Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Todays English Grand National

1246

Comments

  • #92
    sensibleken
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    Wolfe Tone wrote: »
    Ok lets ban horseracing and put all the horses down so.

    Whos talking about banning it? We're talking about the Grand National, two horses were killed. Anyone who gave a crap about them (which Im guessing your pretending to do) would think that maybe the course should be looked at to make it safer for horses.

    Jockes may be hurt also but if two were killed in one race then you can bet your arse they would look at changing the course, despite the jockeys choice.


  • #93
    Whispered
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,772 ✭✭✭✭Whispered


    Wolfe Tone wrote: »
    Jockeys risk their lives too and often get hurt.

    I don't know enough about HR to comment on this thread as a whole but I did want to respond to this.

    Jockeys choose to risk their lives. Would you compare boxers or MMA fighters to fighting dogs? Both fight, both are highly trained athletes, both have carefully managed diet and exercise plans. But they are not comparable at all. I think it's similar with all animals in sport. Of course there are people who do all sorts of crazy sports but they know what they are letting themselves in for and choose to do so.


  • #94
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    sensibleken wrote: »
    Whos talking about banning it? We're talking about the Grand National, two horses were killed. Anyone who gave a crap about them (which Im guessing your pretending to do) would think that maybe the course should be looked at to make it safer for horses.

    Jockes may be hurt also but if two were killed in one race then you can bet your arse they would look at changing the course, despite the jockeys choice.
    A horse can break its leg on the flat too.

    The grand national is one race, and is the highlight of the racing calendar. I didnt watch it this year as I was busy doing other things, but I have watched a lot of horse racing, and have been to many meetings over the years, and I dont even gamble, it's a mugs game. Ive seen bad falls and broken legs which have led to horses being destroyed. Its not restricted to one race. Accidents happen, like what happened Peter Toole. No one wants that, just as much as no one wants horses injured. Changing the race is a gross overreaction.

    "Pretending"? Clear off with that rubbish. I do love horses and did equestrian for a good few years, unfortunately I can't afford to buy and stable a horse. Horses have always been working animals, and for the most part they are treated excellently.


  • #95
    sensibleken
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    Wolfe Tone wrote: »
    A horse can break its leg on the flat too.

    The grand national is one race, and is the highlight of the racing calendar. I didnt watch it this year as I was busy doing other things, but I have watched a lot of horse racing, and have been to many meetings over the years, and I dont even gamble, it's a mugs game. Ive seen bad falls and broken legs which have led to horses being destroyed. Its not restricted to one race. Accidents happen, like what happened Peter Toole. No one wants that, just as much as no one wants horses injured. Changing the race is a gross overreaction.

    "Pretending"? Clear off with that rubbish. I do love horses and did equestrian for a good few years, unfortunately I can't afford to buy and stable a horse. Horses have always been working animals, and for the most part they are treated excellently.

    If theyre treated excellently fair play. If they are put at un-neccessary risk that is likely to cause injury and death then that is cruelty.

    Your arguement that they can break a leg on a flat is the equivalent of the 'sure you could get hit by a bus tomorrow so why not juggle chainsaws'. Risks to the horses life have been identified, those risks should be reduced or elliminated. This is hardly the first time it has occured and by your own admission it is not a rare occurance at this or any other race. Refusal to accept making it safer for the horses doesnt strike me as an attitude of someone who cares for the well being of the horses


  • #96
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    sensibleken wrote: »
    If theyre treated excellently fair play. If they are put at un-neccessary risk that is likely to cause injury and death then that is cruelty.

    Your arguement that they can break a leg on a flat is the equivalent of the 'sure you could get hit by a bus tomorrow so why not juggle chainsaws'. Risks to the horses life have been identified, those risks should be reduced or elliminated. This is hardly the first time it has occured and by your own admission it is not a rare occurance at this or any other race. Refusal to accept making it safer for the horses doesnt strike me as an attitude of someone who cares for the well being of the horses
    Get down of that, eh, high horse.


    Why is racing itself in your book not an "unnecessary risk"? Or showjumping?

    It is rare enough tbf, it doesn't happen every week.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    PeakOutput
    Registered Users Posts: 7,639 ✭✭✭PeakOutput


    sensibleken wrote: »
    If theyre treated excellently fair play. If they are put at un-neccessary risk that is likely to cause injury and death then that is cruelty.

