- This topic has 122 replies, 29 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Ginger the tree hugers are the RSPCA! Silly. lol
… And I believe that some of what they want is sensible IAW. Therefore, my point is if the RSPCA are tree huggers then I am a tree hugger! Silly.
Value Is EverythingI am very weary of the RSPCA after fox hunting was banned. Not because I had an interest in Fox Hunting , but was very much aware that once they get one sport banned it won’t be the end, but the beginning. The charity is so posed to protect animals from cruelty, I do not see animal cruelty taking place on any race course in this country. With out the existence of racing which the national represents, many or none of the horses in training would not be in existence. They are expensive animals, and therefore the large majority are very well treated and cared for. Horses die from accidents every day with or with out the National.
So why then does the RSPCA deem it as necessary to attack the industry. They Got fox Hunting, they got whip bans, now they want the national. If we continue to adopt the diplomatic stand point and keep giving an inch every time , it is inevitable that they will always keep pushing for the mile. Racing has enough issues without some do gooder sticking their ore in every two minutes.
It needs to be made clear to any one attempting to brand racing as cruel or dangerous, that they have no right to do so. A stand should be made by the BHA.
Who are these people anyway, have they never stepped outside their little comfort zone of the suburban nightmare and taken a look at the world? What is their problem? Horses in this country are treated far better than many people in other countries. They don’t really want to change the world, because if they did they wouldn’t waste time with us.
Ginger the tree hugers are the RSPCA! Silly. lol
Whilst I see where you are coming from I think it would be very naive and dangerous to simply dismiss the RSPCA as being tree huggers.
I am very weary of the RSPCA after fox hunting was banned. Not because I had an interest in Fox Hunting , but was very much aware that once they get one sport banned it won’t be the end, but the beginning. The charity is so posed to protect animals from cruelty, I do not see animal cruelty taking place on any race course in this country.
Because you, I or other followers of racing do not perceive it as being cruel does not mean others see it the same way.
For followers of racing to steadfastly pretend there are no issues is just as arrogant and ill-informed as those who take the opposite view.
With out the existence of racing which the national represents, many or none of the horses in training would not be in existence.
Racing has a fundamental problem in the fact the National is racings show-piece event.
Frankly it is not the best race to be our shop window. It is run over a freak distance, over freakish fences and no matter how supporters try to spin things it has, over recent years (since the fences have been made easier) had a higher attrition rate than other races. If 5% of horses died in all races then no sane person would be able to "defend" the sport.
I’m actually delighted the National has moved to Channel Four as it will, hopefully, lower the profile of what has now become a wretched race, which does the sport more harm than good.
I couldn’t care less if the National is the biggest betting race of the year – that is irrelevant if the race is going to result in more damage to the wider sport.
If you have a cancer you have it removed for the sake of the entire body. I believe the National is becoming a cancer in our sport, it may not yet be malignant but it’s heading in that direction.
The argument that without racing "many or none of the horses in training would not be in existence" is, in my view, a spurious one. Indeed they wouldn’t be in existence but so what? Would it matter if they never existed?
Indeed many would argue the horse population is too high so the argument could be turned around to say the existence of racing has led to too many horses, which is arguably more of an issue.
It needs to be made clear to any one attempting to brand racing as cruel or dangerous, that they have no right to do so. A stand should be made by the BHA.
They have every right to do so provided they can support their argument with evidence and their "cause" is greatly helped by the arrogant responses racings insiders come up with whenever the sport is attacked.
You know the sort of thing – arrogantly dismissing opponents as being ignorant, saying they have no right to criticise etc. etc.
In other words racing effectively does sod all to put its case across effectively.
Who are these people anyway, have they never stepped outside their little comfort zone of the suburban nightmare and taken a look at the world? What is their problem? Horses in this country are treated far better than many people in other countries. They don’t really want to change the world, because if they did they wouldn’t waste time with us.
That’s precisely the type of comment and response I was referring to in my previous paragraph – simply dismissing opponents in an offhand manner is not the way to defend the sport
Has narrowing the fences made more loose horses stay in the "race" for longer?
On the admittedly hardly exhaustive evidence of the 2012 renewal, not necessarily. There were only about three loose horses whom you could class as inamongst the field as they bore down on second Bechers.
gc
Adoptive father of two. The patron saint of lower-grade fare. A gently critical friend of point-to-pointing. Kindness is a political act.
