- This topic has 384 replies, 85 voices, and was last updated 13 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
- Total Posts 17716
Same debate every year but JM does talk sense. Its called moving with the times and the image of racing is paramount. Matt Chapman is a joke and only intersted in his own racing profile. End of!!
The Grand National debate got really out of hand uneccesarily.
Millions of people watched the race yet the BBC only received about 100 complaints.Joe has beaten me to it but you are going to seriously undermine any argument you may have if you understate numbers in an attempt to justify your argument
The public support the Grand National more than any other race in the world. Millions tune in. This is hardly a race therefore that ‘needs the permission of the public’.
That is not what the original poster said – the quote you are taking out of context did not refer to just the Grand National but to National Hunt racing across the board and it is a valid point.
However; racing is not staged without all precautions taken to ensure horse and jockey welfare. We do not need to make changes to the race for the sake of the public but for them. Racing makes those decisions; not a mythical public pressure orchestrated by a money spinning animal rights organisation.
That is a naive comment. Are you seriously suggesting that all the complaints are the result of AA’s pronouncements – if you are I can produce many people who hold genuine concerns about the race and racing in general who have never even heard of AA. Again you are overplaying the influence of Animal Aid
What should be a priority is for racing to address these media ‘panics’ with rational and considered response as the BHA has.
It has, where?
Did somebody in RfC or the BHA press office write this for you?
The reason I ask is what you have written here is in a totally different style to what you write in your blog.
The Grand National debate got really out of hand uneccesarily.
Millions of people watched the race yet the BBC only received about 100 complaints.Joe has beaten me to it but you are going to seriously undermine any argument you may have if you understate numbers in an attempt to justify your argument
The public support the Grand National more than any other race in the world. Millions tune in. This is hardly a race therefore that ‘needs the permission of the public’.
That is not what the original poster said – the quote you are taking out of context did not refer to just the Grand National but to National Hunt racing across the board and it is a valid point.
However; racing is not staged without all precautions taken to ensure horse and jockey welfare. We do not need to make changes to the race for the sake of the public but for them. Racing makes those decisions; not a mythical public pressure orchestrated by a money spinning animal rights organisation.
That is a naive comment. Are you seriously suggesting that all the complaints are the result of AA’s pronouncements – if you are I can produce many people who hold genuine concerns about the race and racing in general who have never even heard of AA. Again you are overplaying the influence of Animal Aid
What should be a priority is for racing to address these media ‘panics’ with rational and considered response as the BHA has.
It has, where?
Did somebody in RfC or the BHA press office write this for you?
The reason I ask is what you have written here is in a totally different style to what you write in your blog.
The complaints may have risen to that subsequently but initially they numbered just over a hundred; and furthermore there will have been many among them complaining about the ‘way’ in which it was covered rather than the coverage as such; as is indicated in the BBC press release:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/content … ndnationalBy contrast; the year Mon Mome won the BBC received 1477 compliants over the ‘teeth’ jibe by Claire Balding:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7985464.stm
Even three hundred is not something one should necessarily be concerned with since yes there was an orchestrated campaign by Animal Aid and other animal rights groups directing people there. Do not understimate the power of these groups when campaigning: they are a very noisy minority and highly organised.
One has to remember that the BBC received 3500 compaints over an episode of Eastenders recently; and the audience stats for that are comparable with the viewing peak for the Grand National coverage. So it has to be put into perspective.Whether you can ‘produce’ many people who have concerns about the Grand National is irrelevant. Such ‘evidence’ is anecdotal. I can produce many who do not. However; there is naturally reasonable concern from within the industry – nobody wants to see horses injured.Suggestions – whether from trainers or Jim McGrath – are welcome and should be considered but this isn’t about public perceptions is my point. 300 complaints when a massive Animal rights campaign against it was launched is not suggestive that the public are somehow against the race. Even if they were; the same ‘public’ would presumably go about their normal sunday roast without concern for a similar ungulate. Once again I think you will find whether it is the Grand National or jumps racing in general the non racing public’s opinion is not something that should be of prime concern – except in terms that we have a responsibility as a sport to educate. But in general it is not a priority for the general public. When one explains to the small minority who raise it that the whip is padded (unlike a normal riding crop there is suprise. I think you will find the general public have more pressing concerns than those of a relatively pampered domesticated animal; and those in racing perhaps worry about ‘public concern’ unecessarily. However; as the horses are the stars of the sport, we as fans do not want to see them whipped ‘unfairly’. And that is why there are rules against it.
