- This topic has 38 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 19 years, 5 months ago by
.
- Posts
If you look at most of tyhe horses that ,lost their lives (during the races) most of their best form was on soft ground (Mr Babbage, Olaso, Basliea Star etc). Correct me if im wrong, but surely the trainers should know what their risking by running those sorts of horses on their unfavoured ground?
<br>Awful that there were fatalities let alone 9 in 4 days but I thought that the Daily Mail went well OTT on Friday splashing it all over the front page with the usual quotes from Animal Aid protesters and all. At the end of the article they even mentioned Best Mate’s death as if to say ‘this sport has got to be banned’
It could have been a lot worse looking at some of the falls I saw and I couldn’t believe that Fundamentalist got up after his fall on Wednesday as that looked a real neck-breaker but thank god that he did.
Looking at what can be done, Cheltenham said that they could not water because of the frost forecast but could they not have watered once temperatures had risen at say, 11am each day?
In Defence I also have to say that when David Muir the RSPCA consultant was asked if he would run a horse over the ground his answer was yes.<br>I too was pleased to hear that Fundamentalist was OK after that sickening fall.
Demi Beau got up after a long time on the ground as well as did Saintsaire, perhaps that is one avenue the enquiry could take, horses who suffered similarly bad falls. Was it in the lap of the Gods that one survived while another didn’t or was there something more to it…
the last time anything like this happened was in 1996 when 10 horses died during the festival.<br>is it just a coincidence that the 96 festival like this one was run during very cold weather and on a course with very little grass growth?
Quote: from Seven Towers on 11:30 am on Mar. 18, 2006[br]Fair play drone but I’m concerned that the slew of animal rights supporters who have joined the RSPCA over the last 10 years or so will be able to shout down any genuine animal lovers or experts they employ to speak on their behalf. I’m sorry if my comments sounded hot-headed but they are based on my experience of the RSPCA & the AR lobby in other areas where common-sense (and vet’s expertise & research,) has been ignored.<br>  <br>As a vegetarian , anti hunting ,rider ,racehorse owner and breeder who has an entire stable full of retirees I take issue with your statements
The RSPCA have the interests of racing and horse welfare at heart. They have said that it might be that there is nothing that can be done about the fatalities to improve safety but they have also mentioned field sizes .<br>Animal aid has a rather emotive feature on racing on its website and whilst I would say that their feature on zoos is excellent the same cannot be said for their racing feature. There are errors and unattributed film clips with vague assertions. Their whip report is quite fanciful and looks like it has been written by someone who has never sat on a horse <br>Racing cannot ignore either and must be seen to answer the critics – horses dying in sport is desperately sad and the deaths are an appalling reminder of the high prices paid by some equines.<br>Any report on the fatalities must be made available to all media for publication as soon as possible and if there are issues to be improved they must be seen to be acted upon <br>Conversely there is deliberate cruelty in horsekeeping but not in racing which is highly policed.<br>The almighty issue is that racing is on TV so every tragedy is seen in full technicolour in lounges across the country and insensitive comments do not augur well .<br>Horses dying through neglect , ragwort or accidents in fields or stables are not seen on tv<br>Answers such as it’s tough that horses might die but thats the way it is do not wash – it’s tough yes but what can be done to make it ‘less tough’.<br>Improvements to hurdles with padding or different styles should be acted upon , I notice there was an issue with the long distance amateurs novice chase – scrap it . Show that racing is listening to the critics and progressing
Welcome to the forum Ratcliff, I’m sorry if any of my posts have offended you as a vegetarian or anything else. <br>   <br>  David Muir’s comments which others have alluded to here were supportive of racing though and he is an ally in any JC enquiry, the same could not be said of all the RSPCA’s ruling council some of which have links to Animal Aid, but I hope they listen to their own experts advice. <br>  You are right when you say that their (Animal Aid) report on racing is emotive and error strewn. I can tell you that their are other reports on areas I have been involved in life on their website that are just as badly researched and represented. They do not set aside special treatment for racing. Their site and literature are very seductive to those who have no previous knowledge or experience in a particular subject area though. What can racing do to provide a similarly attractive and honest account of itself?<br>  By the way I have never suggested that "it’s tough that horses might die but that’s how it is" is an acceptable answer to people’s concerns. It is precisely because I care for animals and what happens to them that I’ve entered into this debate on here.
 So far people have suggested padding on hurdles, smaller fields and the scrapping of the 4m amateur race as possible solutions. Is the drainage at Cheltenham a victim of it’s own success, does it ensure that the going will be too fast, ground too hard?
(Edited by Seven Towers at 7:40 pm on Mar. 18, 2006)
Quote: from ratcliff on 6:38 pm on Mar. 18, 2006[br]
<br>Improvements to hurdles with padding or different styles should be acted upon , I notice there was an issue with the long distance amateurs novice chase – scrap it . Show that racing is listening to the critics and progressing <br>
Brush hurdles do appeal as a move in the right direction, though I guess there may be cost concerns for the smaller tracks as well as portabilty problems e.g quick removal in order to stage bumpers.
