- This topic has 93 replies, 39 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
To save anyone going to their website, here’s what they say. I don’t think the Beeb will be siding with them…!
A horse badly injured in last year’s Grand National was killed in the 2008 event on Saturday, when he fell two-thirds of the way through the gruelling 4-and-a-half-mile event. McKelvey had been a star feature on BBC1 television’s the One Show, as he received treatment for his tendon injury and was made ready for this year’s National. He had recently been entered into two less taxing hurdle races – in which he failed to show any ability – before being confronted with the huge Grand National fences.
Once again the perversely challenging event brought numerous horses to the ground, some somersaulting and falling on their necks. Just 15 of the 40 starters completed the race. Some of the injured might meet the fate of last year’s Grand National victim, Graphic Approach, who was ailing for a month before being destroyed.
McKelvey was the third horse killed at this year’s three-day Grand National meeting. On Friday at Aintree, Time to Sell and In The High Grass died after horrific falls in the crowded 2 mile 5 furlong Topham Chase, which was completed by just 12 of the 29 horses entered. Nine-year-old Time To Sell was having his 43rd race when he crashed to the ground and lay motionless after jumping the notorious 5ft 2in. high obstacle known as The Chair. In The High Grass died after he hit the top of the eighth fence and turned a complete somersault. It was the 25th race for the seven-year-old and the third he had been entered into in just a month.
Thirty-eight horses have died at the Aintree meeting since 1997 – eleven of them in the big race itself.
Said Animal Aid Director Andrew Tyler:
‘For anyone who has a genuine concern for horse welfare, the Grand National is a nightmare to watch. Exhausted horses were crashing to the ground throughout this appallingly hazardous race. It is not a sporting event but a sick spectacle that plays fast and loose with the lives of horses. The BBC routinely plays down the death and suffering of Thoroughbreds. It has spent months promoting the supposedly heroic journey of McKelvey. Now he is dead – and predictably so. Let the BBC cover that – not as a tragic accident but as a cynical sacrifice with which it is complicit.’
They might also go for the angle below as today in good conditions and with all the safety improvements thought necessary, 12 horses fell, 7 unseated riders and 6 pulled up – to me a sickening spectacle.
"Once again the perversely challenging event brought numerous horses to the ground, some somersaulting and falling on their necks. Just 15 of the 40 starters completed the race. Some of the injured might meet the fate of last year’s Grand National victim, Graphic Approach, who was ailing for a month before being destroyed."
I feel like a neutral in this feud since this thread was posted before Mr Tyler made his release.
On the other hand
”He had recently been entered into two less taxing hurdle races – in which he failed to show any ability – before being confronted with the huge Grand National fences.”Mr Tyler failed to mention that McKelvey had confronted these dock-off fences quite well last year.
I think that a group similar to AA would serve a purpose if it focussed it’s lobbying against overproduction or a similar legitimate grievence pertaining to Horse Racing. Instead, they focus way too heavily on what they (wrongly) believe will win the hearts and minds of the masses.
Alderbrook
Thanks for posting the piece by Animal Aid.
I used to enjoy the National, and NH racing generally, much more than the Flat, and regularly attended meetings at Newton Abbot, Devon and Exeter (as it was called then) and the long-forgotten Buckfastleigh. But the costs in terms of equine, and of course much more importantly though fortunately much rarer human, deaths or serious injuries, have increasingly seemed much too high, and I find it hard to disagree with the basic argument of the piece you’ve reproduced.
On the BBC radio program FIVE LIVE last night there was a discussion on Mckelvey in particular and the show in general, there was a deluge of calls so many that the production team extended the length of the feature. The majority of the calls were from listeners who broadly supported Animal Aids view. The one or two callers who supported racing were of the type "we eat meat, so what if a horse dies".
In my opinion Balding and Struthers did little to repel the hoards with Anti Jump Racing views. The argument presented by Balding on the physiology of the racehorse preventing recuperation from broken legs etc fell on deaf ears. Struthers, in my opinion, actually aided their argument, when presented with a whole string of facts on horse deaths at various courses. by comparing horse racing where only "3 horses from every 1000 runners" die to cattle production for food, where a whole lot more die. It was laughable.
