Two horses slaughtered already!

[Doon frae Troon]

They have rebuilt all the fences this year, so that even though they look high, most of the fence is bits of recycled xmas trees, that the horses can almost jump through, The inner core is now a forgiving plastic rather than timber.

You hear of footballers having heart attacks on the pitch, (muamba) , but I dont hear calls to ban that.
The trainer today said that the horse that got the shoulder injury , could have fallen and sustained the injury almost anywhere.
many Horse welfare campaigners have applauded the new fences and the steps taken to protect the horses and riders, but you cant please everyone

If you ban horse racing , what will they turn to next, Fishing?

Hey hold on, no one is talking about banning horse racing. just the grand national where the number of deaths is out of kilter with the number of entries.

 

[Slime]

According to the trainer of the horse that died today "It could happen anywhere. It could happen at home and it's not the fences - it could have happened at a park course."

Also the one that dies yesterday "died of a suspected heart attack after being pulled up at the 11th jump."

So one may argue with the emotive term of slaughtered.

It couldn't happen anywhere. It happens where there are fences, LITTLE JOSH FELL OVER WHILST TRYING TO JUMP A FENCE and the owner says 'it's not the fences'.
Deaths of animals is an emotive subject, would you prefer the term euthanised or put down. Either way it's the slaughtering of a live animal.

Where do you stop?

Stop golf as there is a chance that we could get whacked on the heed and die?

A horse can die during a gentle trot in the countryside.

We have a choice and know the risks. A horse charges towards a fence, often in a large herd, and has no idea as to the spread of the fence or the drop on the other side. Poor argument.

The horses do have a choice, if they don't want to run they don't.

If you watched all the races today instead of just highlighting the ones that suited your arguement, you would have seen a horse called Mad Moose (IIRC) refuse to even start the race which he also done at Cheltenham, and there was nothing the jockey could do about it, he just plain refused to even take a step.

These horses are bred for racing and jumping, it's there life and they love it.

As for the Grand National, making the fences smaller would increase the deaths due to the horses being able to go faster over jumps. Every safety measure is taken to make it as safe as possible but unfortunately accidents happen.

As I said before, We have a choice and know the risks. A horse charges towards a fence, often in a large herd, and has no idea as to the spread of the fence or the drop on the other side.
The text highlighted in blue is possibly the most bridiculous thing I've ever read. You're effectivly saying that if there were 6" fences more horses would be killed. Why are there fewer deaths in flat racing? I really cannot believe your argument.

Slime.

 

[Fish]

143 in 2012.

How many is enough then? Go on.......

That's too many but, divide that number into how many race meetings over the year and then all the horses that competed and then do the same percentage just on the Aintree Festival and I would suggest it would be way out of kinter!

You have a very aggressive tone!

 

[Siren]

Number of deaths at Aintree since 2007

2007 - 3 deaths
2008 - 4 deaths
2009 - 6 deaths
2010 - 6 deaths
2011 - 4 deaths
2012 - 6 deaths
2013 - 2 so far

Sometimes making things easier isnt always good.

 

[Big D 88]

The horses do have a choice, if they don't want to run they don't.

If you watched all the races today instead of just highlighting the ones that suited your arguement, you would have seen a horse called Mad Moose (IIRC) refuse to even start the race which he also done at Cheltenham, and there was nothing the jockey could do about it, he just plain refused to even take a step.

These horses are bred for racing and jumping, it's there life and they love it.

As for the Grand National, making the fences smaller would increase the deaths due to the horses being able to go faster over jumps. Every safety measure is taken to make it as safe as possible but unfortunately accidents happen.

Absolutely SPOT ON!

Unfortunately due to these once a year animal activists, the BHA, Aintree officials etc have bowed to pressure and if anything have made the GN more dangerous due to lowering of fences etc.

 

[Dodger]

That's too many but, divide that number into how many race meetings over the year and then all the horses that competed and then do the same percentage just on the Aintree Festival and I would suggest it would be way out of kinter!

You have a very aggressive tone!

Aintree is not at the top of the 'death tree' and an all weather track without jumps rates higher.

Best ban all weather too then.

 

[Fish]

Number of deaths at Aintree since 2007

2007 - 3 deaths
2008 - 4 deaths
2009 - 6 deaths
2010 - 6 deaths
2011 - 4 deaths
2012 - 6 deaths
2013 - 2 so far

Sometimes making things easier isnt always good.

Modern steeplechase races have an average of just over 4 fatalities for every 1,000 horses taking part. However, the Grand National yields 7 fatalities out of 439 horses.

 

[smange]

It couldn't happen anywhere. It happens where there are fences, LITTLE JOSH FELL OVER WHILST TRYING TO JUMP A FENCE and the owner says 'it's not the fences'.
Deaths of animals is an emotive subject, would you prefer the term euthanised or put down. Either way it's the slaughtering of a live animal.



We have a choice and know the risks. A horse charges towards a fence, often in a large herd, and has no idea as to the spread of the fence or the drop on the other side. Poor argument.



As I said before, We have a choice and know the risks. A horse charges towards a fence, often in a large herd, and has no idea as to the spread of the fence or the drop on the other side.
The text highlighted in blue is possibly the most bridiculous thing I've ever read. You're effectivly saying that if there were 6" fences more horses would be killed. Why are there fewer deaths in flat racing? I really cannot believe your argument.

