That's a nonsensical argument Tamerlo. If people indulge in dangerous sports they do it by choice. None of those horses are given the choice. I do however happen to agree that we go to extraordinary lengths to recover them, maybe if they had to pay for their own rescue they would think twice. Your argument is well put Chesney and of course we all have fond memories but that still doesnt make it right to send forty horses charging down the National course every year when we know in all probability that two or more are very likely to die! Accidents happen in racing almost every day but to continue running a race in which the odds are stacked in favour of accidents happening is in my mind negligent to the welfare of these wonderful and trusting creatures!
Stick, what's nonsensical about it? Explain! Yes, people indulge in dangerous sports 'by choice' but how many of them consider the lives of others and those who have to rescue them? So you're sorry for the poor horses.Well, yes, it's sad when two horses die in the Grand National, but I'm talking about human beings' "priorities."
I feared the worse before the off and sadly when I told my better half it was going to b a brutal one because of the going explaining they'd go off at too fast a pace and then land on harder ground and maybe she would might not want to watch , within the first 5 fences she left the room and said I was right. For me the only way the race should go ahead is under the safest ground conditions so therefore the course should gaurantee soft going and if the heavens open then its run on heavy going , this way I feel fatalities would be minimized , unfortunately with this great sport fatalities can't be completely avoided but the conditions can b controlled to safe guard against what we witnessed yesterday with basically half the field falling or being brought down within the first circuit
Humans do what they do by choice Tam. People indulging in dangerous sports do it by choice and people who go rescuing them do it by choice. Of course we value human life more than that of horses. If two jockeys got killed in the race nearly every year it wouldnt be run. It's an unfair race when you see half the field suffering some mishap or other. To put these animals in such extreme danger for the sake of one race is surely inhuman and to have the race billed as the biggest event in the sport with such carnage every year is staggeringly stupid. National Hunt racing does NOT need the Grand National.
But stick 2 horses do not die every year, It's statistically much less than that. But, if no horses die in the next 5 years which could easily happen, it's still the same race with the dangers. Those two accidents were nothing to do with the fences or the ground, one was an unfortunate collision immediately after a fence, the other was a loose horse incident. There is no way you can eliminate these incidents from horse racing. National hunt racing may not need the grand national but it needs horses, it needs jumping at speed, and it needs direct competition, otherwise it is flat racing or eventing. Danger is integral to the sport otherwise why put fences in the way at all. I can fully understand the immediate desire for the scrapping of the race but I really believe that what we are doing by contemplating this is saying, we can do without the runners, the distance, the speed, the dangers, the essence of the sport. And from there the obvious and ultimate lessening of all these is no jump racing at all.
Two deaths this year, two serious injuries also and although I have not seen confirmation a post race fatality from a heart attack. Following on from two deaths in the race last year. It's a trend that needs stopping! The race has too many runners and far too many horses that are complete novices to these fences. By its very nature it's a dangerous race and if every time it is run the headline reads "fatality at National" then every event is a step nearer to the death of National Hunt racing. The profile of this one race encourages negative publicity to steeplechasing every time it is run and therefore, in my simplistic view, we would be better off without it if we wish to retain our sport.
Since 2000 the total number of horse deaths on the Grand National course is 22. For a track that is used so sparingly I think that is a shocking statistic and as horse lovers surely its time to say enough is enough. Do something proactive and bulldoze this inhumane course for the long term good of National Hunt racing.
Gordon Elliott‏@gelliott_racingReply Retweet Favorite · Open No idea where these heart attack rumours have come from but they're NOT true. Chicago Grey on his way home to Ireland with Tharawaat.
I'm a hypocrite. I'm addicted to the excitement of horse racing, but deep down, I know it shouldn't take place. On watching the race, I was horrified by the obstacles they had to get over. I was not the least surprised to see them start going down like nine pins. The fences were horrendous. There was no possible way that a capasity field could complete the course without a bunch of the hitting the deck. This is the problem. If the same percentage of runners crashed in every race, the sport probably wouldn't be able to survive. Sure there will be quite a few years when no deaths are recorded, but when great numbers hit the turf, it becomes just a matter of time before tragedies occur.
