- This topic has 78 replies, 25 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 10 months ago by
.
- Posts
Condone? I’m not condoning, others are condemning based on nothing more than their ‘feeling’ that something was wrong.
Of course you are condoning the fact that its acceptable to watch 2 horses scramble over the last absolutely legless by the mere fact that you are dissagreeing that its just not acceptable to see horses struggle like that. When did you last see a Champion hurdle winner,July Cup winner or Derby winner finish its race like that? A horse should finish its race and it should finish it knowing its had one,not barely able to put one foot in front of the other and then miraculously clambering over the last fence,my heart was in my mouth,god knows where those horses hearts were! Not a sight to savour that.
Saw this post on Talking Horses from a contributor called Krizon:
The last thing we need, as racing fans, is to see accusations of the Coliseum raised, where animals are pitted against man-made difficulties to see whether they’re ‘brave’ enough to survive. And what of the horses that can’t complete? Does that make them cowards? I don’t like the gladiatorial tone that race analyses often take, although I’m guilty of falling into those cosy cliches myself. Yes, they’re brave – or perhaps just stupid – to keep going when their natural instinct would be to stop. Why do they? I’ve no idea. But if an animal is at the point of exhaustion when it gets to the line, I think we’ve gone too far in exploiting it for our pleasure or gain, just like spectators at the Roman circus.
We can drive ourselves to exhaustion all we want – we have the brains to make that choice. Driving any animal, not gifted with human intellectual notions of choice, to exhaustion is plain wrong, whether it’s a brutalized Cairo carthorse, a brickfield donkey in India, or a well-maintained racehorse in the UK. Any animal used by us deserves humane treatment, and I think we’re close to losing that in the rush to stage races at any cost, so as not to lose income.
Racehorses are bred to race, of course, but that doesn’t mean that we should force that issue when commonsense and human decency should indicate otherwise.
(And before someone rushes in with "they stop if they can’t go on" – that’s not borne out by the number which need rehydrating offstage, or which grind to a walk to get home. They’re supposed to gallop, not wobble, across the finish line. DEANO’S BEENO got smart long before his connections did – he began his own revolt against being hauled out again and again, and even the "he loves it" doughty KINKEEL drew the line yesterday. So, fine, eventually – after a vast amount of mileage on the clock – some will stop themselves. And is that something that adds to the pride or lustre of the sport?)
Colin
Kingfisher. To ‘condone’ means to overlook or ignore something wrong, illegal or immoral.
That’s why I disupte the word’s use in this context.From my Blog . . .
Today’s Eider Chase over 33 furlongs (6,638 metres) was the equine equivalent of The Somme. Thankfully there were no fatalities other than racing’s image.
Nine of the twelve who set off through the mud, did not finish; 75% of the field pulled up. The winner, Companero, and second, Giles Cross, didn’t jump the last so much as scale it. The third horse, Morgan Be, 188 lengths behind Giles Cross, actually stopped to rest before being asked to negotiate the final fence – for a prize of £2,760.
Clerk of the course James Armstrong : “I’d have to say, it wasn’t a nice race to watch. It didn’t look good. But what do you do? The Eider is a very tough race every year and this year we’ve got heavy ground, but although it’s heavy, it’s not unsafe ground. Anyone who rang me in the week with runners in the race were told what it would be like and the general response I was getting was that the more testing the better would suit them. Everyone who took part knew what it would be like.”
Italics are mine. If indeed connections of all these horses knew what lay ahead, then the decision to run ought to be taken from their hands. Racing’s in poor enough shape without offering ammunition to its critics and slow motion horror videos to potential fans. The Clerk and Stewards cannot simply wash their hands by passing responsibility to owners and trainers.
The racecourse executive have a vested financial interest in meetings going ahead. To make a decision on the basis that the ground is ‘safe’ isn’t good enough. Quicksand is deemed safe by many, so long as you don’t stand up in it.
I doubt either party – racecourse or connections – will step forward to take the blame and that crystallises one of racing’s main problems – the quick buck, the short term, the grab-what-you-can and to hell with the future. Shameful and demoralising.
Kingfisher. To ‘condone’ means to overlook or ignore something wrong, illegal or immoral.