Ok Paul i accept the well orchestrated point, but once you have given them The National, what will it be after that? Perhaps the removal of Chase fences because today, it is deemed cruel by the perception of others. Then, tomorrow, why not the whip? After all it is deemed cruel by the perception of others, so it must be cruel. Then , polo , shooting , and fishing, why not, after all, it is cruel.
I understand that it is very hard to publicly argue with the "cause" that represents the poor little bunny rabbit without sounding like Jack the Ripper.
Films like War Horse, or Ruffian can’t help.
I guess that the best way is to some how publicly discredit their cause.
I would be fantastic to catch the leader of the RSPCA in the act of betting on the national, or something much worse.
I understand your point, it is just sometimes they get right up my nose, because I worry about the sports future. It’s not cruel.
It is different for pro racing/ national fans because they are not attacking anything, just defending what they know to be just.
Where was the biggest mistake on the fox hunting campaign made ?
Ok Paul i accept the well orchestrated point, but once you have given them The National, what will it be after that? Perhaps the removal of Chase fences because today, it is deemed cruel by the perception of others. Then, tomorrow, why not the whip? After all it is deemed cruel by the perception of others, so it must be cruel. Then , polo , shooting , and fishing, why not, after all, it is cruel.
It’s a difficult one but society and perceptions change over time, not always for the better mark you, but it’s a reality that has to be faced.
What society accepted as "the norm" 20, 50, 100, 200 years ago is now considered abhorrent now.
There was a time when only a small minority questioned sending children up chimneys as being wrong – some of us still don’t see a problem with it
– but society says it’s wrong. OK an extreme example but you get my point.There was a time, even in my lifetime, when it was considered socially acceptable to down a few pints then get in the car and drive home – there is a sizeable minority who still think that’s the case – but society as a whole tends to deem it as unacceptable and that is reflected in legislation.
I guess that the best way is to some how publicly discredit their cause.
Again I don’t think simply discrediting their cause is enough – it almost smacks of desperation. "Racing PLC" if there really is such a thing, should work together to properly disseminate the facts and debunk the fiction.
It happens time and time again that racings opponents be it the RSPCA or Animal Aid have a much greater media savvy and they are able to get their message (be it right or wrong) across so much more effectively than racing can
I understand your point, it is just sometimes they get right up my nose, because I worry about the sports future. It’s not cruel.
I agree – I get annoyed about it too, racing is not inherently cruel although it would be equally wrong to pretend it is perfect either and it annoys me immensely when racing is unable to put up a proper defence of the sport. Knocking and discrediting your opponents and doing nothing else is not a robust defence.
Where was the biggest mistake on the fox hunting campaign made ?
In the pro-hunting lobby seriously underestimating the strength of and "public support" for the anti-hunting lobby. The anti-hunting lobby had an excellent PR and media campaign.
If 5% of horses died in all races then no sane person would be able to "defend" the sport.
Think it is important to point out the average death rate in the Grand National is no more than 2% Paul.
Many
individual
races
elsewhere
had 2 fatalities with far fewer runners, so a far higher death rate than "5%" for an individual race.
To be a meaningful statistic (whether pro or anti-National) it needs to be an average statistic.
Value Is EverythingBechers Brook was/is a trick fence that used to cause very dramatic falls; photographers would be there to capture the moment [still are] and the photos would be in the Sunday papers; it would be shown on Pathe News at the cinema. But, somewhere along the way public opinion started to change..maybe it was round about the time that Brown Trix [?]was killed and had to be hauled out of the ditch [which was then filled in]. I can’t believe that there is anyone anywhere that loves this race more than I do [and have done so for nigh on 60 years], but if I’m feeling uncomfortable about it then there’s a serious problem. I no longer seem to be able to justify it with friends, family and work colleagues the way that I used to. It doesn’t help that this years race was won by a horse that I absolutely adored but I cannot watch a replay of the race because of the fatalities, both of which affected me more than any other fatalities in recent years. I’m sure I’ve not been brainwashed by the RSPCA, an organisation that I have no time for whatsoever as I find them totally two faced.
Has any one ever seen a point to point fence?
That will be next.
If the riders are brave enough to compete in the national each year then they should be allowed to do so as they have a traditional right to do so. It isn’t just the horse a at risk.
Surely the people who ride in the race are the only ones who are really qualified to say if it is safe or not.
Has any one ever seen a point to point fence?
That will be next.
If the riders are brave enough to compete in the national each year then they should be allowed to do so as they have a traditional right to do so. It isn’t just the horse a at risk.
Surely the people who ride in the race are the only ones who are really qualified to say if it is safe or not.
