- This topic has 93 replies, 39 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
Surely that would eliminate too many horses; Comply or Die for example was off the track for 2 years with a leg injury; Philson Run has notoriously fragile legs and my old favourite Longshanks was going to have his first run of the season in the National because of a slight tendon injury last year. Mely Moss, I seem to remember, only raced in the National for similar reasons. I wish I knew the answer to all this, because I’m deeply saddened by what happened to McKelvey.
Maxilon 5
You obviously missed the point.
Why should any reasonable person listen to a small anti-horseracing group who’s not insubstantial earnings are from charitable donations by others who have little idea where their money goes. Who is the charity there for? The horses? I think not.
Horses have died in the National since it began. Every year we end up defending the race. Alverton, Dark Ivy, Brown Trix, Eudipe, Kintai, Winter Rain, the list is long. But what do we want, a 20 runner 3 mile Cesarewitch? If so, count me out and the hundreds of millions of others throughout the world who watch in every year.
If the National had no element of danger (and my God the Aintree executive have bent over backwards to the RSPCA and animal rights lobby in recent times), then we would end up with something as boring and watered down as F1.
It said it all for me when McCoy thought the Red Marauder National was the most exciting race he had ridden in. And he remounted to finish 3rd!!
High Ken
You asked: "Why should any reasonable person listen to a small anti-horseracing group who’s not insubstantial earnings are from charitable donations by others who have little idea where their money goes".
Leaving aside your entirely speculative final comment, the answer is because they have a good case, which in my view was even better summarised in Robert’s post: "in good conditions and with all the safety improvements thought necessary, 12 horses fell, 7 unseated riders and 6 pulled up".
You rightly say "horses have died in the National since it began". But while true that is neither here nor there. Standards change, and things once viewed as unremarkable gradually become viewed as unacceptable and progress is made. Thus women and children once worked down mines; overt discrimination against coloured people was within my lifetime commonplace – "no blacks" signs in guest house windows etc; and we anglers live-baited for pike without giving the matter another thought (sadly some still do). Your reference to F1 is apposite – the human death toll led to great changes and so it will be with racing. The only question is whether the racing authorities take the initiative or whether horses continue to be killed in morally dubious events like the National, or flogged to win races, to the point at which Parliament takes the initiative, with in all probability less well thought through solutions to those that the racing authorities could themselves find – if they had the sense to recognise the situation.
High Ken, you made a very bold statement about charity workers earning more money than doctors which reads more like an urban myth – like the missing kidney or the millionaire tramp. I’m responding to that – I’m not a fan of Animal Aid.
Animal Aid are a campaign group, not a formal charity by the way. Very few charitable trusts would fund them. Campaigning is what they do and have done for years and they are a burden horse racing fans have to live with in an open society.
Just to get everyone’s blood boiling a bit more I just read this on the Animal Aid website:
A horse who was badly injured in last year’s Grand National was killed in the 2008 event on Saturday, when he unseated his rider two-thirds of the way through the gruelling 4-and-a-half-mile event and ran loose for some time before crashing into the rails. 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.’
All the arguements aside, I was very saddened to hear of Mckelvey’s death and hope it had no connection to his previous injury. If it did, I think his connections should question whether he really was recovered. He was only 9. They could have given him another year and still had a couple more chances at the National.
He was carrying my money, and I knew he’d suffered an injury last year, but assumed it must have been a relatively minor injury for him to have crossed the line, and also been back on the course so soon. I never realised it was a total breakdown. I ignored his poor running in the hurdle races because hurdlers generally are not National-type horses. I thought hurdles form had no bearing on the matter. His death is terribly sad but no more so than the two in the Topham, or any other accidental death on the racecourse. Or on the gallops. Or out in the field.
I’m not sure that giving loose horses somewhere to run out will make much difference. When they do have the chance they frequently don’t take it and seem to thoroughly enjoy bowling along with the others, often out in front.
So RIP Mckelvey. A sad end, but no excuse for a campaign to scrap the National (IMO)
I have only just realised that mckelvey was killed, what a shame and such a good chaser too. I backed him last year i took 33/1 early and thought my day was up when he came charging at SILVER BIRCH just one more stride and he would have gone down in national history, such a shame. rip mckelvey.
George J
You state my comments about certain charity workers (or campaign members if you wish Maxilon) earnings are speculative. I am speaking from knowledge and experience so need to question me on that aspect. I will not quote figures to you to avoid embarrassment to those concerned.