    Your arguement that they can break a leg on a flat is the equivalent of the 'sure you could get hit by a bus tomorrow so why not juggle chainsaws'. Risks to the horses life have been identified, those risks should be reduced or elliminated. This is hardly the first time it has occured and by your own admission it is not a rare occurance at this or any other race. Refusal to accept making it safer for the horses doesnt strike me as an attitude of someone who cares for the well being of the horses

    maybe the 'refusal' is because people understand that there is a risk involved in everything that occurs on the planet and that trying to change that to the extent that some people (a small minority) demand is pointless.

    no matter what is changed if there is one death a year or one every couple of years unreasonable people will still call for changes. so maybe the people who actually have the knowledge (you know the owners, trainers, vets, jockeys, stablehands etc etc etc who have been doing these things their entire lives and know the industry inside out) have made a very educated decision that these things are acceptably safe and unreasonable people on the fringes protesting at every opportunity are just an annoying fact of life.


  • #98
    sensibleken
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    Wolfe Tone wrote: »
    Get down of that, eh, high horse.


    Why is racing itself in your book not an "unnecessary risk"? Or showjumping?

    It is rare enough tbf, it doesn't happen every week.

    Your trying to paint an arguement for reducing risk as one for elliminating risk. Id rather them not put at any risk at all but its not an ideal world and shaving a foot or so off a jump is not equivalent to calling for the whole thing to be banned. Its called compromise. and please dont come back with a 'whats next' arguement


  • #99
    sensibleken
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    PeakOutput wrote: »
    maybe the 'refusal' is because people understand that there is a risk involved in everything that occurs on the planet and that trying to change that to the extent that some people (a small minority) demand is pointless. .

    again, the risk of death is for the horse, they dont get the choice nor do they have the understanding.
    PeakOutput wrote: »
    no matter what is changed if there is one death a year or one every couple of years unreasonable people will still call for changes. so maybe the people who actually have the knowledge (you know the owners, trainers, vets, jockeys, stablehands etc etc etc who have been doing these things their entire lives and know the industry inside out) have made a very educated decision that these things are acceptably safe and unreasonable people on the fringes protesting at every opportunity are just an annoying fact of life.

    The people who have the knowledge are also the vested interest, those who profit from it. People who are experts in business and banking ran this country into the ground because they were also the vested interest.


  • #100
    PeakOutput
    Registered Users Posts: 7,639 ✭✭✭PeakOutput


    sensibleken wrote: »
    The people who have the knowledge are also the vested interest, those who profit from it. People who are experts in business and banking ran this country into the ground because they were also the vested interest.

    Obviously, I am assuming there is some form of independent oversight of all sides of the horse racing industry be it from vets who have the animals welfare in mind first and foremost or an independent body of some sort and if there isn't then I accept there should be.


  • #101
    ppink
    Registered Users Posts: 1,458 ✭✭✭ppink


    sensibleken wrote: »
    Your trying to paint an arguement for reducing risk as one for elliminating risk. Id rather them not put at any risk at all but its not an ideal world and shaving a foot or so off a jump is not equivalent to calling for the whole thing to be banned. Its called compromise. and please dont come back with a 'whats next' arguement

    you see i actually think the shaving off of another foot or so off the fences will lead to more accidents due to increased speed. maybe I am wrong but i see the animals travelling far faster now than they did in Red Rums time.
    We all saw that with Dawn Run too who broke her neck after reverting back to hurdles from fences....even her trainer did not want to run her as he said it was unfair on her.
    Just a thought.


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    ISDW
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,378 ✭✭✭ISDW


    This debate has obviously been raging in the UK over the last few days, and I've been listening to BBC Radio 5 Live where they've had a few discussions on it during different programmes.

    It is very interesting, the jumps have actually been lowered, for safety's sake, but this then means that the race gets faster, which a lot of jockeys, trainers etc, feel is more dangerous for the horses.

    So I don't know what the answer is.


  • #103
    sensibleken
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    ppink wrote: »
    you see i actually think the shaving off of another foot or so off the fences will lead to more accidents due to increased speed. maybe I am wrong but i see the animals travelling far faster now than they did in Red Rums time.
    We all saw that with Dawn Run too who broke her neck after reverting back to hurdles from fences....even her trainer did not want to run her as he said it was unfair on her.
    Just a thought.

