Grand National

[nebristolred]

32 minutes ago, spudski said:

The Grand National should be the least of people's worries when you look at these figures regarding pet dog ownership. 

https://www.directlinegroup.co.uk/en/news/brand-news/2017/dog-fights---64-000-canines-die-in-12-months.html

Has it crossed your mind that both can be wrong at the same time?

[spudski]

Just now, nebristolred said:

Has it crossed your mind that both can be wrong at the same time?

Mate you've just liked a post by someone who thinks the link is about organised dog fights

It's about deaths through pet ownership. 

[Rob k]

47 minutes ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

I agree totally with your point about education and trying to teach people what is harmful to dogs.

When I was a young boy, we had a dog as a family pet; a mongrel that was part sheepdog, part golden retriever and probably a few other breeds as well.

She was extremely well behaved and much loved and well treated by our entire family.

She had free range of our garden (she would sleep inside the house at night) and would be walked at least twice a day, down to the local park where, if circumstances allowed, her lead would be removed and, again, she would run free, returning to heel if she was called.

Her collar, though, was what was called a ‘choke collar’, something that worked just as it’s name suggests.

If we were walking her, and she moved as if to chase a cat, we would pull on the lead and the collar would constrict, thus stopping her in her tracks.

Looking back, such a collar seems extremely cruel, and I imagine they are now banned, but they were quite acceptable back then.

Oh, and as I mentioned, our dog was loveable, well behaved and very affectionate.

I imagine the majority say their dog is loveable, well behaved and affectionate until they bite someone and get killed for it. 

[nebristolred]

25 minutes ago, spudski said:

Mate you've just liked a post by someone who thinks the link is about organised dog fights

It's about deaths through pet ownership. 

I know exactly what it was I clicked the link. My like was regarding your deflection, you do it every time.

Why can I not be against horse racing as well as being against poor pet owners? All you ever do is deflect from the point - making out that you may well be annoyed at X but you could/should also be annoyed at Y! It doesn't negate the from the point, all it is is you trying to steer the conversation away.

Can we not debate about the horse racing? Not what protestors 'should' be spending time on in your view. Just the actual point itself. 

Edited April 16, 2023 by nebristolred

[Slacker]

21 minutes ago, spudski said:

Mate I answered you properly in a previous post which you've chosen to ignore. 

You've also completely misread or just glanced at the link I posted. That is not organised fights...but injuries and deaths to pets. 

I feel you are just being flippant now. 

I assure you that I have not intended to be flippant.I am also not sure what you think I have ignored. Regarding your link,you are absolutely right that I glanced at it and closed it.As a dog owner,I don't want to read anything relating to dog fights.Should I speak to the people involved. Would they tell me how well they look after their dogs and that dogs fight in the wild?Your posts mostly consist of saying talk to the people who make their living in horse racing and they will tell you what a great job they do.

[grifty]

Imagine thinking that because the horses are treated well, it doesn't matter if they get injured during a race and are destroyed there and then...

[Club and Country]

im not getting into this whole argument about whether it's right or wrong etc etc 

however, after what happened on Saturday, what happens next? Surely the protests now get bigger every year, the outcry gets louder? 
For me the floodgates have opened now and racing is going to have a right scramble on its hands (mainly the big meets, Cheltenham, aintree etc) 

notice that Alex who has led the protests so far is on talksport with Simon Jordan later, be an interesting listen that

[spudski]

9 hours ago, Slacker said:

I assure you that I have not intended to be flippant.I am also not sure what you think I have ignored. Regarding your link,you are absolutely right that I glanced at it and closed it.As a dog owner,I don't want to read anything relating to dog fights.Should I speak to the people involved. Would they tell me how well they look after their dogs and that dogs fight in the wild?Your posts mostly consist of saying talk to the people who make their living in horse racing and they will tell you what a great job they do.

Mate I responded to you about people engaging with the industry in the post previous to my link about dog deaths. 

You chose to ignore that. 

It was spoken about during the commentary at the Grand National. Those against it when invited do not want to engage and educate themselves further. 

