- This topic has 122 replies, 29 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
you would allow yourself to be killed by the lion so as not to offend its rights, Ginger?
You’re not helping yourself with these crazy arguements, GM.
Whenever an animal is going to mame or kill a human I’d obviously be in favour fighting back.
Please explain how any horses in the NH Chase are trying to mame or kill the jockey?
The jockey does not deliberately mame or kill any horse.Value Is EverythingMy point is, Mike, that there has been no increase in the popularity of the GN now that it is perceived safer. Thus, by definition, it was equally if not more popular when perceived more dangerous. The inherent risk and danger in NH racing is part of what has always made it attractive to millions of people. Once that is reduced below a certain point it fundamentally changes the sport and makes it less appealing to its core audience with no guarantee of attracting newcomers. We should go no further than the current safety measures in a futile effort to appease the minority extremists who will never be satisfied.
Wow,
We aren’t all sadists.
Personally, I’d enjoy Racing more if there were no injuries and no fatalities – or at least fewer.
We may not be able to entirely irradicate danger and risk, but we should try to lessen that danger/risk as much as possible without destroying the spectacle… And for the vast majority “spectacle” does not need a significant danger of injury and death. Surely if the Grand National is just as popular now – with a lesser risk of injury and death – than it was before the changes… then those changes have done their job?
ie Before the changes there was a not insignificant danger the Grand National would be lost to the animal rights brigade. Actually, something needed to be done anyway, too many horses lives were being lost. Too early to be definite, but softer cores appear to have done a great job. The race is still as popular now as it was then… and yet seems to be far less dangerous for horses and jockeys… AND far less danger of the race being lost altogether.Value Is EverythingThey’re not crazy arguments, Ginger. You say it yourself, jockeys do not deliberately set out to harm horses’ welfare. In fact, for those involved in the game (trainers, jockeys, etc) horses’ welfare is paramount. Thus, they are best positioned to accurately judge what constitutes an acceptable risk, not the authorities, the press or public perception. If the subjective judgement is conceded entirely to the remit of the latter three bodies then the door is opened to the wider animal rights issue, even more so when they are reactionary, and that issue ultimately poses the question: why is horse racing permissible at all in any form?
And I’m not a sadist but a realist. It’s hypocritical to weigh up the amount of danger and risk so that it measures only as much as what one thinks will be perceived as acceptable. Danger, risk, injuries and death are inherent in racing, therefore, if those elements are in themselves offensive one should find them so in even the most infinitesimal quantity and choose not to watch, let alone make a living from, racing.
I say draw the line now, let the individual choose whether or not to view (currently millions are doing so). Let the participants get on with it as it is, I don’t believe the sport will wither away from lack of popularity if nothing else changes. Yes, it’s tough, unfortunate and upsetting when a horse dies but that is the contract one is taking out when choosing to watch. But life is tough and we have a choice. It’s tougher for animals because their very existence is controlled by humans, like it or not, that’s the way the world has developed for humans to survive. We protect ourselves from being eaten by lions, we tamed wild horses to employ them for our own uses. Those who think that is/was wrong are extremists, the argument against them can never be won by appeasement.
Eh?
“It’s hypocritical to weigh up the amount of danger and risk so that it measures only as much as what one thinks will be perceived as acceptable. Danger, risk, injuries and death are inherent in racing, therefore, if those elements are in themselves offensive one should find them so in even the most infinitesimal quantity and choose not to watch, let alone make a living from, racing”.
Under those specifications every safety improvement that’s ever been made was hypocritical/wrong. Even replacing concrete posts and wooden rails with plastic was hypocritical because it did not eliminate risk.
Stop digging, GM and think what you’re saying. If weighing up risk is hypocritical/wrong then we wouldn’t have cars, or any mode of transport and wouldn’t do a bloody thing… Or if cars/planes etc had been allowed we wouldn’t have made any safety improvements whatsoever because it wouldn’t eliminate risk.
Life itself is all about weighing up the amount of danger and risk involved and making safety improvements/decisions which do not reduce the journey’s spectacle.
Value Is EverythingIt used to be possible to have a sensible debate with you, Ginger, but these days you just choose a phrase and place it into a different context for the sake of continuing an argument.
Bear the baited one, bull the fought one, and my old friend on the hill, the wily fox – the chased one were all found counting their chickens. Horses take a raffle ticket at 1000-1 a go and most end up in pastures of lush green having a leisurely nibble.
Safety can always be improved within practical boundaries.
I was very careful not to take anything “out of context”, GM. Everyone can see I did not “choose a phrase”, you are mistaken! Everyone can see I’ve quoted a whole paragraph and made comments on what that whole paragraph means.
If you’re going to make these illogical comments then that’s entirely your own fault; don’t blame me.
When you see safety improvements as being… “hypocritical to weigh up the amount of danger and risk so that it measures only as much as what one thinks will be perceived as acceptable. Danger, risk, injuries and death are inherent in racing, therefore, if those elements are in themselves offensive one should find them so in even the most infinitesimal quantity and choose not to watch, let alone make a living from, racing”.… Then any safety improvements made in the past must be seen in the same way, because no improvements eliminate risk.
How can you use that arguement to stop future safety improvements when the same arguement would’ve had to be applied to all safety improvements made in the past?