The whole point of Animal Aids argument seems to be that horses are forced to race for "Public Pleasure". The HRA should, in my view, stop trying to defend the sport and show the Animal Rights people up as the Hypocrites that they are (or reveal their true agenda) and attempt to highlight the facts of keeping and breeding any animals results in death. As they seem bereft of ideas when confronted with a "any death is wrong" argument the RHA might do well to research and present for consideration the number of deaths of animals bread in captivity for "public pleasure". From Zoos, pet shop production of birds and fish, production of live food for other "pets".
When faced with the argument is the life of a horse more important than that of a fish or snail, Animal Aid has two choices – It can either admit that one life form is more valuable than another due to "its Cuddlyness", or reveal its agenda that all animal production whether for sport, viewing pleasure, or food consumption should be banned.Attack is the best defense in my view, present the whatever next argument, far more of the population would realise what the real agenda is.
Barney
Animal Aid’s aim is that all animal production for pleasure or consumption should be banned. No sports, zoos, wildlife parks, farms, pets (they may allow us to keep dogs and cats if we’re lucky.) They may present on their site a scattergun approach of varied campaigns but if a campaign is successful they won’t just give up the ghost they’ll come up with something else, until their view of the world has been imposed on everyone else.
Although their name is Animal Aid, they don’t actually physicall “aid” any animals at all, they just use peoples donations to pay themselves to run political campaigns.The point of a pro-racing PR campaign would not be to defeat Animal Aid. There will always be people with strong views prepared to campaign against things they don’t like. The point would be to ensure that they don’t succeed in persuading the general public/MPs that racing needs to be banned. As I have said before on this forum, the biggest long-term threat to racing is not corruption or low prize money or the increasing fixture list, it is the danger that Animal Aid and organisations like them succeed in setting the agenda for the general public. And in the absence of any PR counter-offensive, they and groups like them will eventually succeed. Racing is not so well-supported in this country that it can withstand endless bad publicity unscathed.
By the sound of it, Balding and Struthers didn’t do a very good job last night. Hardly surprising. PR is a tricky art and it is about time the HRA started taking it seriously.
Very considered post AH – unfortunately it is on the same thread as this slightly less considered effort:-
What a load of cobblers and scaremongering, why on earth should anyone in their right mind take the cruelty angle when none was involved. Anyone who did would be made to look extremely silly.
As for the animal aid nutters who gives a monkey’s about them?I havn’t heard any more about exactly what happened injury wise to McKelvey other than he ran loose into the barriers after unseating his rider and didn’t get up. It sounds very similar to Graphic Approach last year although after considerable effort from the veterinary team he did get up although passed away about a month later due to a complication.
It is such a shame for the horse and connections but it obvuiously was a tragic accident. I feel horseracing gets really bad press from groups like Animal Aid as there are fatalities in other horse sports like eventing but these don’t seem to be publicised so much.
I am an avid horse lover but I also love the sport and know these animals are kept in a life of luxury from the numerous stable visits I have been on and are doted on by their lads and lasses.
Also horses can be quite injury prone and can break a leg or seriously injure themselves when they are just out in a field relaxing sometimes.
I hope the One Show cover this very carefully tomorrow.Very considered post AH – unfortunately it is on the same thread as this slightly less considered effort:-
What a load of cobblers and scaremongering, why on earth should anyone in their right mind take the cruelty angle when none was involved. Anyone who did would be made to look extremely silly.
As for the animal aid nutters who gives a monkey’s about them?Thank you so much stilvi, I’m flattered coming from someone who has written so much drivel in the past about the likes of the whip and Diamond Harry
Personally I think I was shaded by the cheekster’s contribution but there you go. Anyway thanks with enlightening us with your views on the subject, we’ll see if you’re right on the One Show tomorrow.This was touched upon on an earlier message but Mr Tyler and many other "animal welfare" charities do very well out of ill informed individuals donations. It is not unusual for some "charity" workers to earn more than some vets and doctors, which just about says it all. These "charities" need the National to boost their income. It is little to do with caring about racehorses.
