- This topic has 46 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
The BHA would be far better off funding a scheme that ensures that all racehorses have a future that does not involve cruelty or abandonment rather than funding low grade racing for the principle benefit of bookies or funding the opening of new racetracks which IMO are not needed.
Bob
Two points about this particular paragraph.
1. Like it or not it’s money bet through the bookies that pays the Levy that provides the base funding of the sport. That being said there is a strong case for a percentage of that income going toward racehorse rehabilitation.
2. To the best of my knowledge the BHA don’t finance new racetracks. The new racetracks may get some funding via the Levy but that’s part of the bidding process anyway. If you don’t think there should be new racecourses, I suggest you tell that to the massed ranks that turned up at Ffos Las recently. Great Leighs was ill-conceived, Ffos Las it seems was not.
I agree that there are too many horses running, but ultimately how do you stop people breeding horses? For that matter how do you stop people racing horses, because if you don’t offer opportunities through mainstream racing they end up racing at flapping meetings, which is arguably a worse situation. Note the thriving flapping circuit in Scotland populated by ‘rejects’ from regulated racing which, if a Racing Post quote is to be believed, is now a target for Irish runners.
Rob
I am completely aware that punters money contributes to the levy and therefore prizemoney but I am also aware that new racecourses although they may not be funded by the BHA inevitably stretch the prizemoney pool. However I think a scaling down of the whole industry to the size where it can fund itself efficiently and look after the animals on which it depends would be a good thing overall.
If the price of this is less low grade racing,a reduced number of people employed in the racing and breeding business then I feel it is worth paying because IMO the industry should not have been allowed to expand to its current size without a proper structure being in place to prevent the abuse or abandonment of animals after they have outlived their usefulness.
As for over production,supply will match demand in the end especially if the price of a horse includes making a contribution to its welfare after it stops racing (this should be enough to put the irresponsible would be owners off the idea) and if licensing or legislation is required to achieve a more realistically sustainable and responsible industry then so be it.
Likewise flapping or other underground activity which may or may not involve cruelty to animals needs to be prevented and policed by the relevant authorities but it is not racing’s responsibility to keep these activities in check by living beyond its own means and being vague about taking responsibilty for the horses on which the sport depends.
Bob Wharton wrote
I think a scaling down of the whole industry to the size where it can fund itself efficiently and look after the animals on which it depends would be a good thing overall.
Totally agree but people involved at the top end are earning good money. They are desperate not to let this happen hence the discussion on the Henderson thread about looking at ways to ‘bury bad news’.
The plight of the drugged horse/s does not seem their first consideration.I am completely aware that punters money contributes to the levy and therefore prizemoney but I am also aware that new racecourses although they may not be funded by the BHA inevitably stretch the prizemoney pool. However I think a scaling down of the whole industry to the size where it can fund itself efficiently and look after the animals on which it depends would be a good thing overall.
If the price of this is less low grade racing,a reduced number of people employed in the racing and breeding business then I feel it is worth paying because IMO the industry should not have been allowed to expand to its current size without a proper structure being in place to prevent the abuse or abandonment of animals after they have outlived their usefulness.
As for over production,supply will match demand in the end especially if the price of a horse includes making a contribution to its welfare after it stops racing (this should be enough to put the irresponsible would be owners off the idea) and if licensing or legislation is required to achieve a more realistically sustainable and responsible industry then so be it.
Likewise flapping or other underground activity which may or may not involve cruelty to animals needs to be prevented and policed by the relevant authorities but it is not racing’s responsibility to keep these activities in check by living beyond its own means and being vague about taking responsibilty for the horses on which the sport depends.
Bob, Flapping is well enough regulated to ensure that the animals are well looked after. I have known the Border scene since boyhood though I have no contact directly nowadays but can assure you that everyone involved is a horse lover and care deeply about their animals, that is certainly true about the lads in the Langholm and Hawick areas. Just go on the Langholm Horse Racing website to see if the sport should be "prevented". I think you do them something of an injustice.
No one seems to have mentioned the excellent Retraining of Racehorse series being held at shows up and down the country with its final at Burghley on the Sunday of the three day event. There was a class at the recent Hickstead Derby meeting and they are well supported. There are many ex-racers in eventing and I believe some are even being used in endurance racing.
Happy – of course his thread started on a negative theme – it is discussing a negative situation.
Moehat – "education" ? This is 2009. Owners are not school children.
Excuse after excuse.
One would think that those who have the money to own a racehorse would also have some comon sense and compassion but that is not always the case.
Tom
History surely testifies that ‘money’ is accompanied by ‘common sense’ and ‘compassion’ far less often that it should be.
