Ban the Grand National?

[Mr Burns]

To me a horse is no different from a cow. They are an animal that should be breed to eat. And they do taste quite nice too!!

I am 100% against animal cruelty, and things should be humane as possible, and a shot gun in the head minutes after the fall, I think is about the best it can be. No horse is raced to be killed, but accidents do happen, and so long as things are done with as little suffering to the animal as possible, then I dont see a problem with it, and I do consider myself an animal lover, but I also a meat eater, and a horse is meat.

Would it be cruel to race cows, and the ones that are not up to it, get slaghtered for food? Why do people see horses differently, they are just as dumb as cows.

How many vegatarions do you know that wont eat meat "because its cruel" but will glading turn a blind eye to a newborn calf being slaughtered at birth so they can have milk in their coffee?

Off course horse racing or the national shouldn't be banned, as the animals are not entered with the aim of harming them. As long as they are slaughtered humanly and with as least suffering as possible if something does happen to go wrong, then I can't see a problem with it.

I think anyone who is a meat eater, or drinks milk in any form, and then says the national should be banned because its cruel, should, well, f*** off really, keep their hypocritical views to themselves.

Must remember to pop to the butchers later for a nice horse steak!

 

[Brovion]

Personally the biggest problem I have with it is the use of the whip. The winning jocking was going mental with it and has got a 5 day ban. But he still won the race. If they're not gonna take away the whip then they to properly punish the people that break the rules

I must admit that's my view too. Why do they have to use whips? Why can't they just see who is naturally the fastest? After all we're often told the horses 'love being out there'; well if they love it so much then they'll go round quite happily without having some little man flaying them alive.

On the National itself I have no interest in horse racing but we usually watch the Grand National and have a bet as it's a 'national event'. Consequently I don't want it see it banned, but if they can take steps to make it safer then they should do so - regardless of the cost. And perhaps have a stricter entry criteria for both horses and jockeys to keep the real liabilities off the track. Didn't see it this year but like others I would have been upset at the sight of the dead horses - and yes I eat meat.

 

[Silent Bob]

I think there should be a ban on banning things.

If people were really concerned about race horse welfare they'd be busy buying up the ones currently heading for the slaughter house in Ireland.

You haven't thought this through at all, have you?

 

[Brovion]

To me a horse is no different from a cow. They are an animal that should be breed to eat. And they do taste quite nice too!!

I am 100% against animal cruelty, and things should be humane as possible, and a shot gun in the head minutes after the fall, I think is about the best it can be. No horse is raced to be killed, but accidents do happen, and so long as things are done with as little suffering to the animal as possible, then I dont see a problem with it, and I do consider myself an animal lover, but I also a meat eater, and a horse is meat.

Would it be cruel to race cows, and the ones that are not up to it, get slaghtered for food? Why do people see horses differently, they are just as dumb as cows.

How many vegatarions do you know that wont eat meat "because its cruel" but will glading turn a blind eye to a newborn calf being slaughtered at birth so they can have milk in their coffee?

Off course horse racing or the national shouldn't be banned, as the animals are not entered with the aim of harming them. As long as they are slaughtered humanly and with as least suffering as possible if something does happen to go wrong, then I can't see a problem with it.

I think anyone who is a meat eater, or drinks milk in any form, and then says the national should be banned because its cruel, should, well, f*** off really, keep their hypocritical views to themselves.

Must remember to pop to the butchers later for a nice horse steak!

The thing is horse racing is not like bull fighting - you don't go there to see animals killed. Consequently when one DOES die it is upsetting and it is definitely not part of the entertainment. It's a bit like taking your dog for a walk and watching it get run over.

And I'm not some ALF bunny-hugger. Back in the 1980s I used to own a shotgun and go rough shooting. I have no problem about aiming a firearm at a cuddly ikkle bunny rabbit and blowing it to Kingdom Come.

 

[Don Quixote]

Red rum only fell once on REAL fences. True legends make it, the others die. It is life.

 

[Mtoto]

No-one likes to see them fall, but it happens. QUOTE]

I think this view is at the heart of the big contradiction in racing circles. They claim that the horses are spoiled rotten and treated like kings at the yard (which is true), but they also happily send them out to their deaths. If you really loved the animal, you wouldn't enter it in any race, or at any course, where death was a real possibility.

