
You can see that the data gives figures of 538,895 for racehorse starts and fatalities of 1,228 for the period in question. That equates to a percentage of a little bit under 0.23,
or 23 horses for every 10,000 runners that start a race.
You can also read that (understandably) the risk factor increases for races over fences and hurdles but, surprisingly for most I would say, the factors are 1.5 and 1.7 respectively, meaning hurdle races are actually more dangerous with a calculated risk of 0.39% compared to 0.345% for chases.
The data also shows that risk increases with race distance but that this plateaus at a distance of 20 furlongs (i.e. two and a half miles) This means that horses are at no higher risk over 4 miles than they are at 2 and a half miles. That is something I have already alluded to several times.
As to why there were no deaths this year, it is quite simple to explain. The only factor that is sure to increase the likelihood of death is hard ground. The going for the Grand National is not allowed to be firmer than "Good" and watering will always be applied to comply with that. The reason there were no deaths this year was pure and simple good luck, just as the times there are deaths is down to bad luck. Nine horses fell in this years race, but five fell on the first circuit compared to four on the second circuit, so you cannot blame tiredness for the falls. On another day only one might fall and be unlucky enough to die.
Perhaps the best people to ask about whether Aintree ARE working to make the race safer is the RSPCA and you can read their thoughts at the following link:-
www.politics.co.uk/opinion-formers/press-releases/culture-media-and-sport/rspca-hopes-new-grand-national-safety-measures-will-help-protect-racehorses-$1284782$366366.htm
I am pretty sure none of the above will be acknowledged by the likes of Animal Aid, who will continue to play the same old stuck record year-in year out.
All the statistics I have used have come from official sources, and I have provided links for you to check on authenticity.
I on the other hand, am still waiting for details of the “forum” you mentioned which gave a figure, of horse deaths/per thousand starts.
I apologise for my incorrect misinterpretation of the fatalities of horse racing in USA, but if figures are available for the USA why are none available for the UK.
In one of your posts you mention trainer Jenny Pitman. Did you know that she has pleaded with the organisers of the grand national to reduce the number of riders to 30?
966http://www.thefreelibrary.com/NATIONAL+DISGRACE%3F%3B+Every+year+160+magnificent +horses+die+jumping+...-a097476 (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/NATIONAL+DISGRACE%3F%3B+Every+year+160+magnificent +horses+die+jumping+...-a099667476)
As for why there were no deaths in 2010 I do not know. There are so many variable involved in racing e.g. weather, going etc, that it would be impossible to ascertain. But I am sure you know.
I now look forward to receiving details of the forum which has records of UK horse race deaths
Just a word on the Jenny Pitman quote:-
The quote was allegedly made in 1998, if it is true it is well out of date, as changes HAVE been made since then. I would agree that priority should have been given to making the course and fences safer, ahead of reducing field size. I see little evidence of horse numbers directly contributing to deaths, and a field of 40 managed to negotiate the event without fatality this year. I would personally be asking for an update from Mrs Pitman regarding her feelings some TWELVE years on!!
I believe that the main line in the link you posted regarding credibility of a neutral viewpoint within the item is the one I quote below:-
"Andrew Tyler director of Animal Aid and a hardline activist"
That says it all in a nutshell, with the accent on NUT.
(A) This is an american site, remember in last post you lambasted me for using an American site.
(B) Bit old is it not. "1990 to the end of 1999"
Try and come up with something a bit more relevant and up to date
Since this thread started 7 more horses have died on UK racecourses
That is the only telling statistic in past 10 day.
(A) This is an american site, remember in last post you lambasted me for using an American site.
(B) Bit old is it not. "1990 to the end of 1999"
Try and come up with something a bit more relevant and up to date
Since this thread started 7 more horses have died on UK racecourses
That is the only telling statistic in past 10 day.
I have to ask myself whether you are deliberately trying to be obtuse or whether you are simply stupid.
The article is on an American website, HOWEVER it is written by/for UK people/institute and clearly states that the data is for BRITISH racecourses. The article you referred to earlier was using data for racecourses in SAN DIEGO and you couldn't even interpret it properly either, making a mistake a 10 year old would not have done.
The article was written in 2006 and I am assuming that the authors decided to take a ten-year sample, picking the previous decade as their data, I am sorry they couldn't fast forward 4 years with Dr Who and make the next decade their sample!!
Have you got any worthwhile comment to make regarding the improvements at Aintree, which have been freely acknowledged by the RSPCA or are you simply going to keep slevering on about horses that have died outwith Aintree. I must remind you again, as your own attention span seems to match that of a Gnat, that you have stated that you are not against horse racing, and that the thread is about whether the Grand National in particular is cruel.
Are you actually reading anything that I have linked to, it seems not to me as you are making a complete arse of yourself at ever step.
I mentally switch off reading your posts as you just repeat the same old stuff time after time.
I would confirm that I am not anti horse racing in general.
One of the people who was praised by you (Jenny Pitman) has asked for changes to be made to Grand National course. You even state yourself that:
"I would agree that priority should have been given to making the course and fences safer, ahead of reducing field size. I see little evidence of horse numbers directly contributing to deaths, and a field of 40 managed to negotiate it"
Whenwas the last time that all horses did finish race
You state that you do not agree with the findings of Animal Aid because:
"Andrew Tyler director of Animal Aid and a hardline activist"
That says it all in a nutshell, with the accent on NUT"
We shall finish now and i look forward to locking horns with you next year.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.