- This topic has 105 replies, 29 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
“Sorry, but if you can’t accept the opinion that running around stricken horses behind green screens is a horrible spectacle, then you shouldn’t bother posting in the first place.”
What is your suggestion to improve or eradicate this, apart from complaining on an internet forum? I’m all ears.
BUY THE SUN
“I would like to see the field size reduced.”
Is there any evidence that would make the race safer?
“Has anyone stopped to consider that making the fences smaller and softer means they go much faster than back in the day?”
That is the real issue. The changes to make the race “safer” have arguably made it worse. Throw in the fact that better horses run in the race now and you have a much faster race.
I believe the National was safer when the fences were big and upright and could not be taken at speed. I am sure I read once that there was only one fatality in the whole of the 1960s – and that was in an era when there was often more than 40 runners.
I know it is not going to go back to how it was but the race was better when it was primarily a jumping test.
““Has anyone stopped to consider that making the fences smaller and softer means they go much faster than back in the day?”
Yes I buy this theory too.
BUY THE SUN
Thanks RubyLight, those are nice comments. Really sad to hear about Discorama.
I think the race is as safe as it can be now. We’re never going to remove an element of risk if jumping is occurring at speed. The hurdles race earlier on the card showed that smaller obstacles and field sizes won’t necessarily prevent sad outcomes either.
I’ve seen mention of the supposedly safer Nationals of the 1960s before, but am a bit sceptical about this. I’d be dubious if fatalities were reported so consistently back then, especially if they happened outside the immediate aftermath of the race like Discorama’s did. The racehorse as a breed has changed too and seems to have become faster but more fragile. That’s not the National’s fault of course, but it means the race faces different challenges nowadays.
Where people are saying if you don’t like it don’t watch it, the problem is that nowadays the wider public is much more sensitive to such matters and may not be willing to turn a blind eye in this way. I think Aintree have done a great job to address welfare concerns, though there is still much more that can be done in racing generally e.g. whip usage, breeding practices and post-racing destinations. But we’re never going to be able to remove the risk from racing, and either have to accept that very sadly there will be fatalities occasionally, or to not have any racing at all.
I guess to be blunt, I accept the fatalities, albeit with great reluctance and guilt. It’s a tremendously difficult subject when there are many aspects of the sport that you love, but you also consider yourself to be an animal lover.
“It’s a tremendously difficult subject when there are many aspects of the sport that you love, but you also consider yourself to be an animal lover.”
Good post from Marlingford.
I think its black and white territory – you either accept the collateral damage of the deceased / injured jockeys and horses and follow the sport, or you cannot accept this do not follow the sport, and if you feel strongly enough join the campaigns for its removal from society. I am not judging which camp is correct as it is an individuals choice and opinion, but you cannot have a leg in both of them.
Enjoying and following the sport, but then bleating about the admittedly ugly “spectacle” of screens around injured horses (the best way of handling the issue as far as I am aware) is neither here nor there, and is absolutely pointless, not to mention hypocritical, in my opinion.
BUY THE SUN
No one wants to see fatalities. However, the number of fatalities to runners in all racing is a minuscule percentage. It is highly unlikely it could be made lower.
Personally, I think the sport is ethically defensible. The alternative – a ban on racing – would be far worse for the horse population. It might not be nice to admit but it would be naive to think all the horses would get nice homes.
I take the point about the 1960s races but I personally preferred the National when it was plodders hunting around on the first circuit. The modern flat out gallop Nationals are not as appealing, although I would not go as far as calling this year’s renewal “a horrible spectacle”.
The changes have been well intentioned but have arguably not been for the best.
I agree with you that racing is ethically defensible CAS. But it’s really not an easy sell when watching a replay of Eclair Surf and Anibale Fly at the third fence today, or indeed Captain Conby’s fall earlier in the afternoon.
I too preferred the National when it was a load of old plodders who turned up year after year. Sadly we’re never going back to those days.
“But it’s really not an easy sell when watching a replay of Eclair Surf and Anibale Fly at the third fence today, or indeed Captain Conby’s fall earlier in the afternoon.”
But the once a year punters will be back next year. And Aintree will still be a sell out.
Are we in danger of underestimating the public? I believe most do understand that the horses are bred for racing and would not exist without it and realise they receive the highest standards of care. I think they are willing to accept that accidents happen.
Of course, the animal rights people will be vocal in their criticism – but they want racing banned anyway and would have said the same even if there were no fatalities.
I think one of the main issues facing racing is the weakening of the breed, caused by too much in breeding and too much emphasis on speed.
Totally agree with the comments about breeding.
I don’t think the National has the same grip on the public that it once did. That might be due in part to wider calls on people’s attention nowadays, but I think gradually increasing welfare concerns within the wider public are also a cause. I would imagine quite a few people organising office sweepstakes this week (if such things still exist!) will have encountered some degree of censure for supporting horseracing.