Happily send them out to their deaths? That has to be one of the most glib and sloppy observations I've ever read on here, and God knows I've ploughed through some rubbish.

This is horseracing, not bull fighting. The death of an animal is not the point of the exercise in the Grand National or any other race, but it is an inevitable consequence in a very small number of cases.

Next time you go racing, spend one race watching the owners, trainers and stable hands rather than the horses. The looks on their faces will demonstrate the stupidity of your throwaway line far more succinctly than I could ever manage.

 

[Mr Burns]

The thing is horse racing is not like bull fighting - you don't go there to see animals killed. Consequently when one DOES die it is upsetting and it is definitely not part of the entertainment. It's a bit like taking your dog for a walk and watching it get run over.

And I'm not some ALF bunny-hugger. Back in the 1980s I used to own a shotgun and go rough shooting. I have no problem about aiming a firearm at a cuddly ikkle bunny rabbit and blowing it to Kingdom Come.

Completely agree. Bull fighting is pure f***ing evil, as the animals are 100% certain to suffer for entertainment, and thats just so f***ing wrong on so many levels.

But horse racing is not designed to hurt the animal. I've seen dogs at corals in Hove, snap their backs coming out of the trap. Now that is a f***ing horrible thing to witness and makes you sick to the stomach to see it. But there are accidents, and a horse out being riden in a field could end up falling and snapping its leg, so should we just ban horses full stop?!

 

[MattBackHome]

Infact show me any pet owner who keeps their pet for "entertainment".

I dress up my dog and find it hugely entertaining.

 

[beorhthelm]

I followed that link and it doesn't say this. It says that the risk of death to horses in National Hunt meetings is 6 in 1000, compared with 1 in 1000 for flat meetings, but it specifically doesn't say the GN is no more dangerous than other jump races.

they are combining the whole event in their comparison, and say at a three day meeting they statistically expect 3 fatalities. clearly, there is not a notably higher death rate at the National itself for them to highlight it. of course in a anti-National piece they are not going to explicitly say its no more dangerous than other hunt races, but its there for all to see.

 

[Tooting Gull]

Happily send them out to their deaths? That has to be one of the most glib and sloppy observations I've ever read on here, and God knows I've ploughed through some rubbish.

This is horseracing, not bull fighting. The death of an animal is not the point of the exercise in the Grand National or any other race, but it is an inevitable consequence in a very small number of cases.

Next time you go racing, spend one race watching the owners, trainers and stable hands rather than the horses. The looks on their faces will demonstrate the stupidity of your throwaway line far more succinctly than I could ever manage.

But in that one quote you have confirmed the contradiction, without dealing with it. Yes, they love their animals. But death is, in your own words, "inevitable" in a small number of cases. I think saying that is quite glib. So how important, exactly, is it for these people not to see the horse die? If it was ALL-important, they wouldn't do it, end of discussion.

You are also skipping over the more reasonable idea of making more changes to lessen the likelihood of animals being put down.

It is also being disingenuous in the extreme to say that falls (and by implication, injury) is not part of the spectacle. Look at the preview coverage of the National on the BBC, falls are widely shown and part of the build-up.

 

[Waynflete]

they are combining the whole event in their comparison, and say at a three day meeting they statistically expect 3 fatalities. clearly, there is not a notably higher death rate at the National itself for them to highlight it. of course in a anti-National piece they are not going to explicitly say its no more dangerous than other hunt races, but its there for all to see.

You're using the absence of a statement to prove a fact. But in any case I think we've gone off on a tangent. Even if the National is no more dangerous than any other jumps race, we should ask whether a risk for horses of 6 deaths in 1000 starts is acceptable. If not, they should be making bigger changes to reduce the risk, not just saying 'hey ho, risk is inevitable so we shouldn't bother trying'.

 

[Woodchip]

My God!!! It feels like I've stepped into the Guadian's discussion site.

 

[Bozza]

I've been personally mulling this over since Saturday...

For the first time, I got my daughter involved in the National - getting her to choose a horse (she chose 2 as it happens) and I placed each-way bets for her. The intention was we'd all sit down and watch the race together - all with a small vested interest.

As it happens she had a birthday party on Saturday afternoon so we couldn't watch it live. However, on reading about the fatalities and how what had happened was oh-so-obvious on the TV footage I decided we wouldn't watch it back claiming the PVR had failed to record it. I did this as I knew my daughter would have got pretty upset at it all.