The BHA press release following the Grand National is online at their site and is an exceptional response:
http://www.britishhorseracing.com/grand-national/However since the ‘moral panic’ is not going to be fuelled by rational response it will not get reported sadly.
We have complete autonomy of what we write as bloggers at RFC and I have received nothing from them regarding this – however I am entitled to my own opinion. As a Geographer I am well familiar with animal rights ideology and campaigning on a number of very serious issues. The press – and Racing – are not.
What I write in my blog is written in a way to entertain and amuse and engage people to go racing. I am not a racing expert – but am an enthusiast and a relatively new one – presumably the BHA chose me because I was already bringing lots of new people into racing; and I presented an opportunity to expand this. My audience are more the ‘general public’ (from a very wide range of professions and interests) than the racing specialist. I do not have a remit to write more serious dialogue and it has no place there as such. However; I do have a great deal of experience as the former Press Officer for the RGS with journalists both serious and red top and the stories in which they are interested; the way they cover them etc. And here – as this is a more serious racing forum rather than for the general public I think I have a responsibility to point this out. These are my views; not those of the BHA or RFC. Furthermore the rather churlish and sarcastic way in which you make that invalid point if you don’t mind me saying so says more about you than it does about myself!!
And I don’t disagree with McGrath actually – as I said there are already penalties for ‘unfair’ use of the whip and nobody likes to see it. However I also think that the whip – now padded – looks bigger and perhaps it looks worse than it is? I think if there is a problem it is in the perception of what is happening on one side; and on the other yes; nobody wants to see a beaten horse whipped when it is apparently trying its best. So explain and enforce existing rules.
I’d still like to hear JMcG’s (or anyone else’s) definition of a fair fence in the National. There’s little point calling for something you can’t define.
I’d still like to hear JMcG’s (or anyone else’s) definition of a fair fence in the National. There’s little point calling for something you can’t define.
Yes good point. As I am a non racing specialist you would probably know this better than me; but wouldn’t most people perhaps point a finger at the Chair? And yet – I may be wrong here – it is not the one that causes most problems? I don’t recall a recent fatality there.
Maybe that is what he means – Bechers has a drop so the horse doesn’t expect it; while the Chair the horse can see what it has to jump.These are my views; not those of the BHA or RFC. Furthermore the rather churlish and sarcastic way in which you make that invalid point if you don’t mind me saying so says more about you than it does about myself!!
As you are actually posting under the name of "ElizaVoiceoftheraces" it was a perfectly valid question to ask – why else include the reference to Voiceoftheraces if you are just posting your views?
I think whether you are posting as an individual or on behalf of RfC needed clarification and thank you for doing so.
I don’t mind, in the least, being called churlish and sarcastic, I have been called much worse in the past and I always say if you cannot take criticism then you should not dish it out.
As you suggest it probably says plenty about me, in the same way what you write speaks volumes about you – but isn’t that the general idea of expressing oneself in a forum?
It’s good to talk
These are my views; not those of the BHA or RFC. Furthermore the rather churlish and sarcastic way in which you make that invalid point if you don’t mind me saying so says more about you than it does about myself!!
As you are actually posting under the name of "ElizaVoiceoftheraces" it was a perfectly valid question to ask – why else include the reference to Voiceoftheraces if you are just posting your views?
I think whether you are posting as an individual or on behalf of RfC needed clarification and thank you for doing so.
I don’t mind, in the least, being called churlish and sarcastic, I have been called much worse in the past and I always say if you cannot take criticism then you should not dish it out.
As you suggest it probably says plenty about me, in the same way what you write speaks volumes about you – but isn’t that the general idea of expressing oneself in a forum?
It’s good to talk
Hello again Paul!
Yes fair point but I hope I answered it. What I write on a site aimed at engaging the general public is not necessarily what or how I would write elsewhere. You for example write differently on your site too!!
Very good actually – I have looked at it before.I wasn’t criticising you or anyone else personally – merely raising the point that racing pundits are possibly not familiar with animal rights orchestrated campaigns and perhaps the response has been out of proportion to the actual low level of complaints. In fact I may be in part agreement with Mr McGrath. But change should come if needed because we as fans and industry care; and not because of the mistaken belief the (non racing) public are demanding it.