It seems a common theme with a lot of the protests going on around the country, on various issues, that when interviewed, many of the protestors have very little knowledge about the subject they are protesting against. When cross examined can't offer solutions or know the subject matter. 

 

[spudski]

Whether people agree with it or not, the words from the trainer, who's horse died, regarding the ignorance of the protestors on how their actions would cause more harm than good proves my point. 

If they knew anything about horse behaviour they wouldn't have protested just before the race started. 

Worth a read...

https://news.sky.com/story/grand-national-trainer-of-horse-that-suffered-fatal-fall-blames-ignorant-animal-rising-protesters-for-death-12859159

[Slacker]

34 minutes ago, spudski said:

Mate I responded to you about people engaging with the industry in the post previous to my link about dog deaths. 

You chose to ignore that. 

It was spoken about during the commentary at the Grand National. Those against it when invited do not want to engage and educate themselves further. 

It seems a common theme with a lot of the protests going on around the country, on various issues, that when interviewed, many of the protestors have very little knowledge about the subject they are protesting against. When cross examined can't offer solutions or know the subject matter. 

 

I replied to your comment about engaging with the industry. I said I wouldn't expect to get an accurate (warts and all) insight from owners,trainers etc that make their livelihood from horseracing.You are going to be shown and told what they want you to see.Pretty much like any business. 

[BCFCAL]

Big lover of horse racing, including the national, but do the fences need to be that high? I like the long race, and I like the jumps, but I don't think they need to be as high as they are. Would lead to less deaths, which would mean not many racing deaths in the UK.

[spudski]

19 minutes ago, Slacker said:

I replied to your comment about engaging with the industry. I said I wouldn't expect to get an accurate (warts and all) insight from owners,trainers etc that make their livelihood from horseracing.You are going to be shown and told what they want you to see.Pretty much like any business. 

When you engage with an industry, they will show you how it works, the pros and cons. 

By engaging the protestors can give their point of view. Offer different solutions and try to find common ground. 

Refusing to engage just shows ignorance. 

How can anyone be taken seriously, if they want to change something, but haven't a clue about the thing they want to change or even offer a solution?

You say I deflect ( I see it as opening up the debate), yet all you are doing is assuming the industry won't listen. Or more likely...' You don't want to listen to them, because you won't like the answers given' . 

Like most protests...all done in good faith, but often ignorant to the subject, offer no solutions, and end up doing more harm than good. 

[phantom]

On 15/04/2023 at 18:21, nebristolred said:

Bigger bell ends are the ones who put horses unnecessarily at risk tbh.

7 times more likely to die over jumps v flats. Totally unnecessary and yet you hear the usual bull**** from the owners who claim to care for their welfare.

Or let them roam around fields without being looked after?

[Red-Robbo]

The last thing owners and trainers (many of whom are also full or part-owners of horses) want is for their horses to die or be seriously injured. This is not just because of sentiment: they will have invested hundreds of thousands of pounds, sometimes millions, in the animal.  Jockeys too, want above all, for their mount to remain on all four legs. Falls can sometimes be fatal for them too, and serious broken bones or repeat concussions requiring months off work and sometimes ending careers are not unusual. 

Stats say 0.2% of thoroughbreds die in racing accidents in the UK and Ireland. In other racing territories, jump racing is less of a major sport, so probably a smaller percentage there, as flat racing is much safer.

Can the industry improve? Almost certainly. Smaller fields in jump events, lower jumps and wider tracks all help riders ensure their horse approaches each obstacle in stride and with less danger of being pushed or clipped and stumbling into the fence.

However, you'll never be able to make the sport entirely horse-safe. As soon as humans bred up the natural wiry little pony to be this elongated backed, huge chested, limber legged creature that can carry a man, we bred in inherent genetic weakness. Add in the inbreeding that produces thoroughbreds and you magnify the equine's fragility and temperament issues. Many more horses will die in fields or stables by simply kicking out at something solid, than will die on a racetrack. They are - unfortunately - fragile creatures.

