2023 Grand National

[chrisp65]

Put it another way, if there’s a similar protest next year, knowing what they now know, do you think the owners and organisers will cancel the race for the welfare of the horses?

[robby b]

From Wikipedia, an extract that covers both sides of the debate about the protest:

"The next day trainer Sandy Thomson told the BBC that the 14 minute delay caused by protesters is to blame for the death of racehorse Hill Sixteen. However, the British Horseracing Authority, which condemned the protests, could not find a "direct parallel" between the delay caused by the protests and Hill Sixteen's death. Animal Rising spokesman Ben Newman argued that the protests were meant to stop the race to prevent the deaths of horses, and to start a dialogue about our broken relationship with animals. He also stated that that the public does not blame the group for the horse's death. Following Hill Sixteen's death, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals called for reforming the size of the field, noting that only 17 of the 39 horses completed the race that day. Animal Rising have said they plan to target other major horse-riding events."

I believe him when he says he wanted to stop the race (rather than delay it till later that afternoon) but I just wonder if he was perhaps a bit naive if he really thought they had a good chance of achieving that.

[AvfcRigo82]

On 22/04/2023 at 21:20, chrisp65 said:

Put it another way, if there’s a similar protest next year, knowing what they now know, do you think the owners and organisers will cancel the race for the welfare of the horses?

No. Nothing to do with welfare of the horses as has been explained numerous times in the thread already, and also by trainers, jockeys and pundits etc.

For those people who don't like horse racing or don't agree with it they should go and watch Peppa Pig.

[chrisp65]

7 hours ago, AvfcRigo82 said:

No. Nothing to do with welfare of the horses as has been explained numerous times in the thread already, and also by trainers, jockeys and pundits etc.

For those people who don't like horse racing or don't agree with it they should go and watch Peppa Pig.

 

Running the horse you ‘love’ in a set of circumstances where last year in the same circumstances 1 in 20 horses died.

That doesn’t sound too much like love or welfare to me. That sounds like the calculated risk of losing an animal for the entertainment value and a payday.

Would you run a horse in a race with a 5% fatality rate?

 

[AvfcRigo82]

2 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

Running the horse you ‘love’ in a set of circumstances where last year in the same circumstances 1 in 20 horses died.

That doesn’t sound too much like love or welfare to me. That sounds like the calculated risk of losing an animal for the entertainment value and a payday.

Would you run a horse in a race with a 5% fatality rate?

Running a horse in an event it's bred for and trained for.. yes.

The dangers of horse racing whether you're the horse, a jockey, trainer or just the stable lad, all has an element of risk. Risk doesn't just happen on the racecourse. It's part and parcel of the industry.

Everyone in the game knows the element of risk involved, however, owners/trainers don't enter a horse into a race thinking/hoping it's going to die.

If a horse I owned was good enough to enter the Grand National or whatever then yes, it would be entered.

But again, as highlighted already in the thread, jump or flat racing - there's fatalities everywhere on occasions in horse racing. It is what it is.

 

[Rds1983]

4 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

 

Running the horse you ‘love’ in a set of circumstances where last year in the same circumstances 1 in 20 horses died.

That doesn’t sound too much like love or welfare to me. That sounds like the calculated risk of losing an animal for the entertainment value and a payday.

Would you run a horse in a race with a 5% fatality rate?

 

The way I look at it is whether I would accept those odds if I were the horse? Would I participate in a Squid Games type scenario knowing I had a 5% chance of death? Would I volunteer my son to play in the game?

No, not a chance.

Would people accept those odds if it was a game of football? That one of the players would die every now and again.

No, not a chance.

The only difference is horses vs humans. Yet people say they love the horses and treat them well.

[chrisp65]

1 hour ago, AvfcRigo82 said:

Running a horse in an event it's bred for and trained for.. yes.

The dangers of horse racing whether you're the horse, a jockey, trainer or just the stable lad, all has an element of risk. Risk doesn't just happen on the racecourse. It's part and parcel of the industry.

Everyone in the game knows the element of risk involved, however, owners/trainers don't enter a horse into a race thinking/hoping it's going to die.

If a horse I owned was good enough to enter the Grand National or whatever then yes, it would be entered.

But again, as highlighted already in the thread, jump or flat racing - there's fatalities everywhere on occasions in horse racing. It is what it is.

 

 

Boom. It is what it is, I accept the 1 in 20 chance my horse will die.

That’s fine, that’s the first time someone on the pro grand national side has said that even though it was clearly the case all along.

I’m not sure why it took so many pages to get there.

[Stevo985]

14 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

 

Boom. It is what it is, I accept the 1 in 20 chance my horse will die.

That’s fine, that’s the first time someone on the pro grand national side has said that even though it was clearly the case all along.

I’m not sure why it took so many pages to get there.

And the animal rights argument is what right do people have to decide that a horse should enter a race where there's a chance they will be killed.