I regard hurdling as primarily a speed test with the hurdles being there to test a horse’s abilty to ‘leap’ rather than ‘jump’ and a test of the horse’s skill/balance in maintaining a fluent gallop on landing. That existing hurdles can trip a horse is counter-productive to the essence of what true hurdling should be about, in my view anyway.
The amateur novice chase is something of an anomaly, much more so than the Foxhunters, and I certainly wouldn’t lose any sleep if it was scrapped. As someone mentined an open conditions event over the trip would be a nice idea – Ossmoses at Chelters would be quite a sight.
(Edited by Drone at 11:22 pm on Mar. 19, 2006)
The National Hunt Chase used to be the biggest race in the jumps calendar and the name "National Hunt Meeting" meant the meeting which hosted this prestigious event, predating the Cheltenham Festival itself. Sadly, the current version of this race is truly an anomaly and serves nothing of the purpose it was created for, which in itself is lost in time. I’ve had some of my best bets at Cheltenham in the race, but it’s time for it to move to the April meeting, or be scrapped.
Quote: from Seven Towers. Is the drainage at Cheltenham a victim of it’s own success, does it ensure that the going will be too fast, ground too hard?
There is no way that the ground at Cheltenham was too fast. The rain that fell early in the week ensured absolutely perfect conditions for jump racing — good with good to soft patches. Running championship grade races on soft or heavy ground will only guarantee one thing — more fallers and the likelihood of more injuries.
I don’t know why 9 horses suffered fatal injuries, no-one does at this stage. But imo the ground had nothing to do with it.
Racing has to be concerned about its PR. It isn’t a question of winning the argument with the Animal Rights organisations, its the ordinary members of the public we should be concerned about. Like it or not, the emotive arguments of those who would ban the sport can be effective, but they are particularly effective when the sport itself offers no counter-argument.
Good public relations, specifically, managing the perceptions of the non-race going public is absolutely crucial because the campaign to ban NH racing is simple and emotive and easily understood. Many good suggestions have already been made here.
Animal Rights groups want racing to use the argument that ‘horses dying is just part of the sport’, because that is precisely their argument, it reinforces the simple message they are trying to get across, that is, horse racing is a sport in which the competitors die and therefore not acceptable. If it is to win the PR battle, racing has to create and maintain the impression that they are working towards and believe in a sport where there will be no racecourse deaths. Whether or not this is achievable is irrelevant, it must appear to be a definite and achievable aim.
So many lessons can be drawn from the fox-hunting campaign. In the early stages, whilst the opponents were busily working to gain public sympathy, hunt supporters did precisely nothing, believing their wealth and political influence would be sufficient to save them. When it became clear, with a Labour government, that the end really was nigh, they went to the other extreme and started protesting. The sight of hundreds of green-wellied country types marching up and down in our towns and cities, breaking into Parliament and scuffling with police, did more to hasten the end of fox-hunting than anything else.
In my opinion, the animal rights argument is the greatest threat racing will face in the next ten years. If racing is to survive, what is called for is intelligence and a sophisticated media strategy. What will surely condemn the sport is dumb belligerence or trying to patronise the general public.<br>
Aranalde, I totally agree with you on the comparison you draw with the foxhunting fraternity. It’d never crossed the minds of foxhunting’s staunchest supporters that although they might own most of the countryside the general public wasn’t going to allow them to do what they liked on it. <br> We are unfortunate in having a media that treats bad news like manna from heaven, there were no headlines stating that 98% of the horses that took part in the festival didn’t die and no attempt to draw a sense of perspective with the wider world and the more serious and deliberate cruelty that animals (including horses,) face in it.<br> NH especially has a stuffy and tweedy image, and comments on here in the past bemoaning the coach parties and Stag/Hen do’s attending racing and not watching/understanding what’s going on point to the tension that can develop. Some of the people who are put off by racings current image are people that racing can do without anyway, but few people realise that going racing is cheaper than football or that children are admitted free to a lot of courses, these are the sort of thing racing must promote. <br> Tabloids are fickle beasts and the opportunity to for example offfer reduced admission to their readers to certain meetings would go a long way to getting them onside, (if racing wants to.) In the meantime racing can look at what happened last week and see if there are any ways to prevent it happening again. <br> As someone else said on here though, 10 horses died over the 3 day festival in 1996, I can’t remember any furore then (perhaps there was something else going on in the news,) but in the intervening years there has thankfully been nothing like that many casualties on an annual basis. The task in hand is to find out why that is.