Ad hominem attack is something that has no relevance in any debate. I don’t like descending into it.
I am not a racing expert – far from it. My reason for joining here is simply to learn a little more from those of you who are; and to contribute where I can. And I am very familiar with the animal rights movement and the press!! And yes I post here because some of you will know me from my blog and at the races whereas they may not know my real name! But you did imply that I was being told what to write by the BHA; and you were incorrect!!
So – let’s try to get off to a better start!! Pleased to meet you xx
Eliza,
What the public thinks or what racing people think or what the stats say is (sadly, some might say) irrelevant. What matters is what the RSPCA deems acceptable.
Lose them, lose the National and, possibly, all NH racing.
You know, I’ve not heard a peep from the animal rights folks (PETA, HSUS) about American steeplechasing, even timber racing. Maybe it’s due to the low profile of the sport, but flat racing is targeted quite a bit. I don’t know if it’s a cultural difference (foxhunting is legal here too), the safer hurdles (National fences), or if the lack of money and betting involved means more care taken to ensure the well-being of the racehorses. Something to think about.
Maybe if the complainers define an unfair fence then we could solve the problem.Every fence should provide a jumping challenge to the horse just like the indoor arena at White City(I believe it’s called) or the outdoor arena at Ballsbridge.Even fair fences provide difficulty to some horses hence the need for stricter qualifying races.The goal is to separate the good jumpers from the rest and it is done by racing.Of course horses for courses defeats the goal.Some horses just love to race at Aintree, they seem to love the difficult fences.How to explain that to the animal lovers beats me.
Hi steeplechasing. The RSPCA have made some extremely unpopular decisions in the last few years and are themselves losing credibility and revenue through them.
Targeting the fashion industry, hunting and greyhound racing resulted in something of a backlash against them. Within a few years the public opinion on foxhunting swung. People were not happy with the huge amount they spent on advertising against it when they were at the same time destroying far more healthy animals themsleves. They destroy tens of thousands annually.
Now it is plain to see their anti fur campaign failed miserably too with fur sales at their highest ever.So who needs who? I think that if they turned against racing they would begin to lose all credibility.
At the moment; the changes already made to the course were as the result of RSPCA advice. It would make sense for them to continue to have some input.
Hi Woodford. Interesting re PETA etc but its possibly because timber racing and foxhunting in the USA have a low media profile. They are self confessed ‘media whores’ who only chase issues that get them public attention.
It is important that people realise there are three ‘concern for animals’ groupings.
1. Animal Welfare groups: like the RSPCA, ILPH, Greyhound Rescue, Animal shelters like Battersea Dogs Home etc etc . Animal welfare Groups acknowledge that man uses animals for food, clothing and entertainment and pets etc but seek to improve welfare and offer sanctuary to those unlucky enough to be abused. These organisations must work with industry, sport etc to do this. So for example you couldn’t have RSPCA ‘freedom foods’ if they took an animal rights position. If they are NOT taking an animal rights position on food; then it is difficult to see how they could possibly complain seriously about the treatment of what is essentially another ungulate when they are happy to approve of mass butchery as long as it is done humanely. When all is considered a race horse has a pampered life; and if they wish to have input on its welfare they must continue to work with racing. The purpose of an animal welfare groups is to prevent cruelty to animals. It is hard to see that except in the case of extreme circumstances that a padded whip is cruel. Therefore their position if they adopt a ‘ban it’ position is irrational and outside their remit.
2. Conservation. The main Conservation authority is the IUCN who administer CITES laws and provide us with the Red List. Groups like the WWF and zoos like ZSL are other main organisations. Their concern is the conservation of species; especially through habitat protection. As only a tiny percentage of the world’s land is suitable for sustainable crop cultivation; and we are on the brink of a human caused mass extinction event largely due to unsustainable use of resources in particular crops (palm oil, soya, mega rice etc)it is now completely acknowledged that ‘sustainable’ must include animals resources. Put simply, humans are better off using what can graze or live on indigenous flora. In places like the boreal forest it is better for the indigenous people to herd reindeer as they have done sustainbly for thousands of years than to use the forest for wood or development. Animal based economies have as an integral part of their culture ‘use’ of animals in other way than sustenance – hunting and herding is important culturally and for trade. We in the west have to reconsider our options for what we ask of the undeveloped and rural world. For the sake of Conservation; we cannot all ‘go vegan’. It would hail catastrophe on a global scale; especially for animals. we would have to destroy massive habitat to grow crops which in the end could only support a fraction of the existing human population. This puts Conservation – and indeed any rational and humane position – as a polarised view to that of animal rights.
