- This topic has 28 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
I think ATR did the right thing. With the Detroit City fall… it was only the 2nd hurdle. Why would anyone want to watch that again. I thought ATR did the best thing.
Though if it was a significant fence, like the last then obviously they couldn’t edit it out. But i personally wouldn’t want to see a fatality again in a race. It’s very sad to see the first time without having to see it again. And if i never seen it first time then i’d be glad the channel spared me from seeing it.
Well written Kautostar1 agree 100%
In agreement with Gus here on the principle..
That said, I can understand where ATR are coming from, especially considering it was fairly obvious that Detroit City was in trouble as the rest of the field moved away from the hurdle, and was visible for a good amount of time… certainly wasn’t pleasant to see..
As for the animal rights activists and falls/fatalities, it really is a catch-22, isn’t it..
Show the footage. No it isn’t nice of course not but its real life you can’t hide away from it.
People who watch racing particularly on specialist racing channels know beforehand the risks all horses and jockeys take and they view knowing the possibility of fatalities.
I saw Detroit City fall, I have seen 1000 horses fall. Detroit city was killed 999 were not. If you can the difference from a TV screen then you are a better man than me.
How many seen the horse fall and said "oh Look Detroit City just died" not friggin one of you….it looked like just another fall.
OK when you know a horse has been killed it makes a difference but that’s racing………..I never want to see any sort of editting in horse racing no matter what. The Next thing you know is they won’t be showing it live just in case.
IAll censorship is dishonest and disgraceful.
Heat. Kitchen.Noble words – I assume you disagree with the screening off of injured, suffering horses being shot. Perhaps we could fit a little camera to the gun.
None of you have to watch the replays if you know that a fatal fall is going to offend you. How can one make a reasoned judgement regarding the debate over the possible re-siting of the second-last fence at Cheltenham if one cannot review over and over what actually happened to Granit Jack?
The bigger issue here which shows a lot of you to be hypocrites is this – we all love a sport in which sometimes horses die quite grisly deaths. Whether you want to pretend this isn’t true by having those deaths air-brushed out of action replays or not, this is the case. If you can’t live with that, I suggest you watch dressage instead. I remember when BBC News began showing the starving people of Ethiopia in 1984 (which led to the whole Live Aid thing) that many people were outraged. I find this a similar case.no need for censorship imo, yes in a full replay you will see a fall but the commentator doesn’t dwell on it overly as he has to commentate the rest of the race. if it’s going to be brushed under the carpet then ATR and RUK should stop doing reviews and obits of the great horses careers once they’ve suffered a mishap or discussing for ages on the safety or dannger or other merits of racing, courses and fences and just never mention them again, as if nothing ever happened or they never existed ?
There’s nothing worse than seeing a horse get killed, I personally wouldn’t want to watch it on a replay. I’m more than happy to see these things editted out, the same as I would if a jockey was killed.
The worst fatality I have seen was on the flat at Wolverhampton (I think) where a horse broke down and another horse ran straight into the side on its neck. I wouldn’t want to see that again, ever.
There’s nothing worse than seeing a horse get killed, I personally wouldn’t want to watch it on a replay. I’m more than happy to see these things editted out, the same as I would if a jockey was killed.
No one in their right mind likes seeing a horse get killed ot injured but I still do not believe that is grounds for censorship. I personally find any form of censorship in actuality reporting to be invidious.
Notwithstanding personal feelings – one of the debates in racing at the moment, indeed one you have contributed to Dave, is the issue of the second last fence at Cheltenham.
Imposing an editorial policy that removed any pictures of horses getting killed would mean that only those who saw the fall "live" would be able to contribute to the debate having seen the actual incident. Is that an ideal situation?
I accept there could possibly be a case for editing replays shown on terrestial television before the 21:00 watershed. However on dedicated racing channels there is no excuse. People who watch these channels know the risks in the sport and if they do not want to see such incidents happening then they should, perhaps, consider following a different sport.
By saying that, it does not mean I do not care about horses (or jockeys) being killed or injured – I do – very much so. However airbrushing such incidents out of the archive achieves nothing and it denies people to right to see what is happening on our racecourses.
Its a fair point Paul not one that I disagree with in principal. Specialist channels I believe are different to normal council telly, for obvious reasons. I think the way things are at the moment are about right.
The safety of horses and jockeys is important, hence the need to sort out that fence at Cheltenham. There’s nothing worse for any sport than an accident, especially that which could be avoided by spending a little bit of money.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.