The industry has changed dramatically from the days where old nags would be sent to the glue factory on retirement and unraceable foals simply shot. There are a multitude of equine rehoming and retirement charities, supported in large by this multi-billion-pound industry that knows it needs to improve its public image. Racing thoroughbreds are monitored and vetted more extensively than human athletes probably, and in the case of stallions retired to stud probably get even more perks! An endless parade of totty and they don't even have to chat them up or send them flowers afterwards! 

[OneTeamInBristol]

Awful lot of users in this thread who have clearly never set foot inside a stud farm or equestrian centre but appear to be experts in the field, what a surprise.

[Rob k]

1 hour ago, BCFCAL said:

Big lover of horse racing, including the national, but do the fences need to be that high? I like the long race, and I like the jumps, but I don't think they need to be as high as they are. Would lead to less deaths, which would mean not many racing deaths in the UK.

They have made the fences smaller - the horses therefore go quicker!! 

[Slacker]

59 minutes ago, spudski said:

When you engage with an industry, they will show you how it works, the pros and cons. 

By engaging the protestors can give their point of view. Offer different solutions and try to find common ground. 

Refusing to engage just shows ignorance. 

How can anyone be taken seriously, if they want to change something, but haven't a clue about the thing they want to change or even offer a solution?

You say I deflect ( I see it as opening up the debate), yet all you are doing is assuming the industry won't listen. Or more likely...' You don't want to listen to them, because you won't like the answers given' . 

Like most protests...all done in good faith, but often ignorant to the subject, offer no solutions, and end up doing more harm than good. 

I am not singling out horseracing when I assume a lack of transparency. It is a generilalisation of most businesses. Where I work we are audited several times a year.It is a very different place during the audits.Why would a business present their darker side knowing the criticism it will attract and possible loss of business?

As you point out,and I have admitted, I know nothing about the ins and outs of horseracing.If I went to a stable,I wouldn’t know what to look for.I wouldn’t know what to ask.I certainly wouldn't expect the owner of the business to change his practices to suit my beliefs.Do you think he would listen to me and then make adjustments that would affect his livelihood?

It was an interesting comment the owner of the horse that was destroyed made about the horses being unsettled due to the protest.Food for thought for the protesters.

I don't pretend to have all the answers.Is the whip entirely necessary? Do they horses have to go over jumps,and do the jumps have to be so high?I don't know.I am fairly sure though that if I engaged with the owners/ trainers etc they wouldn't remove the fences and stop the jockeys from using the whip.You are much more informed about this,so playing Devils Advocate,what could I realistically hope to achieve if I went to a stable with a genuinely  open mind?

[spudski]

8 minutes ago, Slacker said:

I am not singling out horseracing when I assume a lack of transparency. It is a generilalisation of most businesses. Where I work we are audited several times a year.It is a very different place during the audits.Why would a business present their darker side knowing the criticism it will attract and possible loss of business?

As you point out,and I have admitted, I know nothing about the ins and outs of horseracing.If I went to a stable,I wouldn’t know what to look for.I wouldn’t know what to ask.I certainly wouldn't expect the owner of the business to change his practices to suit my beliefs.Do you think he would listen to me and then make adjustments that would affect his livelihood?

It was an interesting comment the owner of the horse that was destroyed made about the horses being unsettled due to the protest.Food for thought for the protesters.

I don't pretend to have all the answers.Is the whip entirely necessary? Do they horses have to go over jumps,and do the jumps have to be so high?I don't know.I am fairly sure though that if I engaged with the owners/ trainers etc they wouldn't remove the fences and stop the jockeys from using the whip.You are much more informed about this,so playing Devils Advocate,what could I realistically hope to achieve if I went to a stable with a genuinely  open mind?

Thanks for the honest answer. 

Animal welfare charities work with the horse racing industry. It's one of the most regulated sports industries in the world. 

Constant dialogue goes on, adjustments made,  whip use has been reduced recently and height of jumps lowered. But as Rob pointed out...they then run faster into the jumps. 

Whips are used to guide horses...not just to whip them. Put to the side etc...placed. 

