Grand National

[Anfield]

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/2...ehorse-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