Rob
I can’t help but feel that, if someone posted on this forum giving their true identity, their views and concerns, it would achieve a much better dialogue with all parties than pretending to be a racing fan and then beginning to ask questions. No one is going to shoot someone down for being concerned for the welfare of racehorses, because that is common ground for all of us. Can I ask Tom to explain what he thinks would improve the situation?
From ‘happy’ who does not seem ‘happy’ that his beloved sport is put under the microscope.
<quote>If you go back through the topic you will see that I have questioned her motives </quote>
"Her motives"
Try and be a little more polite.
"Clare’s motives"
I think that Clare’s motive’s were to present the fact as they really are. What has she said that id not fact.
Maybe we should be more concerned about your motives?
As for improving the situation. First all those connected with racing have to admit there is a problem.
Because I agree not with Clare but with the facts she has put on this thread I received an email suggesting I am someone else.
I was Christened "Thomas" and "Thomas" I am.
As I have mentioned before I came into horse racing almost 50 years ago and as far as betting is concerned I did well in a small way. But as time went on I became more and more concerned for the welfare of the horse. Is that wrong?
I also became concerned about the sport being Judge and Jury as far as regulation is concerned and decided to stop[ betting, but apart from a five year break in paying too much attention to the sport, I came back, not to bet but to monitor racehorse welfare and the punitive self regulation of the sport.
The sport which has sold its should for quantity not quality.
I hope that answers the email I received from a certain party.
Because I agree not with Clare but with the facts she has put on this thread
She has not posted any
facts
in this thread – she has posted a hypothesis from Wetherby’s, which even they suggest could be statistically flawed.
Facts are statements which are provable beyond doubt, to take the OED definition:-
“a thing that is indisputably the case”
Happy does not live up to his name when he comments;-
"If all you can do is look for negatives I suggest you follow another sport. I can’t imagine myself getting up every morning thinking ‘ I hate racing but I will keep an eye on it and get frustrated for the rest of the day’. Makes no sense. You come out with accusations but do not say who you are acting on behalf of. ClareF did the same , but when pushed she has decided to disappear. You are fully entitled to your opinion, but that is all it is, I have given an answer to the original post which is fact, and checkable. You should do the same."
I am not you, thank God.
Look at my posts on this forum and you will see that they are not all negative.
What is all these accusations that I am acting on behalf of Clare or an email accusing me of being Dene. What are so many of you paranoid?
I belong to no animal charity, I doubt I have every met Clare and if my name had been dene I would have changed it by deed poll as soon as I was of age to do so.
My father had a saying "The truth always hurts" by the attitude of some on here, it looks as if the old soul was right,
The drying up of this debate, and that is what it is , a debate on the welfare of the racehorse from womb to grave, does not surprise me.
Why is it that so many in the racing world are not willing to have a sensible debate on the subject?
When qare they going to stop defending the sport to the hilt, at the expense of the facts?
So don’t anyone start to accuse me of not knowing about the racing game.
I gambled, went racing, for over three decades and even with all this being profitable and enjoyable I decided to stop the gambling side.
Why?
Get out when I was well in front in the profits stakes.
Other situations outside racing.
And the welfare of the horse, a taboo subject to many of my racing friends.
Today, things seemed to have got worse with quantity and not quality in the ‘racing world’.
Too much racing.
Maybe one could say animals, trainers, riders who should not be on the track are now taking part in the sport because the order of the day appears to be quantity before quality…….
I was one of you at one time but I did not wear rose tinted spectacles.
We can make racing better for the horse, trainer, stable staff and punter but big changes have to be made and let’s start with the horse.
Tom
The subject has been debated many times in this forum and I think you are doing yourself no favours in suggesting people on this forum do not care about the welfare of horses.
You keep prattling on about facts – yet you or Clare have produced no "facts" at all – you merely quote unsubstantiated reports and spurious figures.
You accuse others of wearing "rose tinted spectacles" yet you come across as one of those arrogant people who are convinced they are right and everyone else is wrong. That is not the basis for a debate.
I think you will find the majority of members on this forum are more than happy to have an objective debate on the subject.
You may find they are not prepared to debate the subject with you as you seem to demonstrate a complete lack of objectivity.
(NAP)
gc
Adoptive father of two. The patron saint of lower-grade fare. A gently critical friend of point-to-pointing. Kindness is a political act.
Surely the welfare of the horse is under more scrutiny now than it ever was before, and certainly in racing. You say you have been interested in racing for over fifty years..would people have been debating this issue 50 years ago, and were horses looked after better in those days? Do you go to horse markets and try to educate people that are buying horses for themselves or their children which are then sent back to the very same market when they or their kids lose interest? If you made money out of racing, why not give it back via Greatwood or other such organisations. There is so much bitterness in your comments, I don’t understand. But can I repeat what I have said before and that is that I find it terribly upsetting to be accused of not caring about horses and their welfare.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.