If we are going to credit animals with human attributes then surely this should be reciprocated. When you are next watching one of David Attenborough’s brilliant zoological pieces and humans are not intervening to stop animals dying – Darwinism, survival of the fittest – remember that we do not apply that principle to the human race. We pay fortunes in taxes to try and eradicate child poverty and to treat smokers and the obese with self-inflicted health issues. The RSPCA calls for the size of fences generally to be lessened and for fewer runners in races demonstrates a complete lack of understanding. Why don’t they just say “we don’t like horseracing, it is cruel” and then we can learn to ignore them. Reducing the number of runners in a race will reduce the incidence of fatalities in a purely statistical way. If a horse is injured in a seller at Plumpton and subsequently has to be destroyed, that is just as tragic as the fate that befell the horses in the Grand National but it does not provide the platform for publicity of a Worldwide televised event. The next time somebody from the RSPCA needs a medical injection, perhaps they will stop to consider whether it was tested on a laboratory animal that died to further human medicine.
We can't expect animals to treat us as we treat them. We have a duty of care to protect those who are placed in our care. The ethics of horse racing are hard to come to grips with. It can't be in the equine species best interests to sent racing. But those ethics have to weighed against the benefits of the sport to the economy. It becomes a complicated mess. But if we get right down to it, horse racing can't be condoned.
I think it would improve the proportion of horses that die compared with the number that run because less horses would be brought down (According to Pete) and it's quite possible that less horses would fall as they would get a better look at each fence. With regards to this race I love trying to solve it and pick the winner but that pales into insignificance when you think of the cost. I hate watching it, it's the one race that before hand you pretty much know a horse is going to die. I hate that. I honestly believe this race is looking more and more outdated every year and that significant improvements need to be made.
If 22 horses have died in the race since 200 then that is totally unacceptable and the race has no place in today's world. Quelesprit hates the race and asked why I used to love it. I am a child of the black and white sixties and used to go to the cinema in Newbury during the week after the race to watch a replay on the big screen in colour. The thrill of seeing the race in colour was amazing. I also grew up in a household where everything revolved around the fortunes of one leading NH yard (wonder which one?) and it was great to be connected with horses in the race. When a Lambourn yard won the race the whole village turned out to welcome the horse back on the Sunday. So I have many great memories of the race from my formative years. But now the race seems to be an anomoly. The death-rate has gone up and the reason for that is almost irrelevant. 22 deaths in 13 years is too many - simple as that.
I'm a great lover of horses, whether they be racehorses, show jumpers, or just grazing in a field. As most of you know we are more into show jumping, due to Amanda being a show jumper, and in this sport you don't tend to get horses over faced because they are entered into competitions that match their abilities. For most of the races with the really large obstacles there are qualifiers. There are NO Handicaps to tempt inferior horses to compete against the best or to make it more difficult for the best. I have mixed views on the Grand National. On the one hand, for those who complete, it is a massive thrill. For those who get placed it is almost the biggest thrill one can get in unison with a horse. For the winner it's multiple orgasms... The horses are treated like heroes and they know it. Many horses continue to jump round without a jockey, even though they could easily opt out. There is no doubt about it, this is a major spectacle filled with excitement. Then there is that sinking, sickening, feeling when a horse gets injured (I'm not even sorry to say, more so than if a jockey gets injured). This sickening feeling lasts much longer than the excitement of the race. To my mind, the problem is handicapping. Good horses are given a lot of weight to lessen their chance of getting round over 4+ miles and inferior horses are given low weights to tempt them to run in races that they may not be up to. I just don't know what to conclude. I think eventing is a nightmare with those solid fences. Isn't there an even more demanding race somewhere in Europe? Haven't heard about it lately so maybe that was stopped. Something has to be done but I don't know what as some of the accidents have nothing to do with the fact that it's a Grand National. Accidents occur in other races, flat races and on the gallops. Maybe they should trial the National with stiffer qualifying criteria which would reduce the number of competitors and narrow the gap between top and bottom weights making it less of a handicap nightmare.
Didnt two horses die in running at Meydan recently, all horse racing comes with its risk be it Hurdles, Chasing or on the flat and all sports have there risks and some of those risks are associated with dying. Sadly a 25 year old footballer died of a heart attack in Italy yesterday, lets ban football too where do you draw the line. Synchronised obviously enjoyed jumping otherwsie he would still be with us today, he carried on jumping riderless sadly it cost him his life The Grand National needs to stay its a National treasure, but its all about opinions mine is that it should stay.
To say it's not a bookies benefit is massively naive. Can't agree with the poster that said the bookies are paying out on 4 winners. Consider the exposure the race attracts. Think of the number of non racing fans who stick a tenner each way on the race then come back for more and more and more. It's undeniably the most likely way to attract new customers to horse racing. Whether they actually win or lose on the day is largely irrelevant.
