Ban the Grand National?

[Bold Seagull]

This is abit different, breading animals for entertainment is inhumane.


I dont believe we can elevate ourselves and our worth above any other creature, and I wouldnt like some creature riding on my back smacking my ass so they can make some money out of me, only to kill or abandon me if they cant..

Are pets not bred for our entertainment? and in turn you must also be a vegetarian because what elevates a horse above a cow which is bred purely for beef etc.? What do you do, ban live stock?

 

[Tooting Gull]

The thing about the racing industry is that they lack the bigger perspective on this issue. They simply cannot see how ordinary people find unnecessary deaths like this a price too high to pay, a bit like fox-hunters didn't get how some people found the practice barbaric.

I'm a big fan of National Hunt racing myself, and go regularly, but I can almost see where the antis are coming from on this.

That idiot McCririck was on Five Live this morning just wittering on without dealing with any of the specific points raised. In one sentence he said 'Everything that can be done has been done to make it safer....but racing can look again at what more can be done'. He compared deaths of horses to deaths in motor-racing - overlooking the fact that no one is forcing the drivers into action, or whipping them on the track.

They would rather that the fences were kept high for impact, and the course not watered too much to favour faster-ground horses, than actually take the steps to ensure more horses got home safely.

 

[Ninja Elephant]

I wouldn't be opposed to banning it....

But that has nothing to do with the race itself, I just don't like the hassle of the day itself. In terms of the actual race, of course it is dangerous. Accidents happen all the time, in every sport and in every day life, that's just the reality. Horses fall all the time, it's an occupational hazard. I've seen them fall on the flat surfaces aswell, but that doesn't make them unsafe. The National is a brutal race, but no more unsafe than any others. It's just the anti-horse racing people getting stuck in again.

 

[Bold Seagull]

The GN is NOT safer now it is more dangerous than before. They should have watered the course heavily, the 100 - 1 plus nags ( like the 2 that died ) should not be allowed to participate as they are not up to it and the wanker who whipped BallaBriggs 16 times in the run in after a 4 and a half mile race should have his testicles flayed. After this I would be fully supportive of the GN in the future.

I would find it hard to believe that anyone wouldn't want that race made safer. There seems to be this unreasonable attitude that the fences have to stay the same height, the course the same length, the same no. of riders. This is simply wrong. Boxing used to be 15 rounds and was reduced, refs stop fights much sooner than they used to. Most F1 tracks are modified year on year along with the cars to continually improve the safety. Every sport looks to improve it's safety.

Horse racing should not be exempt from these improvements (and Aintree has made some, but bypassing a fence because a dead horse is in the way is accepting the death, not making the occurrence less likely!), with this showcase event reaching a point where a death is a rarity not a certainty.

 

[keaton]

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

 

[Waynflete]

The National is a brutal race, but no more unsafe than any others. It's just the anti-horse racing people getting stuck in again.

I would be very surprised if this is true. What's your evidence that the National is no more dangerous than other races?

 

[Scotty Mac]

I would be very surprised if this is true. What's your evidence that the National is no more dangerous than other races?

its obviously dangerous, thats the whole point in it - if it wasnt dangerous, it couldn't be challenging. whether its unsafe or not is a different matter, but i dont think it is that unsafe

using the brighton marathon as an, i admit, pretty poor example - i would be quite comfortable doing a 100, 200 or 400 metre sprint. but if you stuck me in a marathon i am pretty certain that if i tried to complete it as an athlete, it would damn near kill me. does that make the marathon unsafe, or is it merely dangerous because i am doing something that i am out of depth in - as a price of 100/1 on the two dead horses seems to suggest they were

 

[Taybha]

whats quite odd is since the fences have been made smaller the death rate has actually risen if taken in yearly averages , its a huge spectacle unique and watched worldwide and the antis will have their work cut out getting it banned ,but i must admit the sight of prone horses covered in tarpulin as the others ran past did make me think is it all worth it, that i guess must be the question for the owners of the horses that have sadly lost their lives but i would wager they would say with a tear in their eye the show must go on .