You would have to come from another planet not to realise that the National is inherently dangerous. It’s on the wrapper and the BBC would have surely been aware of this unless they had another agenda. They knew all too well this horse was fragile.
With NH racing becoming softer by the day, this is the only race that tests both the bravery and stamina of both man and beast. The fences are getting lower and softer, but of course the knock on effect is the race is getting quicker. You can’t have it both ways.
If any other horse apart from McKelvey had died in this way it wouldn’t get the same publicity.
My angle is that if there was an escape route at each fence then horses could run the course rather than running all over the infield. I don’t see why the fences have to stretch the whole width of the course personally ala Auteuil. It wouldn’t be a whole lot of trouble surely, to help avoid these types of occurance, to widen the course by six ft or so onto the infield.
My angle is that if there was an escape route at each fence then horses could run the course rather than running all over the infield. I don’t see why the fences have to stretch the whole width of the course personally ala Auteuil. It wouldn’t be a whole lot of trouble surely, to help avoid these types of occurance, to widen the course by six ft or so onto the infield.
I’ve been saying this for years – it would also reduce the number of incidents with loose horses running down a fence.
"Scribbles" wrote: My angle is that if there was an escape route at each fence then horses could run the course rather than running all over the infield. I don’t see why the fences have to stretch the whole width of the course personally ala Auteuil. It wouldn’t be a whole lot of trouble surely, to help avoid these types of occurance, to widen the course by six ft or so onto the infield.
Surely the danger here is that if a loose horse spots a gap on the inside and he is running on the other side he/she will cross the whole field to get to it. Disaster then awaits.
I think it is highly dangerous having vehicles running along the inside of the track with the loose horses about although I don’t know of an incident involving a vehicle and loose horse. This was a freak accident and you can’t cater for every eventuality.
It is not unusual for some "charity" workers to earn more than some vets and doctors, which just about says it all. These "charities" need the National to boost their income.
LMAO. The world is flat as a pancake, we never landed on the Moon and Bush blew up the twin towers.
Thanks for that.
In life, death is inevitable, while cruelty seems to be almost unavoidable along the way.
Both cause great emotion, as does competition and gambling.
All these factors can be found in the racing game, so, irrational comment is likely, imo.
For me, death is far less upsetting than is suffering and distress of the living animal, and, btw, we witness it on the Flat too. A heart attack or leg -break can happen without the presence of fences.
Anyway, back to McKelvey:
Many formreaders like to see evidence of form at course and distance. Well, this thing was SECOND last year in the Grand National. That is exceptional in itself, but, we have to realise too that this was when the poor thing received the initial injury!
Ifs and buts are best left out of a punter’s vocabularly, imo, but I suppose this thread might just have happened last year ( if the animal had been put down then) or, perhaps, if the thing had been pulled up sooner , the injury might not have been as bad. Who knows?Now, should McKelvey have run this year?
In Saturday’s RP, Peter Bowen said:
" I think McKelvey has equally as good a chance as he had last year. He is a STRONGER horse and seems to beIN GOOD FORM after two runs."
In the preceding paragraph, the RP says ;
" MacKelvey, who might have been first not second 12 months ago had he not suffered a tendon injury 100 yards from the line."
On another page, in "Big Race Analysis", we read:
" Mckelvey , my choice last year, was UNFORTUNATE to break down, which caused him to hang on the run in.
He had shown his LIKING FOR THE COURSE in the Becher Chase the previous November. He’s GONE UP 8lb, which is harsh, as five of the past ten winners were raised only 7lb to 9lb.Spotlight says:
"Twice jumped round safely here and strong finish took him agonisingly close to victory last year despite injuring tendon; 8lbs higher but BIGGEST DOUBT is now whether he is in the same form, as he has had only two hurdle runs last month and unlike last year, when he won his prep race, this time he finished LAST."
—
Maybe it would be a positive step forward to have some sort of more stringent qualification system? This would be to determine that runners are in a good state to take part.
As a result, there would be less runners and, hopefully, all would be in good order to race.Luckily, I never take much heed of what trainers say or handicappers do. A good track record ( including " agonisingly close to victory") needs looking at in the light of recent form, perhaps?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.