I agree most of the public will take a realistic and mature approach, but Aintree has been very wise indeed to promote its focus on welfare in recent years in my view.
I believe this subject is going to continue to become more challenging, and racing needs to continue to be very proactive indeed to address valid welfare concerns.
So much to say but CAS you are pretty much spot on. The breeding for speed has made horses legs more fragile which I’m sure is making for more injuries between jumps. There were at least two horses yesterday in earlier races who were pulled up after just a couple of jumps. Is it me or are the Tim Forster style chasers disappearing?
The National became the biggest race in the world because of the spectacle and the risk involved. Take away both by reducing the fields and eradicating any risk and you finish the race. Maybe some here will say that would be ok.
I was texting a colleague at the football club I’m involved with about their game yesterday and when I said the National was half an hour away her response was “don’t tell me if any horses die or are injured”. Meanwhile shortly after Elle Est Belle died in front of the stands I heard a woman say it was hypocritical for people to get upset as they were happy for chickens and cows to die to provide them with food. So those members of the public who don’t like the spectacle won’t watch and those who accept the risks or in the slightly ignorant comment above don’t care about the risks will.
I hope I’m making sense. I’m only up because the blooming fire alarm in my hotel went off at ten past two.
I also agree Marlingford that racing has to be on the front foot about this subject and not always reacting defensively to criticism.
At some point we have to come out and say this is what we’re doing and detail the long list of improvements that have been made in horse welfare over the years.
“in the slightly ignorant comment above”
What are you referring to with this remark please?
BUY THE SUN
The comment about chickens and cows TTC. I can sort of see where she was coming from but her comments didn’t take into account the affection that those looking after these horses have for their charges.
“I think gradually increasing welfare concerns within the wider public are also a cause.”
I believe it is partly that but it also reflects the way society has changed.
Going back to the old school Nationals, a lot of people who saw them would have remembered (or at least heard about) horses being used as “beasts of burden” pulling ploughs, wagons etc. Even further back, many people would have encountered horses when they served in the Army.
In those circumstances, a horse getting injured in a race would not have seemed unusual.
Nowadays we are more urban, separated from the land and less familiar with the concept of the working animal. Most people’s encounters with animals are as pets, which naturally encourages a more sentimental attitude.
I agree we need to be mindful about this growing attitude. However, I do not really see what more racing can do other than stop breeding so much for speed. If you have racing, there will inevitably be injuries, even on the Flat.
Racing needs to be prepared to say that and to defend itself. A ban on racing (which is not supported by more sensible proponents of animal welfare) would not be in the best interests of horses. I also believe that the public would not support a ban. The animal rights crowd are vocal – but lots of interest groups make noise way out of proportion to their numbers and level of public support.
Good post, CAS. 👍
Just to extrapolate upon your point about how horses would have been perceived as working animals in the past, this explains why racing in general is less popular than it was when everyone would have been in contact with a horse on a daily basis. Horses were our means of transport, as well as being used for so many other things, and therefore the man in the (poo-filled) street would have had an interest in horses in general. The horse has now been surpassed by the internal combustion engine and, as a result, motor racing is of far more relevance to the average member of the public. And our streets are no cleaner, by the way, with air pollution killing tens of thousands every year.
On a more general point about the anti-racing brigade, yes they are a minority but an extremely vocal one. They are also poorly educated on the subject and still believe that whips carve up horses’ rumps and jockeys flog horses to within an inch of their lives in every race. There’s also some weird misapprehension that wild horses are just gambolling in a field then rounded up, frogmarched to the racecourse and made to compete against their will. Try explaining that these horses wouldn’t even exist if it weren’t for the racing and breeding industries and that they live very pampered, cosseted lives in racing yards and you’re just met by blank, incredulous looks.
What I saw yesterday in terms of spectacle was no worse than I have seen in many Grand Nationals these past 48 years.
I accept it, the public manifestly accept it as they keep betting on it and watching it each year.
A horse collapsed and died in front of the stands in another race yesterday – how many racegoers or viewers will turn their back on racing?
I would suggest next to none.
The bottom line here is we are the dominant species and no racehorse would ever have been born but for racing.
And being precious about it here is failing to read the wider public room.
The other big point is where the breed is heading.
Inbreeding for speed, often at the expense of other attributes, like conformation and good bone, is breeding future generations of, if not outright cripples but far more fragile horses.
Making obstacles softer and smaller is a short-term temporary fix, as long-term it just encourages more of the same.
Ditto watering – racing on slop to cater for fragile animals is like providing zimmerframes for all with the best infirm Group 1 cripple going to stud to breed more of the same.
The obsession with speed is causing racing to breed fragile horses who ironically have to race on watered ground – so these speedily-bred cripples ironically end up clocking net slower times anyway.
Racing and the breeding industry needs to take a look at itself.
Maybe there should be a conformation and bone test, before a horse is allowed to be bred from?
This slide into inbred, speedy, fragility needs to be arrested.
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.