And it is that anticipated reaction - innocent and pure - that has me questioning it, and I say that as someone who has grown into racing over the last 10 years and had some incredible days out racing, with the best being at Cheltenham. In fact, I'd probably rate seeing Best Mate's third Gold Cup win as my favourite live sporting occasion, above the Albion's Cup semi, the Cup Final, the playoff finals, Hereford and various promotions.

I know the National is not going to be banned and I know that beyond the 'entertainment' line trotted out, racing is an industry that provides a lot of jobs, but it's not sitting very well with me personally right now.

 

[beorhthelm]

You're using the absence of a statement to prove a fact. But in any case I think we've gone off on a tangent.

well, that may be the case, but i shall remind you where we started... (and my point was to disprove it)

Sure, but your initial post said that the GN wasn't any more dangerous than any other race, and I think that's untrue - horses are more likely to die in the GN than most other races,so it clearly is more dangerous. That's why this conversation is about the National and whether it needs to be made safer

now, if we want to discuss the broader issue of fatalities in horse racing in general, it's pretty much already been covered. if we have horseracing, we accept there will be deaths, or we have no horseracing. the National should not be treated as a special case in isolation.

 

[ROSM]

I
And it is that anticipated reaction - innocent and pure - that has me questioning it, and I say that as someone who has grown into racing over the last 10 years and had some incredible days out racing..................I know the National is not going to be banned and I know that beyond the 'entertainment' line trotted out, racing is an industry that provides a lot of jobs, but it's not sitting very well with me personally right now.

I fully understand your viewpoint on this. We've taken our kids flat racing quite regularly - they've been to Goodwood and Brighton. They love the atmosphere and seeing the horses in the paddock (and winners enclosure afterwards) and the excitement of watching the race and cheering for the horses.

However I turned over when the BBC coverage of the grand national started at 1pm on saturday as I dont think they are ready for the national hunt version and the increased risk that brings.

Now I know that fatalities can occur in flat racing (including Horatio Nelson at the 2006 derby) but the fact I can name the horse and the year shows it really is a rarity.

I'm not calling for a ban but the horses now go faster and stronger than ever and they are now more fragile (call it highly tuned) than perhaps 10 years ago. In the same way as the race evolved in the 80's with higher safety measures, perhaps the time is right to evolve it again. It will probably be okay for 15 or so years until the next time that the speed and power of the horses overcomes the measure put in place

I also hare UNcle S's view on the winning jockey. Anybody who has to whip the horse as they did in the final run (wasn't it 16 times which is a whip almost every 3 strides) then cant possibly put together a defence that they put the horses 'reasonable' welfare above their own personal gain and that is the least you would ask of a jockey.

 

[Waynflete]

well, that may be the case, but i shall remind you where we started... (and my point was to disprove it)



now, if we want to discuss the broader issue of fatalities in horse racing in general, it's pretty much already been covered. if we have horseracing, we accept there will be deaths, or we have no horseracing. the National should not be treated as a special case in isolation.

Okay. I was referring to the multiple arguments put forward that the length of the course and the height of the jumps makes the GN more dangerous than other races. You haven't managed to provide proof that that's not correct, but I'll accept nor have I provided proof that it is. So without wanting to become even more pedantic and anal, here's my original post which is perhaps where I should have left it to start with!

"I don't think it's helpful to turn this into a polarised debate about whether a particular race should be banned or not. Unless you ban horse-racing entirely there will always be a risk that horses (and riders) will be injured or killed. The question should be where do you set the limits of acceptable risk and what actions do you take to reduce risk down to that level? In Formula One, for example, there are hundreds of regulations that attempt to reduce risk to the drivers and some of those are detrimental to racing in the view of some.

"In my opinion the risks associated with the Grand National are too great and they need to make further changes to reduce them. But it's not quite the same as saying 'ban this' or 'ban that' as that's a much too simplistic argument."

 

[Tooting Gull]

I've been personally mulling this over since Saturday...

For the first time, I got my daughter involved in the National - getting her to choose a horse (she chose 2 as it happens) and I placed each-way bets for her. The intention was we'd all sit down and watch the race together - all with a small vested interest.

As it happens she had a birthday party on Saturday afternoon so we couldn't watch it live. However, on reading about the fatalities and how what had happened was oh-so-obvious on the TV footage I decided we wouldn't watch it back claiming the PVR had failed to record it. I did this as I knew my daughter would have got pretty upset at it all.