That’s why I disupte the word’s use in this context.Sean that in my opinion is exactly what you are doing "Ignoring something wrong"! Saturdays race over 4 miles should never have been run in those conditions,10 horses should never have been pulled up and the 2 that did finish were visually distressing to the eye,thank goodness we dont submit horses to that on a daily basis as our days would be numbered,i love my racing as much as yourself but i dont like to see them "jumping" i use the term lightly, fences like that! You have made your case clearly on ATR where you stand and i respect that but on this occassion i strongly dissagree with your views that the outcome of Saturdays Eider was acceptable,like i have said before it was wrong the meeting even went ahead on this occassion.(Backed up by the clock)!
Kingfisher, we’ll have to agree to disagree. I haven’t seen any evidence at all to support your view. The clerk, the trainers, the owners, the jockeys all believed it was right to race. You disagree. That’s fine and many will agree with you. The fact that the slowest going stick reading ever recorded at Newcastle resulted in some very slow times is neither surprising nor evidence that the meeting should have been abandoned. There is no evidence from the sports participants, from vets, from science, from historical record that I can find that supports the idea that the meeting should have been called off. All we have is how it ‘looked’. Like Pinza I think we need to be extremely diligent and rigorous in addressing that point. Some say ‘perception is everything’. I disagree. The facts are at least as important.
Mention should be made of the daft idea put forward of reducing the distance of the Eider on welfare grounds. On that basis, if that was done where would be the logic in keeping the National at 4 and a half miles?
That’s the key question for critics of the decision to race at Newcastle.
What is the maximum distance over which you would allow a race?
And/or what is the minimum going stick reading permissible?
If you can’t answer those questions definitively then it is left to the judgement of the professionals involved, as happened on Saturday. Simple as that in the end.
Kingfisher, we’ll have to agree to disagree. I haven’t seen any evidence at all to support your view. The clerk, the trainers, the owners, the jockeys all believed it was right to race. You disagree. That’s fine and many will agree with you. The fact that the slowest going stick reading ever recorded at Newcastle resulted in some very slow times is neither surprising nor evidence that the meeting should have been abandoned.
Its almost a unique scenario Sean as i would bet a pound to a penny Newcastle have abandoned mid week meetings far less prestigious than this one for ground this bad,you dont have to be a student of finance to realise a commercial decision was made to allow the Eider to go ahead,that said those who gave the race the go ahead got away with it,only just though,i wonder how many executives of the course thought after the first 3 races Oh dear we have a 4m + race coming up and its the only one of the year! Fingers firmly crossed! By the way if you were a horse i would make sure the blinkers came off next time out!
Do we simply ban racing on heavy ground then?
‘Extreme stamina test’ means different things to different horses
Personally I regard 2yo 5f races on bad ground (not infrequent during March and April) as potentially more gruelling and damaging to a young, inexperienced still-growing horse than the 4+ miles a grizzled old gelding may occasionally endure
The weariness and ‘cruelty’ in the latter case is obvious; in the former, hidden
Do we simply ban racing on heavy ground then?
‘Extreme stamina test’ means different things to different horses
Personally I regard 2yo 5f races on bad ground (not infrequent during March and April) as potentially more gruelling and damaging to a young, inexperienced still-growing horse than the 4+ miles a grizzled old gelding may occasionally endure
The weariness and ‘cruelty’ in the latter case is obvious; in the former, hidden
Drone,when did you last see a 2yo "Legless" over 5f? You might see a 2yo struggle over 11/4m at the backend at Newmarket but rarely on ground thats desperate.
"a commercial decision was made to allow the Eider to go ahead"
Are you suggesting Kingfisher that the decision put commercial imperatives ahead of the welfare of the horses and jockeys? That’s a mighty serious accusation and I’d be keen to hear what you’re basing it on.
If you agree that Newcastle ‘got away’ with the decision to race in which sense was it wrong?
What is the maximum distance over which you would allow a race and what is the lowest going stick reading you would permit? What empirical evidence would you base your decision on?
It seems to me you’re asking clerks to accurately predict how a race might ‘look’ and how it might make a viewer ‘feel’. If that’s the case how are you going to equip clerks to make that decision?
My blinkers are off on this one if there is evidence to demonstrate that Newcastle’s decision was wrong I’ll happily revisit my views on this.
- Total Posts 17716
I totally agree with Pinza and seanboyce, just a small point though sean, you stated on the Sunday forum the Eider was a "valuable" race, it’s worth less than half what it used to be.
Eddie, thank you – as to the question of the race’s value, you are correct of course to say that it has halved in value.