3. Animal Rights groups include Animal Aid, PETA, IFAW, Sea Shepherd etc. These groups all owe their ideological doctrine to Peter Singer; an extremist Australian philosopher who also supports eugenics. They stand for NO human use of animals whatever; not even pets. There is no room for negotiation in this – that is what they stand for. they may on times attempt to portray a more ‘cuddly’ image in campaigns but behind the veneer they stand for extreme social change and frequently endorse violence.
I enclose some quotes from their leaders:
"The cat, like the dog, must disappear….. We should cut the domestic cat free from our dominance by neutering, neutering, and more neutering, until our pathetic version of the cat ceases to exist." (John Bryant, _Fettered Kingdoms: An Examination of a Changing Ethic_(Washington, D.C.: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, 1982), p.15)
"Pet ownership is an abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation" (Ingrid Newkirk, PETA founder Washingtonian Aug. 1986)
"Eventually companion animals will be phased out…." (Ingrid Newkirk, "Just Like Us? Toward a Notion of Animal Right" (symposium), Harper’s, August 1988)The animal rights ideology is not one that cares about animals, their welfare or their conservation. Again in their own words:
"We are not especially ‘interested in’
animals. Neither of us had ever been
inordinately fond of dogs, cats, or
horses in the way that many people are.
We didn’t ‘love’ animals." –Peter
Singer, Animal Liberation: A New
Ethic for Our Treatment of Animals,
2nd ed. (New York Review of Books,
1990),Preface, p. ii."…the animal rights movement is not
concerned about species extinction.
An elephant is no more or less
important than a cow, just as a
dolphin is no more important than a
tuna…(In fact, many animal rights
advocates would argue that it is
better for the chimpanzee to become
extinct than to be exploited
continually in laboratories, zoos
and circuses." (Barbara Biel,
The Animals’ Agenda, Vol 15 #3."Not only are the philosophies of
animal rights and animal welfare
separated by irreconcilable differences…
the enactment of animal welfare
measures actually impedes the
achievement of animal rights…
Welfare reforms, by their very nature,
can only serve to retard the pace
at which animal rights goals are
achieved." –Gary Francione and
Tom Regan, "A Movement’s
Means Create Its Ends," The
Animals’ Agenda,
January/February 1992, pp. 40-42.Horse Racing is a little late to this debate. Those who work in the meat, farming and fashion industries, and pet breeders, hunters etc are well aware of it. Geographers, Conservationists, Zoos and Anthroplogists are well aware of it.
Horse Racing has been targeted by animal rights
1. because of high media profile on which they can and do capitalise
2. because it is a ‘soft’ target. Racing was not prepared for attack; and those who support racing do so because they love horses. Those who like roast beef do not like cows in the same way.
3. Animal rights by clashing head on with Conservation have exposed themselves as a fundamentally flawed ideology and are losing support and media attention. So they must focus on something they haven’t before.The RSPCA will not move to an animal rights position and if they do they will soon become irrelevant. Their position on the whip if they pursue a ban is unreasonable. Watch for example the end of this video I took at a point to point and am very close to where the whip is used so you can hear it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E73o3lqEHf0
Anybody saying that compromised the welfare of the horse has a screw loose. And we have rules against misuse.To add to your excellent points Andyod:
yes it is very much a communication problem. But though we live in a democracy we do not allow rule by the mob. (Even if for a moment I accepted that the 300 complaints subsequent to the grand national represent ‘animal lovers’ or the general public’). We do not for example have capital punishment even though the public would vote for it. What we need to do is educate.We accept in sport there is risk; we need to minimise it. I don’t hear anybody complaining about the thousands of hospitalisations, leg fractures and 10 deaths in the London marathon. Sadly it is difficult for a horse to get over a broken leg; that is true of horses in the wild and out at grass or stabled as anyone who keeps a horse will bear testimony to. So we must accept injury in sport whether its humans or animals; and do everything we can to improve welfare and treatment in such circumstances. We also need to explain that some horse excel at jumping fences and if it were not for the sport their ‘lot’ in life would probably not be as bright. We need to get all these things across to people. But equally we need to show them what those who would like to ban the National or jumps racing are all about. Animal lovers they are not. They want the eventual complete extermination of all domesticated breeds of animals. By contrast; the vast majority of those who work in racing and with horses do so because they have loved horses since childhood; and someone needs to help their voice be heard.
