Grand National

[Leanne]

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...

[scorrie]

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/2...ehorse-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!!

[Anfield]

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

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

[Leanne]

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?

[scorrie]

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

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.

[scorrie]

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

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.

[Anfield]

(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.

[scorrie]

(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.

[Anfield]

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.