Just to get it into perspective, though, the winner grossed £19,530.00.
The average UK annual wage is currently estimated to be £23,450 (according to http://www.mysalary.co.uk/averagesalary.php) so for most people £19,530 is a very substantial amount of money indeed.
I don’t begrudge it to Companero’s connections one jot, and I hope he himself will benefit to the tune of several boxes of polo mints: but I would maintain that the Eider remains a valuable race.
Kingfisher,
Where were you two years ago?
The Eider Chase that has got you all fired up was run in 9m 30.9 secs.
The Eider Chase of 2009 (2010 abandoned) was also run on heavy ground, they jumped 24 fences, 5 of 13 starters completed the course and the winners time was 9m 27.3 secs.
Can’t find any record of complaints after that race, either on here or in the media generally.
AP
For clarity, 3 horses finished. The third, Morgan Be effectively had to stop for a rest before trying to negotiate the last.
Was it safe to race? Yes. Was it wise to race – the ‘exhaustion pornography’ that was The Eider says no.
Whatever the ins and outs of the safety or commercial aspects, who thinks it was a good thing for a sport whose market share is in steady decline?
- Total Posts 17716
Whatever the ins and outs of the safety or commercial aspects, who thinks it was a good thing for a sport whose market share is in steady decline?
Where is your evidence to demonstrate that the spectacle of either the 2009 or this year’s renewal of a race which is always a gruelling test is contributing to this (debatable) "steady decline"?
Presumably you’d take out the Grand National for the same reasons?
And how do you quantify this "market" in which racing has a "share"?
Unless you can put firm figures on all these things, you can only be said to be talking from your own feelings and
perceptions
. Until you share the figures with us, there’s not a shred of evidence to back your assertion.
"a commercial decision was made to allow the Eider to go ahead"
Are you suggesting Kingfisher that the decision put commercial imperatives ahead of the welfare of the horses and jockeys? That’s a mighty serious accusation and I’d be keen to hear what you’re basing it on.
If you agree that Newcastle ‘got away’ with the decision to race in which sense was it wrong?
What is the maximum distance over which you would allow a race and what is the lowest going stick reading you would permit? What empirical evidence would you base your decision on?
It seems to me you’re asking clerks to accurately predict how a race might ‘look’ and how it might make a viewer ‘feel’. If that’s the case how are you going to equip clerks to make that decision?
My blinkers are off on this one if there is evidence to demonstrate that Newcastle’s decision was wrong I’ll happily revisit my views on this.
Sean,like i have stated previously had this been a run of the mill mid week meeting it would have been cancelled,simply on the basis that the ground had a going stick reading of 3.4.Bearing in mind Heavy ground is 5.5 and waterlogged is 1.5.The record shows Newcastle have never raced on such desperate ground since readings were first recorded,so why did they allow the meeting to go ahead? The Eider chase is one of the most recognised races at Newcastle along with the Fighting Fifth and the Pitmens Derby,corporate hospitality is booked months in advance for all and all three meetings are well supported by local business never mind about the massive TV coverage that will enhance all those advertising boards around the course.Comply or Die won it the same year he won the National and he just couldn"t handle it on Saturday again proving just how desperate things were,to re-schedule now would have just been too tight what with Cheltenham and Aintree fast approaching,i believe the decision makers failed to realise that 4m 1f was just pushing their luck on ground reading 3.4 and if it wasn"t Eider day it would have been cancelled,no question,Greed won the day! I believe any reading less than 4 has to be questioned regarding the possibility of racing but if there was a race of over 4 miles then its abandoned,Saturday confirmed that clearly imo,like i have stated previously it was a unique set of circumstances,i have no problem with running 3m chases and less on Heavy ground but 4 miles is a different ball game,Red Marauders Grand National will never get new punters to join us and Saturdays race had exactly the same visual impact,it didn"t look good,even you must agree with that Sean,it did more harm for the game than good for sure.Clerks have exactly the same problem with assessing/watering fast ground,Simon Claisse is still learning how to get it wrong!It is quite apparent you have an unwaivering opinion on this one and for all the you think its fine watching horses go beyond the call of duty and attempt to jump like a drunk and then stand still before being urged to continue,i believe its wrong! Dessies Gold Cup is not comparable by the way he ran on up the hill and showed grit and determination,Companero and Giles Cross were shattered! I admire your tenacity Sean,in fact you would be Comply or Die if you were a horse!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.