I have no problem with changes being made. Dialogue and knowledge from both sides is essential. 

My problem is the protestors and people calling for change...who have literally no knowledge of the industry and the welfare given to the horses. Who refuse to engage, and refuse to educate themselves. 

They do harm than good. If those protesters knew anything about race horses, they would have known that protesting when they did, would cause harm to the horses. And as that trainer pointed out, his horse was worked up so much, that it was most likely that that caused him to fall. Hadn't fallen before, no history, nothing in its way. An error of judgement by a stressed out horse. Like I say...the protestors did more damage than good...through being uneducated. 

It's the same with other protests going on with other causes. 

Often uneducated on the subject, blinkered in wanting to be educated, heart ruling head, and offer no solutions that are practical. 

Not a dig at you...but it's a common theme with protestors. 

[LondonBristolian]

2 hours ago, spudski said:

Whether people agree with it or not, the words from the trainer, who's horse died, regarding the ignorance of the protestors on how their actions would cause more harm than good proves my point. 

If they knew anything about horse behaviour they wouldn't have protested just before the race started. 

Worth a read...

https://news.sky.com/story/grand-national-trainer-of-horse-that-suffered-fatal-fall-blames-ignorant-animal-rising-protesters-for-death-12859159

This leads to a further question though. Given that the protests HAD happened, should. It's very easy to say the protesters don't know about horse behaviour but I imagine the horse trainers do. Surely they would have been able to make an assessment of whether their horses were in an appropriate psychological state to safely race and to make the necessary decision for the horse's health. 

What the trainer seems to be saying is that he knew the horse was in a psychological state that was going to impact on his safety to race but did not withdraw the horse. Allowing the horse to continue was the trainer's decision and not the protesters' one.

If a footballer supporter lobbed an object at footballer and the Manager & Physio convinced the player play on when they suspected he was concussed and he sustained a serious injury then - whilst the Manager & Physio could rightly point to the fact that the initial injury was the responsibility of the supporter - they'd have to take the consequences for their failure of duty or care in making the player play on when unfit to do so.

The Trainer might be able to blame the protesters for the horse not being fit to race but he's going to have to find himself a mirror if he wants to find the person who had that knowledge and did not safeguard its welfare.

[spudski]

36 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

This leads to a further question though. Given that the protests HAD happened, should. It's very easy to say the protesters don't know about horse behaviour but I imagine the horse trainers do. Surely they would have been able to make an assessment of whether their horses were in an appropriate psychological state to safely race and to make the necessary decision for the horse's health. 

What the trainer seems to be saying is that he knew the horse was in a psychological state that was going to impact on his safety to race but did not withdraw the horse. Allowing the horse to continue was the trainer's decision and not the protesters' one.

If a footballer supporter lobbed an object at footballer and the Manager & Physio convinced the player play on when they suspected he was concussed and he sustained a serious injury then - whilst the Manager & Physio could rightly point to the fact that the initial injury was the responsibility of the supporter - they'd have to take the consequences for their failure of duty or care in making the player play on when unfit to do so.

The Trainer might be able to blame the protesters for the horse not being fit to race but he's going to have to find himself a mirror if he wants to find the person who had that knowledge and did not safeguard its welfare.

It's a valid point. However a trainer wouldn't let his horse race if it was 100% a problem. They tried to calm the animal and took a calculated judgement. Sadly he fell. 

If you protest about something, at least no something about the subject you're protesting about. That's common sense. 

Sadly...a lot of these protestors, many are all over every protest. Regardless. For protest sake. 

[BCFCAL]

2 hours ago, Rob k said:

They have made the fences smaller - the horses therefore go quicker!! 

As far as I was aware, all they've really done is made the landing areas higher, rather than lower the fences, and even that was quite a few years back.

[Kid in the Riot]

1 hour ago, spudski said:

My problem is the protestors and people calling for change...who have literally no knowledge of the industry and the welfare given to the horses. Who refuse to engage, and refuse to educate themselves. 

