Grand National - Animal cruelty posing as sport and entertainment?

Snappy the Moose · 09-04-2011 06:01PM

Nevore wrote: »

Nice snap judgement there Snappy. Where did I say I saw it as cruel?
I was refuting the comparison to F1 racing.

I thought I was talking to the OP sorry.

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

I am into horses, I have owned horses, I know that they are flight animals. The cases where the horses refuse to jump off are very rare incidents. If it was to be investigated as to why the horse refused to jump off, there is usually some reason behind it such as there being something off the course (the crowd, a stablemate, etc) that is distracting them or spooking them, so they don't jump off. Almost all of the time, the horse will jump off with the rest of them, regardless. Horses don't work independent of their instinct to run with the crowd, unless there is some other external influence that is stopping them.

I don't doubt for a second that the jockey wants to keep them safe, I'm just asking in the context of the Grand National, why does it have to be so exceedingly difficult for the animals - the height of the fences, the length of the race, the size of the field. It's asking for trouble, and half of the entertainment value seems to come from the fact that the horses do fall. I'm not disputing either how well treated the horses are when they're in the trainers' yards. I'm disputing the necessity of such an overwhelmingly difficult race, even if the horses are bred for racing (even though not all thoroughbreds are bred for racing).

They are rare to an extent but your missing the point, the horse always has a chance not to run and even if he goes with the crowd as you are suggesting and doesn't want to run then the jockey will pull them up. It really is that simple. Most jockeys will know when a horse doesn't want to travel and will take appropriate action, they aren't trying to ware them into the ground.

The reason is because it is a challenge, just like a 26 mile marathon. It isn't necessary but it is a challenge.
Many horses finish it so it obviously isn't beyond difficult. If your issue is with horses not being able to handle the course or race than you should probably take that up with the trainer/owner who entered them.

Yakult · 09-04-2011 06:03PM

Would be alot more entertaining if the horses rode the jockeys, then I would watch that boring ****.

purity · 09-04-2011 06:39PM

People agitate me put the horse on their backs and lets see them race. I hate it the bull fighting matadors, cock fights, dog fighting. It's sound evil but I love it when the animal gets revenge when it gores the matador and when the horse stamps on the rider, it's their way of saying feck you:)

BickNarry · 09-04-2011 06:50PM

Snappy the Moose wrote: »

They can refuse to jump off. These horses are trained for this sport, they are not average horses just thrown into a race. You are probably seeing it as cruel due to a lack of knowledge.

Come off it, they're bred to race,trained for their whole lives. I think there's something sinister about the relationship there. What sort of quality of life is that?

We don't need horse racing. It's not vital for us to survive and it does more harm than good. I don't think anyone can argue that there is really a need for it. I think it's cruel to assume that animals are here for reasons we see fit. They exist in their own right. Two animals died and their death was preventable.Not a very funny topic like many here are making it out to be.

WolfForager wrote: »

Ugh, what's with all the animal rights rabble? We're on top of the food chain in this world (there abouts), get over it.

Non-argument.

artanevilla · 09-04-2011 06:53PM

landsleaving wrote: »

I hate horse racing, so I feel strange defending it, but just gonna use some logic. Those horses are crazily expensive to own, breed, keep, feed, etc. Only rich people own them, and rich people want a return on their investment, that's why they're rich. If horses were likely to die or be injured during a race, they'd make the races less dangerous or pick a new sport to get even more rich from and have us poor schlubs bet on that instead.

You don't get rich from horse racing, especially National Hunt. There's an old saying: "How do you make a million in National Hunt racing? Start with 10 million."

For example, Michael O'Leary might spend 5 million a year on racing, but comes out with 1 million maybe. (them figures mightn't be correct, but you get the point.)

Dudess · 09-04-2011 06:54PM

hoodwinked wrote: »

Formula 1 Watched it today and was a little bit shocked. Two horses cars were killed - one broke its back wing, the other its neck wheel. What exactly is the purpose of this race other than people putting on tiny bets and then watching to see who makes it back in one piece? Why do the fences have to be THAT enormous cars have to go THAT fast and why does there have to THAT many horses in the field cars on track for it to be entertaining? It all came across as a little barbaric today, is all..
see any entertainment fits in your rant can do it for soccer too if you want?

Cars and footballs are sentient?

Minstrel27 wrote: »

I did wonder how long it would take for this thread to appear.

So?

sollar wrote: »

Neither does poor old daisy the cow but she likely to end up on a plate served with chips

Food... sport - not the same thing.

WolfForager wrote: »

Ugh, what's with all the animal rights rabble? We're on top of the food chain in this world (there abouts), get over it.

Ugh, what's with the "I don't give a sh1t about animals, aren't I the hard man" rabble about?
Doubt there was cruelty, but lamenting this doesn't have to be met with the usual "Dur... you didn't like bad thing happening to animal, you is hippy" rubbish.