Having had time to absorb all the information that has been given by officials and NH hunt loving fans alike it saddens me as a punter and general fan of racing be it flat or nh that in the pursuit of my pleasure, be it for personal or financial gain that these beautiful creatures are asked to pay the ultimate sacrifice. No matter what we do as caring human beings there will always be casualties unfortunatley,<br>be it the lack of grass cover, firm going, big fields or whatever, Im sure there isnt a single member of this or any other racing forum that wants to see a repeat of the chaos that happened. I dont know the answer i just hope with Aintree just around the corner the powers that be, ie owners and trainers think twice about placing horses and put the horses welfare first.<br>My anti-post bet was Lingo, also from Jonjo’s yard and having a member of the family work there I know personally just how sad these losses can be:(
I was at a pub quiz last night and one of the questions in the news round was "How many horses died at this year’s Cheltenham Festival?" I was completely incensed by the fact that when they did decide to bring up a question about racing, it was about horses dying. The vast majority of the people in the pub would probably not care for racing, but when they do hear about it, it’s not "Who won the Gold Cup?" it’s "How many died?" I felt ashamed having to explain to a few people in my group I didn’t know so well that I was a racing fanatic, especially when all they hear about it are deaths making headline news.
It’s something that should definitely be taken seriously, and precautions should be made where possible to prevent deaths and serious injuries on the racecourse. Safety is improving all the time, and at the end of the day these things will happen. The problem with the animal rights campaigners is that they think people involved in racing don’t care, and they have a naive black-and-white view on it.
The media are to blame for fuelling the general public’s ignorance about racing. When I’m asked to explain about horse racing, or defend it when accused of it being cruel, I don’t know where to start because it’s such a complex issue…and the sad fact is some people will never understand the workings of the sport.
The only reason this problem has been highlighted is because it’s Cheltenham, and it’s in the public eye and media. It’s such a tricky problem to tackle, and none of my possible solutions are really fair to all horses, or to the public who want to see a proper race.
1) The whole track is watered if it doesn’t rain and make the ground soft. This will cushion any falls. But it is not fair to all horses, only those who thrive on soft, and all races will be run very slowly.
2) The patch of ground right after the fence is watered thoroughly/covered with softish material, ie. bark chippings, sand, sawdust, to cushion any falls. BUt the problem is that if it is soft, then many horses will find it difficult to continue the momentum straight after the fence, and again would be unfair to top of the ground horses.
But these possible solutions would only work at places like Newbury and Kempton, ie. flat tracks. Cheltenham is so demanding and hilly, that even then, that solution would not guarantee any major reduction in falls.
The problem this year is that there has been such a lack of rain, and too much cold, icy weather. It firmens the ground up, so there is no give in the ground, and if horses fall, there is nothing to break that fall, and the horses’ bones bear all the pressure.
There were 5 deaths at Newbury on Vodafone Gold Cup day, but I didn’t see anybody jumping up and down complaining about it. Of course it is worrying when any horse falls, and of course i love to see them up and about immediately. I hate seeing horses die on-course. But it was not at all prominent in the media.
I just don’t think there is a solution that will really 110% solve this problem, whilst maintaining that races are done fairly, and naturally weather-wise.
Quote: from Seven Towers on 7:39 pm on Mar. 18, 2006[br]Welcome to the forum Ratcliff, I’m sorry if any of my posts have offended you as a vegetarian or anything else.
<br>No problem Seven Towers and thank you for the welcome :0)<br>   <br>  David Muir’s comments which others have alluded to here were supportive of racing though and he is an ally in any JC enquiry, the same could not be said of all the RSPCA’s ruling council some of which have links to Animal Aid, but I hope they listen to their own experts advice. <br>  You are right when you say that their (Animal Aid) report on racing is emotive and error strewn. I can tell you that their are other reports on areas I have been involved in life on their website that are just as badly researched and represented. They do not set aside special treatment for racing. Their site and literature are very seductive to those who have no previous knowledge or experience in a particular subject area though. What can racing do to provide a similarly attractive and honest account of itself?
<br>I honestly don’t know – racing is open BUT many people think horses are big scary animals and have nothing to do with them and will equate horrid falls on TV or a close up tight finish with raised whips with what could be construed to look like horses being soundly beaten with sticks to run faster. Then Animal Aid pointing out some figures , a quick review of ex racehorses in straightened circumstances and the sport is seen as uncaring and hard nosed
<br>  By the way I have never suggested that "it’s tough that horses might die but that’s how it is" is an acceptable answer to people’s concerns.
Sorry it was someone else I know and I hadn’t intended to imply it was you
<br>It is precisely because I care for animals and what happens to them that I’ve entered into this debate on here.
 So far people have suggested padding on hurdles, smaller fields and the scrapping of the 4m amateur race as possible solutions. Is the drainage at Cheltenham a victim of it’s own success, does it ensure that the going will be too fast, ground too hard?
(Edited by Seven Towers at 7:40 pm on Mar. 18, 2006)<br>
22 March 2006<br>CHELTENHAM PROBE <br>Crackdown planned on Festival runners <br>By David Yates
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.