Very much in a similar boat as you Cyc. However it has to be said, horse racing has lost its excitement for me in the last few weeks. This season was the first time I'd ever followed racing through a whole calendar year- previously I followed the flat and completely left the jumps alone because I didnt agree with the injuries that were sustained and I had a bit of a conscience struggle if I'm honest (I realise that you do see flat injuries too). I experimented and gave National Hunt a chance this year. It's a great thing for the punters and I can now see why people were hooked. However, I put a lot into Cheltenham this year and if I'm honest I kinda felt empty and was pretty bored by it come the Friday. I think I'm just into other things now-I've done my share of racing, I had some good winners, but sadly they were sparsities in a sea of losers. I will be on the forum a lot less, I will post for the Guineas weekend, then you'll probably just have the odd shout from me on the flat for Royal Ascot & The Derby. You know, sort of the odd flutter with lucky 15s. I'll step away and just be the more casual punter. There are other things to focus on now for me personally. The Grand National hasn't made this decision for me (just to clarify)- it just confirmed what I already knew, as I'd made the decision last week to just slow it down with just Aintree left in the UK jumps season. I've experienced the highs and lows of racing. It's not like there is anything I'd miss now. I know what its like to have a big winner, and also how to lose it all over the next couple of weeks. I've seen both codes- NH and Flat, I've enjoyed them too, it has to be said. But I've also just realised I don't need it any more. I'll watch the big races when I'm not at work, but that aside, it's probably the right time for me to take a back seat with racing. I'll be posting some Irish flat later today as there is a horse I think offers you some top value. After that, it's the first week of May you'll see my next punt and just the top races.
What complete and utter nonsense. Firstly I think two professional footballers have died on the pitch in the last twenty years. Hardly a comparison to 22 horses in about as many events so that argument is nonsensical. Secondly anyone who knows anything about horses will tell you that they are a herd animal and will follow the rest of the herd as many do every year in the National. It doesnt mean they are enjoying it, it simply means they are following their instinct. Applying your logic to the enth degree then and please tell me why the clever Vic Venturi refused yesterday despite his pilots urgings! A National treasure my arse. It has become the flagship of all activists who want to ban the racing of horses full stop. The continuance of the race only lends credance to their arguments!
Spot on Quelesprit - of course it's a bookies benefit. The sport is largely run for the bookies (all-weather and Sunday racing, the growth of evening meetings, etc) and for that reason the race's future is more secure than it would otherwise have been.
Morning all (even if this IS yesterday’s thread) I have read all the posts here and most have justifiable points - which indicates just what an economic and moral dilemma it all is. As horse race fans we love the sport, but we are all aware that the creatures we spend our financial and emotional dollars on, gamble with more than cash - they race, they gamble with their lives. And as humans, it's US that makes them do it. Hence the guilt - but like addicts, we can't quit, so we agonise over it for a while, the carry on as normal. As the years have gone by, we have become more "animal minded" (that's a crap phrase but I couldn't find one better) I'll give you a for instance. As a boy on holiday on Blackpool beach one day - I, along with a lot of adults - witnessed a donkey minder thrashing a reluctant donkey with a leather strap. He really laid into and had obviously lost his temper. It sounds horrendous, and if it happened today not only would he be hauled off by the cops, he'd be lucky not to get lynched by the watching public. Yet on THAT day, no one said a word - it's just a donkey, after all. And it’s this increasing public perception of animal cruelty that brings us to where we are now. I have loved this race down the years, and have great memories of the Red Rum years, and some of my early successes at finding the winner. But always with deaths like Alverton, conveniently tucked away in my memory banks in a box labelled “Open With Care” So reluctantly, I think that maybe now is the time to take drastic action. Love the race as I do, if you offered me a straight choice between accepting the deaths as being part of the Grand National risk, or seeing the race drastically modified, then I’d take the latter option. My own preference would be 30 maximum runners with all runners having completed a race over National fences. If this means extra Aintree meetings to do a “series” of National qualifiers, then so be it – I doubt that the money men would complain. Incidentally, are there NO deaths in the Topham or Foxhunters? Or are they just not highlighted due to the lower profile? Ron: I think you may be thinking of the Czech steeplechase – is it called Pudubicka or something like that – 4+ miles over huge fences, including the table type things that eventers do.
