- This topic has 384 replies, 85 voices, and was last updated 13 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Moehat, re Minella Four Star. Don’t know how the owners are feeling, they were certainly pleased when he won the Midlands National and they should have (imo) given him a break; they did say they fancied running him in next year’s GN. They would be feeling a lot better now if they had given him a break. far too much far too close together. Those aren’t false allegations, just common sense.
Sorry thisthat; I wasn’t referring to what you said, as I can see where you’re coming from about that..it was the comments from Animal Aid that I read earlier today. I should have made that more clear.
On an earlier post Pinza refers to a blog by a vet. I cannot find the reference to it. Can you put up a link someone as I would like to see this blog.
Time of the race tells you they under-watered.
Of course there will be fatalities on softer and with 35 instead of 40. But it will be safe
r
.
It is interesting your example of 1996 was the last time the ground was as hard as it was this year. 99 wasn’t that much better either.
There was nothing wrong with the ground last Saturday, the professionals at the coal face by common consent stated it was beautiful ground. If that ground is not good enough for a race then the race should not be taking place.
Regards the other, in Earth Summits National in 98 on your favoured soft ground more horses were killed than last Saturday, two of those when there was less than 30 runners left in the race.
Of course the trainers will say the ground is beautiful, if not they’d be asked why they didn’t pull their horses out. Ground conditions would’ve been fine for EVERY other course, but not (imo) this one. Besides, there was obviously only one race over this course on the day, it is not until afterwards when seeing the time, that you can truly judge going (given a truly run race).
Of those 3 fatalities in 98:
Pashto fell at the first.
Do Rightly fell at the fourth.
Griffin’s Bar broke a leg when brought down at the 5th. It stands to reason the fewer runners the less likely a horse is of being brought down.I’m not saying it is perfectly safe on soft round, just SAFER. That has been proved on every course in the country. Of course you will be able to pick out one or two races which go against that opinion, but it is the OVER ALL record you’ve got to look at Eddie.
Value Is EverythingCan’t have engaging with Animal Aid
Why? Our democratic society "engaged" with Irish republican terrorists, and there are many who feel the time has come to seek dialogue with Al Qaeda (assuming that has not already happened).
It is evident that Animal Aid seem to be behind, or influence a lot of what is published int he mainstream media. My guess is they have sympathiseres in the news desks of journals such as the Daily Mail.
Horse racing cannot afford to allow these sorts of relationships and the adverse publicity they generate to continue without seeking to limit the damage they cause.
Would it not be a good idea for the BHA (or even RFC) to invite Animal Aid into discussions to see if there is a halfway house? Or at least engage in a public debate? For instance on Channel 4 racing?
I saw some ghastly posters today promoting Animal Aid’s Racehorse Death Watch. They were posted on an empty shop in Congleton Cheshire. The image was horrible & sensational; I think it was an old image of a horse floundering about with a dislocated fracture of the foreleg.
I think the idea of generating some dialogue with them is interesting, it may not work, because in my experience these people will neither reason nor accept any form of compromise. They want to ban all use of animals, whether for food, sport or pets.- Total Posts 17716
I think the idea of generating some dialogue with them is interesting, it may not work, because in my experience these people will neither reason nor accept any form of compromise. They want to ban all use of animals, whether for food, sport or pets.
I tried, and had no response. They are not interested in dialogue. They are interested in banning racing. Full stop. And
they
won’t stop until they succeed.
I think the idea of generating some dialogue with them is interesting, it may not work, because in my experience these people will neither reason nor accept any form of compromise. They want to ban all use of animals, whether for food, sport or pets.
I tried, and had no response. They are not interested in dialogue. They are interested in banning racing. Full stop. And
they
won’t stop until they succeed.
I think with some people the are no arguements they just see things from their point of view and no one can say or do, or show them different.
I don’t agree with racing horses. My friends horse is an ex racehorse and he was treated really badly when he raced so i think its a bad idea. Horses don’t enjoy racing, cos they just get thrashed around and drugged so they win. Red Rum really didn’t deserve to race, he could have enjoyed doing something fun like eventing or showjumping. There is soooo many bad things i could say about racing, but i cant be bothered to type it all xD lol i think racing should be banned!