They do harm than good. If those protesters knew anything about race horses, they would have known that protesting when they did, would cause harm to the horses. And as that trainer pointed out, his horse was worked up so much, that it was most likely that that caused him to fall. Hadn't fallen before, no history, nothing in its way. An error of judgement by a stressed out horse. Like I say...the protestors did more damage than good...through being uneducated. 

It's the same with other protests going on with other causes. 

Often uneducated on the subject, blinkered in wanting to be educated, heart ruling head, and offer no solutions that are practical. 

Not a dig at you...but it's a common theme with protestors. 

What's your evidence for protestors being "uneducated" exactly?

I think you'll find most are very clued up on animal welfare. Just looking at three of the founders of XR, we have: Roger Hallam, a former farmer with a PHD, Gail Bradbrook, a PHD in molecular biophysics, and Tamsin Omond, a masters degree in ecology.

For the trainer to try and blame the protestors for the death of the horse is quite extraordinary, but then we should all be used to these kind of gaslighting tactics by now. 

[Super]

15 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

What's your evidence for protestors being "uneducated" exactly?

I think you'll find most are very clued up on animal welfare. Just looking at three of the founders of XR, we have: Roger Hallam, a former farmer with a PHD, Gail Bradbrook, a PHD in molecular biophysics, and Tamsin Omond, a masters degree in ecology.

For the trainer to try and blame the protestors for the death of the horse is quite extraordinary, but then we should all be used to these kind of gaslighting tactics by now. 

In fairness they made a complete mess of what they were trying to achieve on Saturday

[spudski]

23 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

What's your evidence for protestors being "uneducated" exactly?

I think you'll find most are very clued up on animal welfare. Just looking at three of the founders of XR, we have: Roger Hallam, a former farmer with a PHD, Gail Bradbrook, a PHD in molecular biophysics, and Tamsin Omond, a masters degree in ecology.

For the trainer to try and blame the protestors for the death of the horse is quite extraordinary, but then we should all be used to these kind of gaslighting tactics by now. 

When they are interviewed at the protest...the protesters are often clueless and have no answers or resolution when questioned why they are there. 

[nebristolred]

4 hours ago, phantom said:

Or let them roam around fields without being looked after?

Or maybe just don’t breed them for a sport offering this level of risk?

[Big C]

20 minutes ago, nebristolred said:

Or maybe just don’t breed them for a sport offering this level of risk?

which would mean throughbred horses would become extinct

[nebristolred]

20 minutes ago, Big C said:

which would mean throughbred horses would become extinct

This is always an argument that people use and it makes no sense. Surely you don't believe that everything that can exist, should exist?

Edited April 17, 2023 by nebristolred

[Big C]

6 minutes ago, nebristolred said:

This is always an argument that people use and it makes no sense. Surely you don't believe that everything that can exist, should exist?

so are you saying that you would be happy to see these magnificent beasts to disappear for ever?

[nebristolred]

21 minutes ago, Big C said:

so are you saying that you would be happy to see these magnificent beasts to disappear for ever?

I think it's quite clear that I'd be happy for them to be bred for reasons other than profiteering and a potentially horrendous death, yes.

If we can't find a safe use for these horses then perhaps that says more about us than them. Doing away with jumps would reduce deaths by 80%, that would be a start. And you can still have your horses.

As with most on your side of the argument though you are simply presenting a problem while presumably having zero intent to debate or answer the moral problem. Maybe you're happy seeing all of these horses killed.

Edited April 17, 2023 by nebristolred

[Big C]

6 minutes ago, nebristolred said:

I think it's quite clear that I'd be happy for them to be bred for reasons other than profiteering and a potentially horrendous death, yes.

If we can't find a safe use for these horses then perhaps that says more about us than them. Doing away with jumps would reduce deaths by 80%, that would be a start. And you can still have your horses.

As with most on your side of the argument though you are simply presenting a problem while presumably having zero intent to debate or answer the moral problem. Maybe you're happy seeing all of these horses killed.

Can't really see a moral problem to debate. In the grand scheme of thing its a small percentage of runners that are killed. Yes of course we would like that to be zero but with most things in life there is an element of risk