- Total Posts 17716
Eliza
, having been working away in Germany I missed the opening salvoes of this thread. I’d just like to thank you for your intelligent and firmly logical posts on the subject, in the face of some surprising anger, condescension and near-personal abuse which certain posters (who ought to know better) have visited on you.
It is time that the appeasers were brought to a full realisation of what they were doing, and whose agenda they were helping to further – because as you’ve so cogently pointed out, it sure ain’t Racing’s.
Education is only part of the answer. Animal Aid and their fellow travellers need to be ruthlessly exposed for what they are, by all available media means. The RSPCA’s depressingly mealy-mouthed political trimming also needs to be addressed urgently.
Lastly – and most importantly – we need to get out more and learn exactly what the rest of the civilised world thinks of the way our administrators bend like wet reeds before the wind of animal sentimentality.
The old British arrogance that goes along with
"Fog in the channel. Continent cut off"
is still very much in place. We need to realise that we are, quite simply, out of step with the rest of the world.
We are morally wrong to take the appeasing line we do.
Pinza –
What is
morally wrong
is identifying issues or potential issues affecting horse welfare and doing nothing about them.
The BHA, as is often the case, are in a no-win situation. Do nothing and they can, rightly, be taken to task should we have another National featuring a series of tragic events.
Take action and they are accused by the reactionaries of ‘appeasement’.
Nobody is suggesting that racing should be devoid of all risk, any reasonable person would concede that is impossible, just that it should be ‘fair’ to the horse, as far as is reasonable and practical.
Whose definition would constitute ‘fairness’? Racing should be in a position to argue it’s own definition of what is ‘fair’, supported by the relevant facts, opinions and philosophies. I’m a huge fan of racing, and of the Grand National, but I wouldn’t be able to put hand on heart and argue to any nay-sayers and state that racing had taken all reasonable steps to render the National ‘fair’ to the horse.
Pinza – are you happy to have a race where certain elements of the course is unfair to the horse? Yes or no?
‘Protecting’ the National against change to take some sort of stand against the people you accuse us of appeasing is ill-advised. Doing nothing is much more likely to work in
their
favour than racing’s.
Hello Eliza,
My only experience of the RSPCA has been during my time working at Aintree and in recent conversation with their spokesman David Muir. I’ve found them unfailingly patient and helpful.
We might just have to agree to differ on how racing would cope without their support. I believe that losing such a respected organisation as the RSPCA, would make it difficult for many sponsors to continue their backing, not least John Smith’s.
It would also make racing’s product very difficult indeed to sell to potential new racegoers.
- Total Posts 17716
Pinza –
What is
morally wrong
is identifying issues or potential issues affecting horse welfare and doing nothing about them.
Now if you think the extermination of the breed ismorally defensible
, then I believe you are taking an illogical position.
I have not heard any suggestions to deal with Animal Aid, for example, except appeasement. What do you suggest we do about them? Education, by the way, will not answer with these extremists who have one clear end in view.
The BHA, as is often the case, are in a no-win situation. Do nothing and they can, rightly, be taken to task should we have another National featuring a series of tragic events.
Take action and they are accused by the reactionaries of ‘appeasement’.
The BHA is only in a no-win situation because it is scared to death of offending the media. It has got itself into the pot, and needs to find a way to climb out before it comes to the boil. I have suggested they work more closely with other administrations such as Ireland, USA and France, which you (by your definition) would call "reactionary". Do you ever feel concerned that it might be the UK – and not the rest of the world – which is seriously out of step on these welfare issues such as NH fences and the Whip?Nobody is suggesting that racing should be devoid of all risk, any reasonable person would concede that is impossible, just that it should be ‘fair’ to the horse, as far as is reasonable and practical.
Whose definition would constitute ‘fairness’? Racing should be in a position to argue it’s own definition of what is ‘fair’, supported by the relevant facts, opinions and philosophies. I’m a huge fan of racing, and of the Grand National, but I wouldn’t be able to put hand on heart and argue to any nay-sayers and state that racing had taken all reasonable steps to render the National ‘fair’ to the horse.