    There could be several factors in that. Breeding may have resulted in faster horses, I dont know. The bottom line here is mortality rates. Have they declined since red rum's time? If so, great, but the incident at the weekend and the assurance from people on this thread that it was not an issolated incident shows there is more to do.

    If they have increased, that needs to be looked at too, but horses dying should not be dismissed as an aberation, it should be taken very seriously, especially by advocates of the sport.

    Your example is intriguing. If the trainer knew she should not run, why did she and ultimately die as a result?


  • #104
    ppink
    Registered Users Posts: 1,458 ✭✭✭ppink


    her owner insisted she ran..she broke her neck and died instantly from what i remember I was only young at the time.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dhai8xzEi0k her trainer the late Paddy Mullins at about 1.03

    Even though I am a Red Rum fan and know most of his races, I was not born at that time so only know what I see online and read about. Certainly from looking at all his races there were no fences ever missed in the Grand Nationals from 1973 to 77. Also plenty seemed to finish the races, but again I have no numbers.

    Just a point on refusals and horses being forced into racing, it is not actually that easy. Horses have refused ot jump in the GN when well clear of the rest of the field and even on the flat horses refused to start and after the race refuse to go back to the winners inclosure. So it does happen.


  • #105
    sensibleken
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    ppink wrote: »
    her owner insisted she ran..she broke her neck and died instantly from what i remember I was only young at the time.

    Even though I am a Red Rum fan and know most of his races, I was not born at that time so only know what I see online and read about. Certainly from looking at all his races there were no fences ever missed in the Grand Nationals from 1973 to 77. Also plenty seemed to finish the races, but again I have no numbers.

    Just a point on refusals and horses being forced into racing, it is not actually that easy. Horses have refused ot jump in the GN when well clear of the rest of the field and even on the flat horses refused to start and after the race refuse to go back to the winners inclosure. So it does happen.

    Of course it happens, its just irrelevant. Horses are trained to run and jump. They are however not robots, they will have moods and emotional responses and will sometimes refuse to run or jump.

    That does not translate into a choice to run fully knowing the risks vs benifits and therefore mittigating the risk involved. such as the jockey has


  • #106
    PeakOutput
    Registered Users Posts: 7,639 ✭✭✭PeakOutput


    sensibleken wrote: »
    That does not translate into a choice to run fully knowing the risks vs benifits and therefore mittigating the risk involved. such as the jockey has

    So? they are animals they dont need or want a choice, they do not know what choice is, they do not know about anything other then their own existence and weather they like it or not. they know that certain things (including people) can hurt them and they know that certain things are pleasurable for them and they react accordingly, thats about it

    A cow doesn't get to volunteer to be food

    A dog doesn't get to volunteer to be a pet or a working dog or a wild dog

    That doesn't mean rearing cows for food is cruel or owning a dog is cruel


  • #107
    sensibleken
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    PeakOutput wrote: »
    So? they are animals they dont need or want a choice, they do not know what choice is, they do not know about anything other then their own existence and weather they like it or not. they know that certain things (including people) can hurt them and they know that certain things are pleasurable for them and they react accordingly, thats about it

    A cow doesn't get to volunteer to be food

    A dog doesn't get to volunteer to be a pet or a working dog or a wild dog

    That doesn't mean rearing cows for food is cruel or owning a dog is cruel

    Thats exactly what Im saying. They have no choice, therefore the arguement that jockeys sometimes get hurt too is irrelevant. The jockeys know the risks and have a choice, the horses do not


  • #108
    PeakOutput
    Registered Users Posts: 7,639 ✭✭✭PeakOutput


    sensibleken wrote: »
    the horses do not

    Grand, why does that matter though?


  • #109
    sensibleken
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    PeakOutput wrote: »
    Grand, why does that matter though?

    It matters because it means the arguement that they enjoy running or the fact that jockeys also get hurt have no baring on the arguement that horse racing is cruel.


  • #110
    ppink
    Registered Users Posts: 1,458 ✭✭✭ppink


    so horse racing is cruel?

    because the horse does not have the ability to do a risk benefit analysis on racing?