Spudmonkey · 09-04-2011 06:59PM

Lot of pretty ignorant comments here. Ruby Walsh described it as carnage and less than half the horses actually finished the race. The winner had to have oxygen supplied afterwards.

Anything for a bit of "sport" though I suppose.

FortuneChip · 09-04-2011 07:04PM

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

Gladiator, Watched it today and was a little bit shocked. Two horses family members were killed - one broke its back, the other its neck. What exactly is the purpose of this race violence other than people putting on tiny bets hats & swords and then watching riding Maximus' wife to see who makes it back her maon in one piecego? Why do the fencesRomans have to be THAT enormous disrespectful of their General and why does there have to THAT many horses emotional music scenes in the fieldfilm for it to be entertaining? It all came across as a little barbaric today, is all..

Apologies

Morgans · 09-04-2011 07:04PM

only a dickhead would be indifferent to horses dying while racing. And most racing supporters have to reconcile the dangers/uglier side of things with the pleasure that comes from the sport.

While I'm thankful that the OP has not thrown out a lot of the tired animal welfare arguements surrounding the grand national, but I do think that the title of the thread is deliberately provocative.

Horse racing fans do not take any pleasure in seeing horses distressed, dying, falling. Its not run to cause cruelty to animals. Racehorses die, some while racing, plenty more when in training in stables unheralded, and plenty more from diseases related to old age.

It always amazes me though that the discussions of the dangers related to the grand national are done from a horse standpoint and never from the jockeys. Thought Patrick Mullins was very lucky to walk away from the fall today.

WolfForager · 09-04-2011 07:04PM

http://toychop.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/troll-face-meme.png

09-04-2011 07:05PM

I genuinely dont care that much about animals. Plenty of other stuff going on in the world that is more important to me than a couple of horseys

BickNarry · 09-04-2011 07:12PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I genuinely dont care that much about animals. Plenty of other stuff going on in the world that is more important to me than a couple of horseys

A stunning contribution to the on going discussion.

Dudess · 09-04-2011 07:13PM

Morgans wrote: »

It always amazes me though that the discussions of the dangers related to the grand national are done from a horse standpoint and never from the jockeys. Thought Patrick Mullins was very lucky to walk away from the fall today.

Apparently there was huge upset over the horse's head in The Godfather, but not so much the endless human carnage... :pac:
To be fair though, it's understandable that many people's immediate emotional response to children and animals (those with no voice and who are powerless and vulnerable) being harmed is stronger than when adults are harmed - not saying it's right in the case of animals, but there's a logic to it.

Irrational as I think OTT concern for animal welfare can sometimes be though (e.g. someone being freaked over a pet not being let into the house even if they have a perfectly decent shelter and are otherwise well cared for) I hate when some folks proudly tell the world how totally indifferent they are to animals suffering. Bet they're not anyway...

claire2010 · 09-04-2011 07:13PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I genuinely dont care that much about animals. Plenty of other stuff going on in the world that is more important to me than a couple of horseys

Animals hate you too!!!

PeakOutput · 09-04-2011 07:40PM

BickNarry wrote: »

t's not vital for us to survive and it does more harm than good.

what harm would that be exactly please?

BickNarry · 09-04-2011 07:48PM

Spinal injuries,shortened life spans, beaten with a whip....

The potential for harm is increased if they are race horses.

PeakOutput · 09-04-2011 07:52PM

BickNarry wrote: »

Spinal injuries,shortened life spans, beaten with a whip....

beaten with a whip, are you serious? do race horses have shorter lives then other horses? what spinal injuries would these be? horses are put down when they have any sort of serious injury arent they? so there is no increased suffering

The potential for harm is increased if they are race horses.

if there was no horse racing none of the horses would exist in the first place which is the lesser of two evils?

by the way I can probably count on one hand how many horse races I have watched ever i think its boring and only bet on it very very rarely but it is not even close to being cruelty to animals

landsleaving · 09-04-2011 07:53PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I genuinely dont care that much about animals. Plenty of other stuff going on in the world that is more important to me than a couple of horseys

I agree. They raised the price of something or other by three cents. Maybe we should go get angry about that and vent it on an internet forum?

Yay or Neigh?

landsleaving · 09-04-2011 07:55PM

artanevilla wrote: »

You don't get rich from horse racing, especially National Hunt. There's an old saying: "How do you make a million in National Hunt racing? Start with 10 million."

For example, Michael O'Leary might spend 5 million a year on racing, but comes out with 1 million maybe. (them figures mightn't be correct, but you get the point.)