As Paul says, anyone who defends the Grand National has to come up with reasons. Jockeys know that winning the Grand National is the pinackle of their racing career. Prize money also an incentive. No jockey would pass up an opportunity of winning it, even if the race were "unsafe". To say jockeys know best doesn’t wash.
The "traditional" right for cock fighting was no reason to allow it to continue. Of course it is not just the horse at risk, but the horse has no (or at least "little") say in whether to take part.
Value Is EverythingIf established racing people / Grand National lovers like Moehat and myself are having a problem with the race, then many non-racing members of the public will be turned off. Therefore, racing is less likely to find new racing enthusiasts. Surely it is best to change the race? Axe drop fences, fewer runners and soften the ground. It will still be a stamina and jumping test.
Value Is EverythingYou reasoning is sound and just. Personally I have no interest in the national, other than the knock on effect it will have for racing in general, in addition to the negative media coverage it receives that we really do not need.
I am aware that point to pointing is very hairy sport which is likely to be effected if the rules are changed. There isn’t much prize money in that. The riders compete because they enjoy it.
If the majority of the racing public really believe that the rules need to be amended, then fine, I am in favour. However, I am not in favour of any change that stems from out side pressures, such as the RSPCA. It sounds paranoid, but this is what these people will do. We were warned about this during the fox hunting debate, that it would not be the end.
If the rules are to be amended it needs to be made crystal clear that changes have been made on racings own accord and that no influence has come for any other industry or organisation. I’m sure you understand the vast difference.
I think vets could be a good voice for racing, as they see many different examples of animal issues, thus could explain to the rest of the world that racing is not gladiatorial. Of course one does not survive with out the other.
Or sponsor the RSPCA with a horses prize money for a year , much like the David Simcock trained horse (i forget it’s name). You can’t really be seen taking money and then attacking the same people who gave it to you.
These people have an on-line rabbit community.
If 5% of horses died in all races then no sane person would be able to "defend" the sport.
Think it is important to point out the average death rate in the Grand National is no more than 2% Paul.
Many
individual
races
elsewhere
had 2 fatalities with far fewer runners, so a far higher death rate than "5%" for an individual race.
To be a meaningful statistic (whether pro or anti-National) it needs to be an average statistic.
I don’t disagree with you – however in the past two years the figure has been nearer 5% and that is the figures critics will latch onto.
That’s always the problem of quoting statistics, they can always be twisted to suit one side of the argument, I’ve seen the same "stats" being convincingly used by different sides of an argument before.
As they say lies, damned lies and statistics.
I think statistics become less of a "lie" when they become more meaningful Paul. By using say a 13 year average instead of one or two years gives a more acurate figure / sample (imo). The 2% taken from information on the Animal Aid website. Although surprise surprise, not their own given statistics.
Value Is Everything11 deaths in 13 years (2000 to 2012 inclusive) from 519 runners. 2.12%.
Those photos of horses falling look bad. But of those 11 deaths only 6 “fell”, including Synchronised who probably got his injury while running loose.
6 ‘/, 519 = Only 1.15% of all runners died from a “fall”. The others died after unseating, brought down, one after being pulled up on the run-in.I am fairly certain the race could be made safer without destroying the spectacle.
Value Is EverythingTo return to the political aspects of this, especially Mr Grant’s strategy – much, much different from the RSPCA’s past approach.
Read this extract from that article:
It may concern the sport’s faithful to learn that Grant has met, once, with representatives of Animal Aid to discuss the National. "I understand where Animal Aid are coming from. We are different.
"The RSPCA as an organisation takes the same view I do, of principled pragmatism. We deal with the world as it is and we seek to make change to the benefit of the animals. Sometimes, there is a need for other organisations who make a lot of noise and sometimes that persuades people to pay greater attention to those who make less noise."
I read that as Mr Grant being happy to give Animal Aid a degree of ‘endorsement by association’. If the RSPCA is happy to sit at a table with AA, how far apart will they then be in the perception of the public?
Is Mr Grant taking the AA’s views into account in formulating policy? Is he advising them to sever all connections with any potential violent supporters who might tarnish the prospect of them being seen as a legitimate protest group? Perhaps Mr Grant is considering encouraging AA to stir up public opinion in order to be able to say ‘we had to step in and take serious action, listen to what the public are saying, we had no choice but to call for a total ban’ (or whatever).
I suspect racing will find themselves up against a much tougher opponent in Mr Grant. Mr Bittar’s tactics in handling him will be fascinating to see.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.