 

[Horton's halftime iceberg]

Sorry mate but this is the typical ignorant attitude from someone who reads too much shyte in the newspapers. Every single racehorse leads a far better, healthier lifestyle compared to those that are outside horseracing. They are given the BEST medical care and attention, food and shelter that costs owners hunderds of thousands every year. They are ridden in training yards most days and are fitter and healthier and therefore will lead greater prolonged lives.

It's from the BBC so may just be a load of shyte, but does not really fit into the theory that many horses have good welfare and prolonged lifes, as many have already said on here already, lots of people don't really care about animals in sports and the links to the betting industry, needs far tighter independent/external regulations or it will just carry on.

BBC News - Irish racehorses led to slaughter as recession bites

South Today also did a recent piece on a stable having to put down horses due to people avoiding the bills and too many being breed for the sport.

 

[Ninja Elephant]

I would be very surprised if this is true. What's your evidence that the National is no more dangerous than other races?

I work in a bookies 5 days a week, I watch the racing from every track in the country. Obviously the National is more extreme, considering the length of the race and the height of the obstacles. But I see horses falling every day, as I mentioned they fall on the flat occaisonally too. It's just an occupational hazard. No-one likes to see them fall, but it happens. Even the great Kauto Star took a tumble last year.

 

[Waynflete]

its obviously dangerous, thats the whole point in it - if it wasnt dangerous, it couldn't be challenging. whether its unsafe or not is a different matter, but i dont think it is that unsafe

using the brighton marathon as an, i admit, pretty poor example - i would be quite comfortable doing a 100, 200 or 400 metre sprint. but if you stuck me in a marathon i am pretty certain that if i tried to complete it as an athlete, it would damn near kill me. does that make the marathon unsafe, or is it merely dangerous because i am doing something that i am out of depth in - as a price of 100/1 on the two dead horses seems to suggest they were

By 'unsafe' I'm assuming you mean 'exceeding what is considered an acceptable level of risk', in which case I'd agree with you, and I'd also agree that one of the steps they should take to reduce that risk is not allowing horses who aren't considered up to it to enter in the first place.

 

[Waynflete]

I work in a bookies 5 days a week, I watch the racing from every track in the country. Obviously the National is more extreme, considering the length of the race and the height of the obstacles. But I see horses falling every day, as I mentioned they fall on the flat occaisonally too. It's just an occupational hazard. No-one likes to see them fall, but it happens. Even the great Kauto Star took a tumble last year.

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, but it is clearly relevant for how to make sure racing in general is made acceptably safe for horses and riders.

 

[dingodan]

Are pets not bred for our entertainment? and in turn you must also be a vegetarian because what elevates a horse above a cow which is bred purely for beef etc.? What do you do, ban live stock?

Pets are not bred for our entertainment, no. And if my cat ceased to be "entertaining" (which he is'nt anyway), I wouldnt kill or abandon him. Nor is he here in my flat for my financial gain. He provides companionship and I look after him. It is a mutually respectful and loving relationship. Infact show me any pet owner who keeps their pet for "entertainment".

As for the livestock comparison, horse racing does not contribute to dietary sustenance, just greed and entertainment, so dont pretend these are equivalent.

 

[beorhthelm]

horses are more likely to die in the GN than most other races, so it clearly is more dangerous.

where do you get that from? someones posted the horse deaths above and theres a link from the wiki page on the National that shows the race itself is no more dangerous than other events. yes, hunt meetings with fences are more dangerous than flat racing, but they still have fatalities.

one thing im conscious of is that horses will be put down upon what, for a human, would be moderate injuries. i think this skews the perception of what is a "fatal" accident in horse racing.

 

[Shropshire Seagull]

its obviously dangerous, thats the whole point in it - if it wasnt dangerous, it couldn't be challenging. whether its unsafe or not is a different matter, but i dont think it is that unsafe

using the brighton marathon as an, i admit, pretty poor example - i would be quite comfortable doing a 100, 200 or 400 metre sprint. but if you stuck me in a marathon i am pretty certain that if i tried to complete it as an athlete, it would damn near kill me. does that make the marathon unsafe, or is it merely dangerous because i am doing something that i am out of depth in - as a price of 100/1 on the two dead horses seems to suggest they were

So, just imagine running that marathon, with some twat on yer back, whipping you if he thought you could run a bit faster.