Yes 25 horses failed to finish. The figure was generally lower before all the "safety improvements" were made to Aintree fences which begs the question, do bigger fences make for slower/safer races, but nobody cares to listen to that argument either? If you want 40 horses to hurdle fences at speed you get this type of result. Just look at the number of fatalities before and since the supposed improvements. Furthermore if you had a 4½ mile 40 runner handicap chase at Cheltenham, Ayr or Punchestown would you get any more finishers. I doubt it.
The National has been watered down far enough. The respected Alaistair Down made this observation a few years ago. The race has to be a challenge fair to both man & beast. Even the RSPCA spokesperson David Muir can just about accept that and knows Aintree have done as much as they can in the last 20 years. Bechers must have been altered at least 4 times during that period, Valentines lowered and The Chair had all it’s traditional venom removed.
Racehorses are not abused and racing for the most part has nothing to be ashamed of. If we question whether the National or horse racing is cruel then you are questioning the motives of thousands of owners/trainers/stable employees, etc. To use an example of children/women working down mines and racism is like comparing a group of British Asians wanting to blow up thousands of people including their own children with the freak death of 2 animals in the Grand National over the last 2 years. Irrelevant.F1 has become the most tedious sport because the element of danger has all but been removed. Why do you think most people watch the first lap and then turn off or go make a cup of tea? I do agree the Nanny state would love to get involved (it has tried before) and ban the National but thankfully there are over 300 million people worldwide that watch the National and assuming there are not 300 million sadists out there, their interest should override a small group of so called animal rights groups.
there are over 300 million people worldwide that watch the National and assuming there are not 300 million sadists out there, their interest should override a small group of so called animal rights groups.
With respect, I think you misunderstand the nature of the problem. It is not the animal rights groups themselves or their interests that are of concern. It is the potential that they have to set the agenda and influence public opinion. In the last few weeks they have made effective use of the whip issue and now the death of McKelvey and others at Aintree. Many millions undoubtedly watch the National and I would reckon the majority of them would never watch another horse race all year. If the race were to be banned, very few would miss it or even notice. Rather like fox hunting.
Thus far, they have made only small inroads. It will be interesting to see how this issue will be handled on the One Show tomorrow, but the Five Live debate is an indication of how easy it is to convince people that the sport is cruel. And where public opinion goes, so do political parties. It isn’t the 300 million who watch it that matter, its the 600-odd MPs and their constituency mailbags that count.
The banning of the Grand National is hardly imminent. But the lack of media intitiative from within racing is neglectful. The enemies of racing are being given a free hand with very little rebuttal and absolutely no positive PR to counter their campaign.
High Ken
For the avoidance of doubt, the comment of yours I described as speculative was "from charitable donations by others who have little idea where their money goes".
What, in the long term, remains lawful and what doesn’t is in large measure a matter of what proves publicly acceptable as, in England, reflected by the majority in the House of Commons. The examples I gave were of practices that were commonplace until sufficient body of opinion led (in the first two instances) to legislative imposed change. In the last few years we have seen sufficient body of opinion for the banning of coursing and the substantial modification of foxhunting. To suppose that horse racing will prove exempt from change to eliminate what many perceive as cruelty to horses is to spit in the wind. The only question is whether that change comes from within racing, or is imposed by Parliament.
I was also surprised about the number of non-completers in the National this year, especially as on the official ratings it was probably the classiest renewal of the race.
ESPN Classic on Sky have been showing some of the old races from the 70s and it did strike me that the older style of riding probably suits horses more when tackling the big fences.
There were more jockeys in those days that would be given the modern euphemism of "good horseman" because they were a lot less forceful than many of today’s riders. There was more hunting around in the race with the contest only really developing in the final mile or so.
I know that still happens to some extent but I don’t think it’s any coincidence that the calmer riders like Timmy Murphy, Paul Carberry, Ruby Walsh etc have done well in the race in recent years.
There could also be the matter of jumping becoming less of a test all round with even Haydock Park’s fences looking pretty soft and the drops have gone. It stands to reason that if horses aren’t used to large drop fences they may find them more of a challenge when they get to Aintree.
On the other hand, all of the above may be cobblers.there are over 300 million people worldwide that watch the National and assuming there are not 300 million sadists out there, their interest should override a small group of so called animal rights groups.
With respect, I think you misunderstand the nature of the problem. It is not the animal rights groups themselves or their interests that are of concern. It is the potential that they have to set the agenda and influence public opinion. In the last few weeks they have made effective use of the whip issue and now the death of McKelvey and others at Aintree. Many millions undoubtedly watch the National and I would reckon the majority of them would never watch another horse race all year. If the race were to be banned, very few would miss it or even notice. Rather like fox hunting.