Well that's me told! I must admit, I'm no expert, I just assumed they got a lot of cash out of it, but I suppose it's as much prestige as anything.

phasers · 09-04-2011 07:55PM

What happened with the winning horse anyway, he hed to be taken away and given Oxegen and water? wtf? Did yer man push him too hard? He was really bayting him with the stick toward the end.

Jackobyte · 09-04-2011 08:04PM

I do feel that this course is a step too far when I saw it today. I don't mind horse racing in general (very few fatalities in most races and on most courses) but the Aintree course consistently causes deaths in horses. In the 3 day festival 3 died this year, 5 in 2010 and 5 in 2009. 6 died in the 1997 festival.

Are horses really that dispensable to the racing industry that they have no problem with this course causing this many fatalities year in, year out?

PeakOutput · 09-04-2011 08:04PM

landsleaving wrote: »

Well that's me told! I must admit, I'm no expert, I just assumed they got a lot of cash out of it, but I suppose it's as much prestige as anything.

if you get a really good horse that has a succesfull career you can make a hell of a lot of money when it retires and goes out to stud

dont know what percentage of horses cover their costs with stud fees though

Cú Giobach · 09-04-2011 08:19PM

PeakOutput wrote: »

if there was no horse racing none of the horses would exist in the first place which is the lesser of two evils?

I'm not getting involved in the discussion on horse racing and not commenting on horses, but the above quote intrigued me.
Are you saying an existence with some suffering is better than non-existence?
Or even that existence is better than non-existence?

Pauleta · 09-04-2011 08:23PM

Im a big fan of Horse racing and i actually seen one of the falls that killed a horse at the time. It was quite disturbing the 2nd time they went around and they went by the 2 horses covered. I cant defend it, i love horse racing but its terrible to see this happen.

ceadaoin. · 09-04-2011 08:24PM

phasers wrote: »

What happened with the winning horse anyway, he hed to be taken away and given Oxegen and water? wtf? Did yer man push him too hard? He was really bayting him with the stick toward the end.

I don't think it was pushed too hard, it is an incredibly tough race for a horse to run, over 4 miles. The jockeys dismount now as soon as they pull up to allow the horse to recover cause they know how much it takes out of them. I think with it being so warm (over 20 degrees) it probably made it worse on the horse, hence the oxygen.

PeakOutput · 09-04-2011 08:25PM

Cú Giobach wrote: »

I'm not getting involved in the discussion on horse racing and not commenting on horses, but the above quote intrigued me.
Are you saying an existence with some suffering is better than non-existence?

no i honestly dont know the answer either.

although, any existence will involve some suffering be it in captivity like race horses or in the wild getting chased by predators. people just choose to see the 'suffering' that people inflict as automatically being worse then anything else on the planet.

I wonder if a horse could talk and you gave them the choice which they would pick. being a race horse living in luxury with massive green fields filled with lush grass but having to compete with a jockey potentially 'beating' them with a stick or being a horse in the wild were they have to compete for mating rights, run from predators, find their own food etc

freedom counts for a hell of lot but so does luxury

Cú Giobach · 09-04-2011 08:48PM

PeakOutput wrote: »

no i honestly dont know the answer either.

although, any existence will involve some suffering be it in captivity like race horses or in the wild getting chased by predators. people just choose to see the 'suffering' that people inflict as automatically being worse then anything else on the planet.

I wonder if a horse could talk and you gave them the choice which they would pick. being a race horse living in luxury with massive green fields filled with lush grass but having to compete with a jockey potentially 'beating' them with a stick or being a horse in the wild were they have to compete for mating rights, run from predators, find their own food etc

freedom counts for a hell of lot but so does luxury

The question of freedom is an interesting one alright, I know I would prefer a life of freedom but then I'm not a horse.
Most animals just want what their particular species needs to survive and reproduce and since most animals don't want to change what they are used to I guess we'll never really know the answer.

I'm off now to a Buddhist website to discuss and then contemplate the joy bliss of non-existence.

CorkMan · 09-04-2011 09:02PM

If you ask me the horses should be riding the jockies, not the other way around.

artanevilla · 09-04-2011 09:12PM

PeakOutput wrote: »

if you get a really good horse that has a succesfull career you can make a hell of a lot of money when it retires and goes out to stud

dont know what percentage of horses cover their costs with stud fees though

The stud thing only applies to flat racers, jumpers get their mickeys cut for want of a better phrase.

twinytwo · 09-04-2011 09:25PM

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

Watched it today and was a little bit shocked. Two horses were killed - one broke its back, the other its neck. What exactly is the purpose of this race other than people putting on tiny bets and then watching to see who makes it back in one piece? Why do the fences have to be THAT enormous and why does there have to THAT many horses in the field for it to be entertaining? It all came across as a little barbaric today, is all..

you do realise that the majority of the time it the jockey that gets messed up and the horse in unscratched

Grand National - Animal cruelty posing as sport and entertainment?

Comments