This was posted by a 17 year who hates horse racing but likes show jumping. Yet posted this on a clip of the 1973 Hennessy gold cup. Clearly brainwashed by these animal aid people and by one horse poorly treated. I have told her that each meeting as a RSPCA representive but I don’t think she’s got an open mind.
I saw some ghastly posters today promoting Animal Aid’s Racehorse Death Watch. They were posted on an empty shop in Congleton Cheshire. The image was horrible & sensational; I think it was an old image of a horse floundering about with a dislocated fracture of the foreleg.
I think the idea of generating some dialogue with them is interesting, it may not work, because in my experience these people will neither reason nor accept any form of compromise. They want to ban all use of animals, whether for food, sport or pets.Annoyingly, Racehorse Death Watch is a far more easy to access resource than the BHA offer.
It’s not an anti racing viewpoint to want to know when horses have died through racing. Try to get that information through the BHA website & you can see why phrases like ‘cover up’ get thrown around.
33 horse fatalities in the last 11 years – that’s a 7% attrition rate. If your average grand prix driver thought he had a 1 in 14 chance of being killed every time he raced, I think that sport might die out rather quickly.
Eh!
Bit of artistic journalism in that article if you ask me.
11 years???? Really?
11 years and 1 day more accurately!
That is 12 Grand Nationals not 11. Probably "journalistic license, done just to make it sound worse than it actually is.It is NOT just the Grand National Mr Brough, though I excuse your mistake, as it is seemingly done to mislead.
Where do you get the 7%, 1 in 14 chance?
33
deaths are in the whole meeting, ie
3
day
meeting not just
1 race
:
7
were in
hurdle
races.
1
in a
FLAT RACE
!
25
over fences.
Of those 25 over fences, just9
were in the
Grand National
.
479 horses ran in the Grand National in those 12 years
.
9 out of 479 means 9 ‘/, 479 = 0.0188. A1.88%
attrition rate
!!!
After the National, Animal Aid said on their website that 33 horses died in 11 years of the meeting. When in fact it is 33 in 12 years of the meeting (2000 to 2011 inclusive).
Now they are saying on the Animal Aid website
"a notoriously hazardous event that has killed 36 horses over the last decade".
These statistics are incorrect.
I contacted Animal Aid by both telephone and e-mail about the earlier incorrect figures. In the telephone call they admitted it should be
33 deaths in 12 years of the meeting
, not 11. Yet instead of putting it right; their
website now claims 36 deaths in the last 10 years!
And you want to talk to these people?
Value Is Everything- Total Posts 17716
Look all sites have their little cliques and also the try hards who like to post the most,but when it comes to ‘Newbies’ we are all just sitting in front of a com and typing away (Gasp!! i cant answer that i am a Group performer and they are a handicapper!) No i am not 12 add another 30 years(but i am incredibly good looking!) most which has been spent working with my Father and brother who were both trainers.Just because you love the race doesnt make it safe.
I agree with shattered over his views here.
There are a group of extremely sanctimonious pontificators on here who think that they have some form of deity status, and whilst whingeing about bad form etc., constantly abuse others.
Lets please remember that , this is what seperates this from other forums.
If you do not want it to degenerate into that mire, please do not try to deter new posters, they may know more than you !!It’s hard to believe that when someone (apparently an adult) can only reply to someones opinion with "YOU IDIOT". I’m afraid i’m going to have to continue with my assumption that i am in fact the wiser and better looking (which apparently is also relevant, according to mister maturity)
And cliques? Come on don’t start getting all defensive because you got shown up
Can you elaborate on how i was ‘shown up’? And as to my reply,when someone states that ‘the National is a perferctly safe race and has always put safety first’ a gentle rebuff just doesn’t seem enough if one makes an untrue idiotic statement.Read the stats of the race over the years,you havn’t a leg to stand on.And i will have you know i are very mature! And possibly more wiserer than you! And you even mentioned looks! Well i will let the great man Derek Zoolander speak for me!!!
- Total Posts 17716
Just sit back and laugh loudly folks. Nothing to see here that isn’t blatantly obvious.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.