Thus far, they have made only small inroads. It will be interesting to see how this issue will be handled on the One Show tomorrow, but the Five Live debate is an indication of how easy it is to convince people that the sport is cruel. And where public opinion goes, so do political parties. It isn’t the 300 million who watch it that matter, its the 600-odd MPs and their constituency mailbags that count.
The banning of the Grand National is hardly imminent. But the lack of media intitiative from within racing is neglectful. The enemies of racing are being given a free hand with very little rebuttal and absolutely no positive PR to counter their campaign.
Just a thought Andrew, maybe racing has got it right and you are worrying unneccessarily, after all there is considerable difference between horses racing and foxes and hares being torn to pieces.
With regards their effective use of the whip issue as you put it, I’m not saying this didn’t occur but where was this, I must have missed it. The only references I saw regards the issue were in the racing press and on horse racing forums.
Didn’t hear the R5 programme but I’m surprised you have worries on how it will be handled tonight on the One Show, maybe I’ve a lot more faith in people
What I am surprised about is the amount of "airtime" Animal Aid get on here, a recent poll said 77% of Britains thought some of them were terrorists and I would agree with that.If the general public come to believe that the National is cruel, then there will be no difference between it and fox hunting.
Animal Aid and groups like them will use any story they can to lobby MPs, which is how they used the whip story.
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/equestrian/Use-of-whip-on-horses.3734547.jp
http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/portsmouth/Racing-pundit-backs-bid-to.3748734.jp
http://sport.guardian.co.uk/horseracing/story/0,,2249461,00.html
Campaigns like this work by a drip-drip effect, a combination of affecting public opinion and lobbying MPs and work especially well if there is nothing to counter them.
Of course I am concerned how the One show will handle it. I presume a fair number of non-racing people watch that show given its time slot and it is important that the death of McKelvey is put in context. I would hope that the HRA have contacted them to put the racing point of view.
The point about people thinking Animal Aid are terrorists is a good one. The HRA need to be pushing that line, simultaneously exposing these groups as extremists whilst portraying a positive view of the sport.
A jockeys doctor once told me there are 60% more injuries on a firm surface than a soft one. He believed it was at least the same for horses. With a harder surface and (on firmer going) a faster pace it is bound to produce more injuries. The same arguement goes for reducing the size of obstacles, the lower / softer a fence is the faster the horses will take the fence. The horse may not fall as often, but if he does, an injury may be more likely.
So, making obstacles easier to jump might make things worse.Having said that, we should recognise that just because horses can jump the Grand National these days easier than 25 years ago. It does not mean bad jumpers are more likely to win. They might not fall but mistakes take energy out of the horse, so are very unlikely to win.
There could be an arguement for (if not done already) to make some fences more inviting, like they have done (and seemed successful) at Cheltenham’s old course second last.Ginge
Value Is EverythingI do wonder if the field should be reduced. Have heard the arguement that the track is wide enough to have 40 runners. It is in most places, but no jockey takes his horse around the outside of Canal Turn. If there was a front running faller there it might not be pleasant viewing.
I do think the way media covers the race, going back to Foinavon is wrong. It makes it look like we are tuning in to watch horses fall and this is part of the enjoyment. It is not.
I am concerned with horse safety but if I was to come back to this world as a horse I would much rather it be a racehorse than a so called wild pony. I live fairly close to the New Forest, and they don’t half look bored.
Hopefully the One Show will have the "International League For The Protection Of Horses" (ILPH) on. Their view, that horses in racing are the best cared for equines, would help. Anyone with their magazine will see, there are many wrongs humans inflict on the horse population. None within horse racing.
Ginge
Value Is EverythingI do wonder if the field should be reduced.
I think there would have to be clear and irrefutable evidence that field size has been the regular cause of any of the injuries caused in the race before the Aintree executive wants to go down that route. With regard to Mick Fitzgerald’s back injuries and of course McKelvey’s demise this year, there is no case to answer on that specific charge.
The 27-runner renewal in 1996 was a comparatively underwhelming visual spectacle, one which I’m not sure Aintree would be in a desperate hurry to encourage a repeat of any time soon. At the same time, that race still managed to claim a life – in the form of Rust Never Sleeps – from among only 10 horses that failed to complete, so I wonder if we’re dealing with an inexact science here where fatalities always have the potential to occur regardless of field size.
there are many wrongs humans inflict on the horse population. None within horse racing.
For the greater part I’d want to agree; however, for as long as racing’s opponents have the likes of Kamil Mahdi to throw back at us, I don’t think we’re quite in the position of being able to assume our house is entirely in order in this regard.
gc
Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.