And it is that anticipated reaction - innocent and pure - that has me questioning it, and I say that as someone who has grown into racing over the last 10 years and had some incredible days out racing, with the best being at Cheltenham. In fact, I'd probably rate seeing Best Mate's third Gold Cup win as my favourite live sporting occasion, above the Albion's Cup semi, the Cup Final, the playoff finals, Hereford and various promotions.

I know the National is not going to be banned and I know that beyond the 'entertainment' line trotted out, racing is an industry that provides a lot of jobs, but it's not sitting very well with me personally right now.

A very reasoned argument. But if there ever is to be change, it will be from pressure from outside the racing industry. They just can't see it. It will be government level, if at all.

Racing KNOWS it is upsetting for, especially, young children, but think that a putting up a screen here and some careful TV editing there is somehow the answer.

 

[Iggle Piggle]

Just one thing to add to the mix. 2 maybe 3 years ago I was watching the National in Aintree in the cheap seats by the first fence - An exciting a spectacle as you can possible see in live sport in my view when 40 horses thunder down to the 1st. It simply takes your breath away.

That year, Mick Fitzgerald fell on L'ami and broke his back right in front of the stand. That fence has no run off either side, so there were 3 choices for when the horses came round the second time. (1) Stop the race (2) Partition off half the Fence or (3) Move Mick Fitz. Someone, somewhere decided on option 2.What transpired was one fat bloke putting white sticks in the fence whilst another ran around looking busy but not doing anything at all. An Ambulance arrived but overall there was no leadership and panic stations everywhere.

In the end someone pointed out the obvious. You can't have someone lying on the floor with a broken back yards away from where 30 odd horses are just about to jump, oblivious to what is the other side. A snap decision was made, fitz was moved and the partition on the fence was removed with seconds to spare. Mick Fitz was probably luckily he didn't get permanent damage given the haste with which he was ejected. Meanwhile to viewers on the TV it looked like nothing had happened.

That day it struck me there is a very big accident waiting to happen. And within that lies the problem. The British Horseracing Authority which may have changed names a few times but still remains the same thing. The last remaining old boys club with leadership stuck in the British empire. They don't give enough thought to safety, public image, future clientele etc as they are too busy protecting thier own interests. They make the FA look like Apple.

As I said above. Horse live like kings most of the time and have a lifestyle we can only dream of. It's just a shame in the 21st Century that we can't come up with a better idea than covering up a dead horse with a bit of tarp and hoping no-one will notice. It's no wonder some of the wider public see it as a bit barbaric. For that, the BHA have to take thier share of the blame. It doesn't help that a 5 day ban for whip abuse is made as well. As if that will stop someone next time. It's like the receiving a retrospective yello card for punching the winning goal in the net.

 

[Woodchip]

...They make the FA look like Apple....

What, a bunch of useless idiots that only care about profit and care nothing for the end user?

 

[Leekbrookgull]

Believe it or not, the race is probably actually safer than it ever has been. Aintree have worked really hard making the racecourse still a challenge but far less harmful - reducing the drop from some fences, watering the fast course and for the first time this year unfortunately, bypassing fences. Honestly, you go back and look at some Nationals from decades gone by and how devastating it used to look then.

The main reason why there were two fatalities this year was down to the run of the race more than anything - they went off at a breakneck pace on still pretty quick ground, and as a result were always running the risk of more error in judgement with the jumping. Ballabriggs was the second-quickest ever winner of the race, which goes to show how fast they were going.

It's very sad that there were two fatalities in this year's race - it's very understandable why so many people are upset with what happened this year (especially as there were explanations as to why the fences were bypassed) and it was inevitable that this debate has come up again.

I can see both sides of the argument, but personally I think racing should continue with this time-honoured tradition and let Aintree do what they can in making the race safer so that what happened to Ornais and Dooneys Gate becomes less of a rarity in future runnings of the race. After all, the clerk of the course must feel more disappointed about how Saturday turned out than anybody and will do his utmost to ensure next year all forty horses are unharmed.

Fair coment,in fact i believe Ginger McCann (?) has gone on record saying now the risk element (whatever that is) has been taken outt or greatly reduced it allows the race to be run at an even faster pace and surely that must increase the risk ?