To me its choices of risk and danger, you chose to fly, drive, take part in motor racing or go boxing knowing there is a probability of accidental injury and you make the choice. Does the horse get that choice? Unseated riders show you the horse's preference, sure they wanna keep running, but few choose to keep jumping the fences [even without the weight of a jockey on their back], preferring to go the longer and safer way round.

Reduce the height of fences.

 

[Mtoto]

Pets are not bred for our entertainment, no. And if my cat ceased to be "entertaining" (which he is'nt anyway), I wouldnt kill or abandon him. Nor is he here in my flat for my financial gain. He provides companionship and I look after him. It is a mutually respectful and loving relationship. Infact show me any pet owner who keeps their pet for "entertainment".

As for the livestock comparison, horse racing does not contribute to dietary sustenance, just greed and entertainment, so dont pretend these are equivalent.

Why not? Because it exposes a large hole in your argument?
If you accept that we have the right to use animals for entertainment, why not include the Sunday roast in that? There are 100s of millions of veggies around the world who will tell you that you don't *need* meat to survive. You choose to eat it, for fun, and millions of animals die each year to service that demand.
The premature death rate among beef cattle is 100 per cent. Among Grand National runners, it is less than 2 per cent.
It's not a case of pretending that these are equivalent. To my mind, they clearly are. If you don't like the implications for your own lifestyle, too bad.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

Don't ban it but on alternate years make the jockeys carry the horses around. I never watch the National, but I'd pay to see that.

 

[Tooting Gull]

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.

 

[Kuipers Supporters Club]

I do enjoy watching the sport. However with the Horses, they dont choose to race - they are made to - and if they dont then they are put on the 'scrapheap' . This is different to boxing where someone makes an informed choice about taking a battering.
Nevertheless most of the time it is a very enjoyable sport - apart from this incident at the National, where I think if only one horse had died, and not two then such a fuss wouldn't be made.-
The sport brings joy to many - jump as well as flat racing.

 

[Waynflete]

where do you get that from? someones posted the horse deaths above and theres a link from the wiki page on the National that shows the race itself is no more dangerous than other events. yes, hunt meetings with fences are more dangerous than flat racing, but they still have fatalities.

one thing im conscious of is that horses will be put down upon what, for a human, would be moderate injuries. i think this skews the perception of what is a "fatal" accident in horse racing.

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. The organisation that runs the Horse Death Watch site you refer to also states that the size of jumps and length of races are significant risk factors, thereby making the National a more dangerous race.

As I said above, I'm not arguing for banning the race, or horse-racing more generally, I'm just saying that there should be a more open and far-reaching discussion about how to make races like this less dangerous, because currently in my view the risk to horses is too high.

For the record, here's a quotation from the person who wrote the link you refer to:

"According to government statistics from around 10 years ago, the number of human fatalities per 1,000 car journeys is 0.00004. If the risk to the driver was the same as the Grand National - six deaths in 1,000 - then you would be lucky to still be alive after six months. I doubt many of us would accept this and yet we think it is acceptable for horses to be exposed to these risks."

Dr Kennedy, who lectures on Anglia Ruskin's BSc courses in Animal Behaviour & Welfare and Equine Studies, added: "Here in the UK, the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) record all racecourse injuries and fatalities, analyse them for contributing factors and then make recommendations. For the Grand National course the BHA have changed a number of fences and stipulated the type of ground conditions the race must be run on, but there is still significant risk.

"What we need is greater debate about what is going on here in the UK. On the one hand you have the abolitionists that state that no rate of fatality is acceptable while on the other hand you have people, no doubt including millions who will have a flutter on Saturday, who consider it a sport which entertains and which contributes to the culture of this country.

"The only way of reducing risks even further is to discuss the subject more openly. My own view, however, is that it cannot be morally acceptable that we can statistically expect the carting away of three dead horses every time we have a major multi-day jump meeting like the Grand National."