This is running at around 3 pm today. I always think it a magnificent and awe-inspiring event. But of course the sight of horses falling and killing themselves is horrendous.
However it can justifiably be argued that the horses only exist in order to be raced (otherwise, who knows, they might be destined to be burgers!) and that if the course were to be neutralised to the extent that no falls were ever to take place then the whole race would become something of a non-event. And never mind the horses, just riding in such a frenetically competitive steeplechase must take guts, considering the risks (as are the risk involved in hunting, where serious accidents are always on the cards).
I haven't yet placed a bet (it'll only be token anyway), but I'd love to see Katie Walsh pull it off ....
There are times to stay put, and what you want will come to you.
But there are times to go out into the world and find such a thing for yourself.
I aint no abacus but you can count on me.
Personally, I don't like the Grand National at all, I don't enjoy watching it, I do think it's cruel, and also my friends drive me nuts when it's on :P
That's just me though, I can understand why people do enjoy watching it!
But I do think the national is awful. I appreciate it is a risky sport, but there are always guaranteed deaths at aintree (have been at least 2 already).
A horse dying occasionally is maybe just part of the risk, but multiple horses dying every year isn't acceptable in my view.
If there were 2 or 3 jockeys a year killed then people wouldn't agree with it. But horses dying like that is ok?
I won't be watching it, it makes me sad that these horses die just so people can enjoy a bit of 'sport'. I don't see anything fun about watching horses fall over, break their legs and then have to be put down on a race track.
We need never be hopeless, because we can never be irreparably broken
There are times to stay put, and what you want will come to you.
But there are times to go out into the world and find such a thing for yourself.
I aint no abacus but you can count on me.
Well Stellata, horse racing/steeplechasing isn't at all intended to be cruel (note the Irish inadvertently coming out in me!). It is a sport as is football or rugby. The horses are bred for it from thoroughbred lines, they're cosseted, exercised, trained and very well looked after indeed. When horses lose their rider, as happened to several in today's National, they usually continue galloping on around the course in parallel with the ridden horses. If the race was so hateful/alien to them then they'd surely otherwise turn back and duck out. Of course accidents do happen (fortunately nothing serious this year) but so they do in any physical sport. And without racing the horses wouldn't even exist, rather than enjoy the very good life that they do for the vast majority of the time.
As to betting, chacun a son gout. Harley and I have a small fund which we use to put a few pounds on whatever we fancy in something like the National or the Derby or Wimbledon. It adds a certain piquancy to watching the event, though it'll never make us rich and we'd never dream of putting any substantial money on anything.
When horses lose their rider, as happened to several in today's National, they usually continue galloping on around the course in parallel with the ridden horses. If the race was so hateful/alien to them then they'd surely otherwise turn back and duck out.
I know this wasn't aimed at me but I just wanted to say that you answered this in your own statement, these horses are bred and trained to run in races that's what they know how to do, they carry on running even if their rider falls off because it's in their blood to do that. That doesn't make it any less cruel, even if the intention isn't cruelty that is still the outcome. I'm positive that no horse enjoys having it's legs broken if it doesn't clear a fence and then have to wait in pain until it is put down.
We need never be hopeless, because we can never be irreparably broken
OK Palladion, no more horse racing of any description. You've just put down over a hundred thousand horses across UK, Ireland, France and the US. Wow, there's going to be a lot of burger meat going cheaply. Not to mention the loss of many thousands of jobs involved in the racing industry ...
I didn't say no more horse racing, you are now putting words in my mouth and I would thank you not to do that, it's very rude. There are many horse races each year that are safe, the Grand National just has a horrible record every year which leads me to believe it is not safe.
If someone was just keeping horses and every year picked 2 or 3 out at random and broke their legs, they would have their horses taken away from them and probably be arrested for animal abuse, yet some how just because it's a national race, it's less cruel. This is just one of those things people are always going to disagree on and you putting words in my mouth and saying things like that isn't going to sway my opinion. So I say we just agree to disagree and leave it at that.
We need never be hopeless, because we can never be irreparably broken
For once,Im with harleys dad on this....i don't bet,personal choice.
Are there statistics anywhere that show the national has a higher number of deaths than all the other horse based sports? Or is it just as its the most publicized that the statistics are broadcast each year?genuine question,as Im not a horse fan,let alone horse racing fan.
On the flip side,there are sports that don't use animal's where more people die than horses in the grand national,yet no uproar about stopping those.....
Sorry Palladion, no rudeness was intended. But your post did seem to me to imply (as did one or two others) that racing should be banned. I can't quote figures but I understand horses fall and are killed running flat races too. I'm absolutely no way applauding the death of horses and in my opening post I described such deaths as horrendous.