Pinza – are you happy to have a race where certain elements of the course is unfair to the horse? Yes or no?I don’t think "fairness" is a measurable quality in Horse Racing. How do you expect me to give you a one word answer, where the question doesn’t make sense?
‘Protecting’ the National against change to take some sort of stand against the people you accuse us of appeasing is ill-advised. Doing nothing is much more likely to work in
their
favour than racing’s.
No. As I have often said, our best – probably ouronly
hope – is to take the argument from the national to the international level. Then we can abide by the consensus.
- Total Posts 17716
The BHA, as is often the case, are in a no-win situation. Do nothing and they can, rightly, be taken to task should we have another National featuring a series of tragic events.
Corm
, please if you can excuse a final nibble. How can you justify describing the death of a horse in a race as
tragic
?
Sad
, of course.
Regrettable
, naturally.
Devastating
to connections and fans of the animal who love him, yes. But
tragic
????
Tragic
seems to me a word which ought to be reserved for the kind of thing that’s been going on in Syria, or Japan. To use it about an accident in the Grand National is inflationary, and overstating the case in the very way the media loves.
You may say that it doesn’t matter. But I feel we need to be at least as careful with language here as in any other potentially explosive situation. Calling it
tragic
might make us feel better, by not running the risk of giving offence to anyone: it might also be an attempt (not by you I am sure) to make readers feel
guilty
.
At all events, it is not a word which has a place in a debate about the niceties of horse welfare for what are (as I am sure you’ll agree) as a general rule the best-kept animals in the Western world.
Without getting into the niceties of the use of language I do think you can call the loss of a horse tragic – but I agree that there are degrees of tragedy.
If we take the longer term view (without rehearsing all the arguments again) we can agree that Racing’s fiercest enemies will not be satisfied until it is banned completely.
Agree – they will never be satisfied. I’m not concerned with satisfying racing’s enemies. That’s my whole point. I’m talking about doing what is right, not doing what
they
want to appease them. I disagree that the latest changes to the National (or the whip changes which are hopefully on their way) form some sort of unstoppable slide into the eventual demise of jumps racing (or racing). Quite the contrary, I believe such changes are NECESSARY to avoid such a thing.
It’s pretty clear I’m not talking about ‘extermination of the breed’ or any such nonsense. Your elaborate and creative extrapolations of my arguments are, quite frankly, ridiculous.
I have not heard any suggestions to deal with Animal Aid,
You deal with them by getting your house in order, then presenting your case (i.e. that racing has risks but that horses are looked after and their welfare is, as far as is reasonable and practical, put to the forefront – or words to that effect) to the public, eloquently and forthrightly.
John Gosden did a good job of it in the K.George aftermath. It’s hard to do that when horses are whipped to an extent that is outside the rules in front of racing’s biggest audience, finish in an exhausted heap while more of their number lay dead on a course that has long had question marks over its safety and fairness. You don’t need to convince Animal Aid of anything (you are right – they’re not for listening) but I believe a few more Nationals like last years (or similar) and we’d start losing more general goodwill.Do you ever feel concerned that it might be the UK – and not the rest of the world – which is seriously out of step on these welfare issues such as NH fences and the Whip?
I don’t think we’re necessarily out of step at all. In fact, I think some of the administrations you highlight have plenty to learn from us, just as we have some things to learn from them.
Do you think it is "fair" to goad horses into jumping at all? Clearly not, by your list of criteria.
What list of criteria? And I don’t think horses have to be goaded into jumping at all. Most do so freely, unless tired or injured.
But my analysis of the situation tells me that your policy is based on pious hope, rather than cool judgement based on media trends, facts and the power game in which BHA are hopelessly outgunned.
Pious hope? Hope of what? My ‘policy’ is not anything to do with appeasing Animal Aid or their ilk. It’s simply about making the National a fairer test for horses. My definition of fair would be ensuring that there were no traps/tricks (such as drops) which were likely to place the horses at an unacceptable risk. We’ve already eliminated a lot of the unfairness in the National by filling in brooks, having run-outs and the like. These new steps, which are becoming less severe as things progress, are just some more mods to improve things further.
What on earth have ‘media trends’ got to do with it?
Your misinterpretation seems to centre on assuming that I’m out to appease activists. There are two separate issues here. How can we make the Grand National safer and fairer for horses (while retaining as much of it’s appeal as possible) and then, separately, how do we address the challenges faced by the sport which are presnted by activist groups who want to see it banned.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.