If you want to be against a particular so called “safety improvement”, then fine… Some of what you’ve said about this issue on these pages is valid – even if I don’t agree with it. But please don’t use these nonsensical arguements to justify your opinion – otherwise you should expect them to be severely criticised.
Value Is EverythingI looked at the following figures since 2003 – 17 runnings – of:
NH CHASE
KIM MUIR
FOXHUNTERS
GOLD CUPI added the Grand National since 2013 (first time plastic cores were used) – 6 runnings
DATA LOGGED:
STARTERS
FINISHERS
NON FINISHERS
BD
FELL
PU
UNSEATS
SU
REF
RR (just one instance of this – Battle Group in National so I’ve ignored it)Top Section is actual numbers. Bottom Section is those numbers as percentages. The chart is based on the percentages
No luck uploading. They’re on my blog. https://wp.me/p9Q9IC-5b
“It was Christie that done it ”
I couldn’t put a hare between you but let me speak up for the silent majority, the B listers, and the 70 IQ club like Timothy Evans.The task of racecourses is to get the maximun numbers safely in and then insure they lose as pleasurably as they can, and spend as much money on their remaining monies on the side stalls as they possibly can.
The thrill of the chase and following the ups and downs of racing but seen through the personal hooha eyes of their own selections is what it is all about GREED GREED GREED FEED. Most are unconcerned about a smack but death at a bend is another matter. Spills must be seen to be looked into and enquiries held and appropriate action taken. China is now open for business and a new referendum should be held by a rep body bon the balance of safety and art form and the wellbeing of of the many legged that entertain. It was said that Pigott could think like a horse, so include his long reined silence in the hubris.see my blog. https://wp.me/p9Q9IC-5b
Which shows there are less finishers and more fallers in the longer distance races (NH, GN) which is logical. And no difference between the percentage of fallers in those two races for the former being confined to amateurs. Thanks, Joe.
In its history the GN has been won by inexperienced amateurs and a chase debutant!
No, I’m not having that, Ginger. I don’t know if you are trying to tempt me into reiterating all my posts on this thread into a comprehensive summary but were I to anyone could see mine is an entirely logical and well structured opinion.
That process would be very time consuming so I will deal with the specific phrase/paragraph in question.
I was responding to your accusation of being a sadist. I was not addressing general safety innovations in horse racing, transport or whatever which apply equally to human safety. I was speaking to reactionary changes imposed by an out of touch authority applied to whichever latest renewal of a particular race said authority feels it ought to appease the PERCEPTION of the general, non-racing, public. And was doing so against the general background of horse/animal welfare/rights/cruelty and the extreme views advanced by some groups. The C in RSPCA stands for cruelty. Racing is not cruel (except when Davy Russell punches a horse) but it contains an inherent risk/danger of equine injury/death. What is illogical and hypocritical is to ad hoc, by piecemeal, try to obscure that in public perception every time there is a perceived public outcry about a high profile race by making changes which whilst bordering on changing the character of a race are in reality reducing the inherent risk by a tiny amount compared to the amount of the inherent risk.
What is more is that because these changes are made knee-jerk by unqualified persons rather than based on well considered evidence of trainers, jockeys, etc (the bulk of whom would think them unnecessary) they are likely to be ineffective other than by salving the immediate public perception which, of course, is there entire purpose.
The GN has suffered death by a thousand cuts but each one taken as it came is hard to object to. Drop fences (which largely arose by accident due to repair on the take off side and changing contours over time on the landing side) were unfair traps. Improved sightlines, soft cores are to be applauded. I object to the spruce being too loose. But I predict that in the near future there will be a GN with a couple of fatalities. What happens then?
I say this because fatalities are inevitable in racing and the timing of them and in which race is purely a matter of chance. Since the most recent changes Aintree has not had any. But then between 1892 and 1900 (2 amateur jockeys won in that span), when the obstacles were generally higher and ditches wider than today, when the fences were black and bolt upright with nary a sightline nor apron, when there was an open ditch at the Canal Turn, and when the Chair was more commonly known as The Grave, there were how many fatalities? ONE. How? Collapsed in paddock after race (Carrollstown, 1894). And they didn’t potter round, Cloister’s record winning time in 1893 stood until the Golden Age of the 1930s.
Difference in what a person sees as “reactionary changes” and what he/she sees as “general safety innovations”, GM; is purely the person’s opinion. One mans innovation is another mans reactionary change; therefore in order to judge them fairly (as good or bad) we must surely judge them by the same criteria.
Value Is EverythingI disagree (what a surprise!) on that small point. There is clearly a difference between changing something in direct reaction to an event and innovations that come along, well, whenever they are innovated! For example, plastic wasn’t widely produced until the Second World War.
Meanwhile, Ruby has a pop at the BHAs attitude:
And my bitterness towards Bittar is assuaged by his strongly agreeing with what I say the BHA should and shouldn’t be doing when events like the NH Chase occur:
ie Before the changes there was a not insignificant danger the Grand National would be lost to the animal rights brigade. Actually, something needed to be done anyway, too many horses lives were being lost. Too early to be definite, but softer cores appear to have done a great job. The race is still as popular now as it was then… and yet seems to be far less dangerous for horses and jockeys… AND far less danger of the race being lost altogether.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.