Slime.

You accuse me of a ridiculous statement and then mention making the fences six inches high

Plus if you pay attention to what the experts say, you will find that my statement is only following from their advice. One of the main safety measures in recent years was to make the run from the start line to the first fence shorter. Why? So the horses were going slower over the fence.

 

[Fish]

Absolutely SPOT ON!

Unfortunately due to these once a year animal activists, the BHA, Aintree officials etc have bowed to pressure and if anything have made the GN more dangerous due to lowering of fences etc.

OK, if you don't think that the length of the race and the hieghts of the fences have anything to do with the stats of deaths associated with the Grand National against those of all other steeplechases, then surely a lower number of entrants would be a positive step as 40 is just ludicrous and without doubt causes many life threatening injuries by being brought down rather than falling on their own!

 

[Foxholer]

Of course they can, but the career as a racehorse would be over rendering the horse worthless so they shoot it & claim the insurance.
After all, who would want a horse they can only ride and not race? Oh yeah, .....!

Slime.

Misguided at best; ignorant at worst.

Insurance pays out for 'loss of use' which, in this case, would happen if it couldn't race.

I don't believe there's any cruelty in the sport and have seen the excitement and elation of horses before and after races. I've also seen the devestation of riders/owners/trainers and stable hands when there's a fatality.

There's actually a program on Channel 4 about this ultimate test now that you should probably watch. Commentator is actually a vet, so should be a balanced view.

 

[jimbob.someroo]

Good programme on both sides of the argument on channel four now!

 

[Fish]

Good programme on both sides of the argument on channel four now!

Yes, got it on.

 

[Siren]

2007 - 3 deaths - 1 in National 33%
2008 - 4 deaths - 1 in National 25%
2009 - 6 deaths - 1 in National 17%
2010 - 6 deaths - 0 in National 0%
2011 - 4 deaths - 2 in National 50%
2012 - 6 deaths - 2 in National 34%

In the combined 70s and 80s there were 12 deaths. In the 90s and the 00's there were 17 when the course had been made easier.

 

[Hobbit]

I'm sorry but using hysterical rhetoric like slaughtered just switches me off from an argument. Don't forget all the trees slaughtered to make the fences, or the grass hacked down...

 

[Fish]

2007 - 3 deaths - 1 in National 33%
2008 - 4 deaths - 1 in National 25%
2009 - 6 deaths - 1 in National 17%
2010 - 6 deaths - 0 in National 0%
2011 - 4 deaths - 2 in National 50%
2012 - 6 deaths - 2 in National 34%

In the combined 70s and 80s there were 12 deaths. In the 90s and the 00's there were 17 when the course had been made easier.

The deaths should be assigned to the 3 day festival and not just the National IMO. As I stated earlier, 4 fatalities for every 1,000 horses taking part in steeplechases but 7 fatalities out of 439 horses for the Aintree event is totally out of kinter.

The most common death or reason for the horse to be euthanised is Cervical fracture (broken neck) so, as I mentioned just before, would lowering the entrants go some way to ensuring a "safer race"?

 

[Siren]

Sorry fish I missed your post. You make a great point lowering the number of runners will stop the bottle-necking that occurs and almost certainly reduce the amount of fallers if not deaths.

 

[road2ruin]

I'm sorry but using hysterical rhetoric like slaughtered just switches me off from an argument. Don't forget all the trees slaughtered to make the fences, or the grass hacked down...

+1 Exactly, just trying to appeal to the masses with stupid language designed to get the weak willed and ill informed jumping on the next bandwagon.

I have been lucky enough to have ownerships in numerous horses and greyhounds over the years and have seen both sides. It's terrible when there is a fatality in either code with both owners and trainers alike being affected. On the flip side if a horse doesn't fancy running it doesn't matter how much you whip/kick, it ain't going to move.

If the liberals (who very rarely have any real animal interaction) get their way with horse racing you can guarantee they'll jump on the next available bandwagon.

 

[upsidedown]

Sorry fish I missed your post. You make a great point lowering the number of runners will stop the bottle-necking that occurs and almost certainly reduce the amount of fallers if not deaths.

Be interesting to see a breakdown of which fences cause the biggest problems that lead to the horses being put down .

 

[Fish]

Sorry fish I missed your post. You make a great point lowering the number of runners will stop the bottle-necking that occurs and almost certainly reduce the amount of fallers if not deaths.

Also, after watching a small amount of the C4 programme, I watched a horse run around a ring of its own accord, galloped towards fences freely and looked to enjoy itself. So, is the "jockey" the culprit in holding it back, making it jump too early or too late and making it run on at times when it may not want to any more?

Lowering the numbers is a must for me, 40 trying to jump and a single faller can bring so may others down which is when the horse cannot role or get out of the way which is a recipe for cervical fractures!

 

[Fish]

Be interesting to see a breakdown of which fences cause the biggest problems that lead to the horses being put down .

Bechers Brook has the largest by a country mile, most of the fences are between a single fatality and 4 maximum, Brechers has 14 against it.

Even the Chair only has 3.