 

Being bred for it isn't an excuse. It's as bad as the "they're treated well while they're alive" argument

[chrisp65]

20 minutes ago, Rds1983 said:

The way I look at it is whether I would accept those odds if I were the horse? Would I participate in a Squid Games type scenario knowing I had a 5% chance of death? Would I volunteer my son to play in the game?

No, not a chance.

Would people accept those odds if it was a game of football? That one of the players would die every now and again.

No, not a chance.

The only difference is horses vs humans. Yet people say they love the horses and treat them well.

I’ve just been after some honesty about it and about this love of the animal and incredible levels of welfare. Once people can be honest with themselves and see that they are risking welfare for entertainment at the Grand national, then perhaps they begin to see how it could be improved. Or genuinely state they feel they’ve got the risk vs reward about where they want it.

 

 

[AvfcRigo82]

45 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

 

Boom. It is what it is, I accept the 1 in 20 chance my horse will die.

That’s fine, that’s the first time someone on the pro grand national side has said that even though it was clearly the case all along.

I’m not sure why it took so many pages to get there.

Or more like the answer you wanted to hear to suit your agenda! Yes?

It's been answered in so many ways already in the thread but none of that mattered to you or was taken any notice as it wasn't what you wanted to hear. 

Edit:  The industry is what it is - it's not just horses that have a risk of injury*

As I say, if you or any of the other delicate folk that don't like horse racing or don't agree with it should go and watch Peppa Pig.

 

Edited April 26, 2023 by AvfcRigo82

[AvfcRigo82]

22 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Being bred for it isn't an excuse. It's as bad as the "they're treated well while they're alive" argument

It's no excuse. It's fact.

You must agree with it to an extent though?

You go to Cheltenham every year don't you and place bets on these horses.

[Stevo985]

9 minutes ago, AvfcRigo82 said:

It's no excuse. It's fact.

You must agree with it to an extent though?

You go to Cheltenham every year don't you and place bets on these horses.

Yeah I do, which is why I previously said I don't have a strong opinion either way.

I'm just playing devil's advocate. And my issue is with the argument rather than the opinion, if that makes sense. I'm well aware that going to Cheltenham is somewhat hypocritical.

 

I agree that it's fact. These animals are bred to race. Just like billions of animals are bred to be slaughtered and eaten. That doesn't make it right. If anything it makes it worse

Edited April 26, 2023 by Stevo985

[Wainy316]

Not taking either stance in this debate but there's no way that 1 in 20 racehorses die racing.

Edited April 26, 2023 by Wainy316

[chrisp65]

8 minutes ago, AvfcRigo82 said:

Or more like the answer you wanted to hear to suit your agenda! Yes?

It's been answered in so many ways already in the thread but none of that mattered to you or was taken any notice as it wasn't what you wanted to hear. 

Edit:  The industry is what it is - it's not just horses that have a risk of injury*

As I say, if you or any of the other delicate folk that don't like horse racing or don't agree with it should go and watch Peppa Pig.

 

In fairness to you, I don’t think you’ve understood much of this discussion.

[chrisp65]

1 minute ago, Wainy316 said:

Not taking either stance in this debate but there's no way that 1 in 20 racehorses die racing.

It’s a reference to this year’s Grand National.

This year, 2 horses died from a field of 39 runners.

The question was, given what we know about this year if all the circumstances were the same in 2024, would you run your horse.

Nobody has said 1 in 20 horses die racing. 

[AvfcRigo82]

5 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

In fairness to you, I don’t think you’ve understood much of this discussion.

You're probably right, it's hard to keep up with you while you keep going round in circles.

[AvfcRigo82]

3 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Nobody has said 1 in 20 horses die racing. 

Really?..

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

I accept the 1 in 20 chance my horse will die.

 

[chrisp65]

22 minutes ago, AvfcRigo82 said:

Really?..

 

C’mon you’re making yourself look silly with this selective edited quoting. Or, you really are struggling to understand and retain what we’re talking about.

Either way, I really don’t see the point in engaging any further. It’s like flogging a dead horse.

[AvfcRigo82]

5 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Either way, I really don’t see the point in engaging any further. It’s like flogging a dead horse.

I agree, off you trot.

[Rugeley Villa]

Horse racing is my main entertainment nowadays replacing football. I love horses they are beautiful majestic animals. I also enjoying betting on them but can also get enjoyment from watching races without having a bet. For the most part horses are treated very well in horse racing and I have no doubt some  owners/staff/trainers even have love for their horses.  You cannot deny the risk especially in jump racing that it poses to horses. Races like the grand national there’s a high risk of a horse or several losing their lives. Even bog standard races it happens often enough . 
 

They have put in extra safety measures to make it safer though and will continue to do so. Do I think it should be banned because horses stand a high chance of dying ? No I don’t, it’s part and parcel of horse racing unfortunately.