But I think we have to accept that falls and occasional deaths are inevitably part of racing - it's not intended to be anodyne, it's meant to be exciting. F1 drivers sometimes kill themselves but we don't ban that as a sport. And for those who want to do something positive about equine cruelty, try supporting those organisations which campaign against the gross overloading and overworking of donkeys in the Middle East - now there really is cruelty for you.
Whilst I have nothing against the Grand National and I don't really care that much for horses, one could argue that even though deaths happen in the F1, it is only humans partaking in that sport. Humans are aware of the risk of death in driving and it is their choice whether or not they take part.
Horses on the other hand do not have a choice. They are bred and used for racing and racing only and although, sure they could 'back out' at any time as it were, it could be argued that being brought up knowing nothing but racing could be seen as 'forcing' that horse into racing, no matter what the horse wants.
So while I see your point, using F1 as an example, or any other sport where humans may die, is not going to cut it.
I'm gonna tap him like a maple tree. I'm gonna search him for some syrups. I'm gonna be having sex with him.
I would also argue that if "only" 2 or 3 jockeys, or F1 drivers died competing each year - it would be considered unacceptable and safety measures would be tightened up.
I do appreciate the risks involved in any sport, and am not out to ban horse racing per se (though much prefer eventing) but what can be considered an acceptable level of risk?
2 horses at aintree this year, and about 6 last year is too much for me.
There are so far about 29 racehorses in the uk died as a direct result of racing or injuries sustained during racing in 2013 (http://www.horsedeathwatch.com/) that's about 6 or 7 a month on average! You can argue that that is only 29 out of hundreds of horses, true, but we wouldn't accept it in any other sport - imagine the headlines if 29 jockeys had been killed already this year, or Lewis Hamilton and Jenson Button had crashed and died. 6 or 7 horses dying a year I could cope with, but not that many a month.
OK Phalange, I don't want to go on endlessly on a post which I only made to remind people that the National was about to happen. But if you take the view, as you seem to, that racehorses are only bred for racing (true) but because some are killed in the course of that racing and that's unacceptably cruel, then, ergo, racing should be banned.
Which brings me right back to the point I've made already: without racing the horses wouldn't even exist. So the choice amounts to whether some two or three hundred thousand (or whatever) racehorses should even exist while accepting that there will inevitably be casualties from time to time in the actual racing; or whether that the relatively small amount of unintended cruelty involved in racing should result in it being banned altogether. If I were a horse (with a vote!) I'd take my chance on just existing in great care and comfort, and risk the catastrophic fall - which actually happens in only a tiny proportion of the total number of runs made by the horses.
And we should be clear that those same horses are not otherwise going to be bred just to look pretty in a meadow, waiting for some latter-day Stubbs to come along and make them famous. Nor, if I were to be able to afford, say, one leg of a horse (a quarter of its ownership) costing perhaps £20 to 50K, would I want it just sitting around in stables requiring very large sums of money just to keep it. I and the rest of my syndicate would want to see it out on the racecourse, when it was ready, starting to earn its living. Horses run, they enjoy running, it's part of their basic nature - so why not let them do so competitively for all our enjoyment.
Well Tony, as you have ignored my post completely, which stated I don't care about horses, I have nothing against the Grand National, I don't see any point in which to read your reply. I personally don't think it's cruel or any of that, I was just putting forward an argument to your previous response as I do enjoy a good debate, even on issues I don't really care about, generally just to make others, like you, look at your argument differently.
Unfortunately you have clearly read my response in a different way to which I had intended, so if you'd like to read it again properly and reply accordingly, that would be much appreciated :)
I'm gonna tap him like a maple tree. I'm gonna search him for some syrups. I'm gonna be having sex with him.
I've reread your earlier post Phalange and, as far as I can make it out, your complaint is that horses don't have a choice - they're bred for racing and have no alternative but to do it (and actually have a very good life meanwhile). But what about pigs or beef cattle? Do they have options. If there is some difference that escapes me, please let me know ...
No, I have said this twice now, it's getting a bit ridiculous you don't seem to be getting my point. I, personally, me, Left Phalange, Nic, I don't care about horses. I don't care about the Grand National. I will quite happily place bets on a horse, I did this year!
I am suggesting that OTHER PEOPLE ON THIS THREAD, NOT MYSELF, may think these horses have no choice. I was using this as an example so you would change your argument accordingly, as you were using F1 to explain your point. And I was suggesting that OTHERS, NOT ME, may see this as a moot point because humans have the choice, horses do not.
I forgot how terribly closed minded you were and how you only like to read what you want to read and ignore everything else. I'll keep this in mind in future, may not waste my energy.
I'm gonna tap him like a maple tree. I'm gonna search him for some syrups. I'm gonna be having sex with him.