  • #111
    sensibleken
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    ppink wrote: »
    so horse racing is cruel?

    because the horse does not have the ability to do a risk benefit analysis on racing?

    If thats a reference to me then no. The arguement shows that the fact that jockeys get hurt and the horses enjoy running does not show that horse racing is not cruel.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    PeakOutput
    Registered Users Posts: 7,639 ✭✭✭PeakOutput


    sensibleken wrote: »
    If thats a reference to me then no. The arguement shows that the fact that jockeys get hurt and the horses enjoy running does not show that horse racing is not cruel.

    so what shows that horse racing IS cruel and death is not an answer on its own


  • #113
    kfallon
    Registered Users Posts: 25,775 ✭✭✭✭kfallon


    sensibleken wrote: »
    It matters because it means the arguement that they enjoy running or the fact that jockeys also get hurt have no baring on the arguement that horse racing is cruel.

    There's the 'c' word right there!


  • #114
    sensibleken
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    kfallon wrote: »
    There's the 'c' word right there!

    read the sentence again einstein!


  • #115
    fatmammycat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,208 ✭✭✭fatmammycat


    I don't know, two horses dead, the winner beaten over the line to the point of exhaustion needing oxygen to stay upright- and McGuire got a 5 day ban for over use of the whip -and a young man placed into a medical coma... for sport?
    They really need to address the number of riders in the field, it's too packed and this causes accidents a plenty with fallen horses and rider bringing down others. I have long watched this race, but to be honest, after this year, I think I will give future GNs a miss.


  • #116
    IrishHomer
    Registered Users Posts: 2,961 ✭✭✭IrishHomer


    fatmammycat wrote: »
    I don't know, two horses dead, the winner beaten over the line to the point of exhaustion needing oxygen to stay upright- and McGuire got a 5 day ban for over use of the whip -and a young man placed into a medical coma... for sport?
    They really need to address the number of riders in the field, it's too packed and this causes accidents a plenty with fallen horses and rider bringing down others. I have long watched this race, but to be honest, after this year, I think I will give future GNs a miss.

    This is exactly how i feel


  • #117
    eilo1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 874 ✭✭✭eilo1


    In all seriousness I really think the problem with this year and last year was the good ground.
    The race was won in the 2nd fastest time ever this year. The good ground means the horses run faster and with the lowered fences they are less likely to back off.

    Here is a nice artical from the post with quotes from the two trainers that lost their horses at this years event.
    http://www.racingpost.com/news/horse-racing/dooneys-gate-ornais-kim-bailey-lucinda-russell-grand-national-pace-of-national-caused-horse-deaths-say-trainers/839940/latest/


  • #118
    ppink
    Registered Users Posts: 1,458 ✭✭✭ppink


    eilo1 wrote: »
    In all seriousness I really think the problem with this year and last year was the good ground.
    The race was won in the 2nd fastest time ever this year. The good ground means the horses run faster and with the lowered fences they are less likely to back off.

    Here is a nice artical from the post with quotes from the two trainers that lost their horses at this years event.
    http://www.racingpost.com/news/horse-racing/dooneys-gate-ornais-kim-bailey-lucinda-russell-grand-national-pace-of-national-caused-horse-deaths-say-trainers/839940/latest/

    I think Dooneys Gate was Irish - Mullins horse?

    Agree about the pace, wonder if it was slower would we be thinking of dead horses at all.


  • #119
    eilo1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 874 ✭✭✭eilo1


    Sorry your right, I read it too quick, they said jump trainers and I thought they meant the two dead horses trainers.

    Im sure Aintree will be looking into ways to improve the safety after this years events.


  • #120
    IrishHomer
    Registered Users Posts: 2,961 ✭✭✭IrishHomer


    At least they didn't accidentally electrocute any horses like they did at another race not so long ago.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    ISDW
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,378 ✭✭✭ISDW


    IrishHomer wrote: »
    At least they didn't accidentally electrocute any horses like they did at another race not so long ago.

    Aw that was horrendous, but it was a real freak accident, I don't think it has anything to do with this topic.

    Is there a temperature cut off for horse racing? It was unseasonably warm on Saturday, which again, could have had an impact on what happened, if it reaches a certain temperature can the race be called off? Assuming of course that any steward would have the guts to make such a decision with everything that goes alongside the GN - media wise.


Advertisement