- This topic has 28 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
have just read her review in the mail on sunday 2 supplement and have to say she talks a lot of sense from the behaviour of the people that attend to the treatment of the horses.
imo it was a fair aspect of NH racing without the ban racing at all cost brigade.
she highlighted the poor side of how horses are trained and treated to the positive exampling simon earl.
a good thought provoking reviewJust read it, and yes, it’s absolute rubbish, packed with factual errors.
If this woman is seriously interested in horse welfare (which I very much doubt) why doesn’t she do a piece on the Gray family of Spindle’s farm, or maybe the disgusting magistrate Kainth who has authorised the return of some of the animals to them?
yeats,venusian respect your views and understand your stance.
i thought it was interesting from her non racing point of view, especially the point that most horses spend most of the day in their box which is if you think about it is like bing in jail with two exercise periods.Clearly written by something with little or no knowledge of racing.
Liz – The vast majority of people who are involved in or who follow racing feel compassion for horses and are concerned for their welfare. You raise a variety of ‘headline’ issues without bothering to investigate the facts behind them.
Horses die as a result of racing. Fact. No one disputes it. It is a matter of moral judgement for people whether they think that is an acceptable cost when balanced against the benefits racing brings. It doesn’t mean such people don’t care when a horse is killed or injured, quite the opposite, people involved in racing often feel such losses more keenly. I respect the right of people who do not agree with such views to put forward their arguments. It often seems though that they are unprepared to listen to counter-arguments and that they are keen to foist their own morality on others, believing they must be right and others wrong.A completely unbalanced piece of extremely lazy and jaded journalism unworthy of inclusion in a national newspaper IMO.
Those of you who think this is rubbish why not post your comments on the actual site – or do you need the comfort of everyone agreeing with you? It clearly is not all rubbish – certainly the description of drunken racegoers is far from inaccurate as is the mention of over-production. For those people who view racing as a vehicle for betting and an excuse to get sozzled they will not care less what happens to the horses. It is also easy to downplay the views of Simon Earle because his views are not considered mainstream.
I have just sent this as a comment on the article:
No wonder the racing industry pay so little heed to troublemakers like Animal Aid when the best argument they can produce in the National press is this.
I have worked in racing for many years now, and have worked with horses for even longer, and I am in no doubt that racehorses are the happiest and best cared for equines around.
I woud suggest that Ms Jones went and visited a few yards (if she were allowed to as from the sounds of her article she has a history of troublemaking hence why she was closely monitored at Aintree) before commenting on the care and lives of the UK’s racehorses. High numbers in yards don’t mean a low standard of care.
However, her points on overproduction are currently an issue in racing and anyone in the industry would echo her concerns. The industry is working hard to ensure a safe and happy future for ex-racehorses and to curb the production of racehorses as Ms Jones would have discovered if she had done a little more research.They don’t leave you much space to comment that’s all I could write…
As has already been said, what utter drivel.
So many inaccuracies it’s hard to know where to start first so I shan’t bother.
This female should at least have known that Earle hasn’t been training in Wiltshire using the Horses First methods for many months now – Jeremy Gask took over some while back.
Maybe I’m having internet problems but not only can I not see Lekha’s comment on the list, nor will mine post.
What I TRIED to post in reply to the frankly disgraceful article is this:
Rarely have I read such uneducated, reactionary nonsense completely devoid of fact or context. This is writing intended to shock and provoke regardless of accuracy, and does not deserve the title of journalism. Why not put things into their accurate perspective and allow the reader to form their own educated opinion with the evidence provided instead of peddling this sensationalist rubbish? I have worked with, been around and adored horses for most of my life and have a strong passion for equine welfare – I am also a passionate supporter of National Hunt racing. By and large racehorses are the best looked after equines in the UK – as with all situations there will be exceptions to this but I saw none during this year’s race and would say so if I had. Do not tar every racing professional and enthusiast with the same brush – especially when you clearly do not have the first clue about your subject matter.
Love how all the comments posted so far are on her side and don’t include those sent by lekha et al who are actually involved in the sport.
Both the Mail and Evening Standard moderate the comments on their site, this tends to mean that those who fulsomely agree with the original article get included with little room for anything else.
Both the Mail and Evening Standard moderate the comments on their site, this tends to mean that those who fulsomely agree with the original article get included with little room for anything else.
They clearly aren’t brave enough to publish anything that might suggest that the article is unfounded…
Yes, that’s patently obvious to all – they only publish stuff that strokes the hideous woman’s ego. Isn’t she a horror?!?!
FWIW, my comments that won’t appear consisted of :
What an ill-researched article full of fallacies and half truths.
I suggest that Ms Jones makes more of an effort to research her next breathless, inaccurate piece of trashy tabloid journalism before she goes to print!
There are so many misreported "facts" included in this piece that you wouldn’t know where to start. The sad fact is that those people who are unaware of what goes on in racing or how the horses are treated (which is in the main, exceptionally well) will swallow the inaccuracies written in this article and believe them to be true.
Woefully ignorant.
I’m sure it was Liz Jones who featured in Private Eye for writing about her £600 leggings repeatedly in her column. She also writes at length about her divorce as if anyone is interested.
The comments are moderated and the Mail is not the kind of paper that appreciates even-handedness.
Probably shouldn’t have signed myself off as Princess Di’s Driver’s Mate though.
I got as far as her her statement about ridiculously over-tanned cleavages saw he picture and that was almost enough…..she has a face like a melted wellington and not only looks like a bitch she writes like one as well.
People like her are biased to the extreme. She is best ignored as he hasn’t a clue what she is talking about. It’s funny that on this forum (A racing forum) no one agrees with her, yet all the comments published on the website all support her…….she probably wrote them as well.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.