- This topic has 31 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 17 years ago by
.
- Posts
I think Ghost makes a very valid and pertinent point and the question of conscience is one that all followers of our sport should consider.
Imagine if there was a human sport which had the same ratio of fatalities as racing, especially NH racing. There would be a massive clamour, and quite justifiably so, to have it banned.
Are we saying we value the life of a horse any less than the life of a human? If so should we be making such a judgement? What gives homo-sapiens the right to think it is superior to other species?
If you do accept the view the life of a horse is valued less than that of a human at what stage does the loss of life become too high? A 0.1% attrition rate, 1%, 5%, 10% and if so how do you judge how much is too much?
Douginho says “….there would be a helluva lot of people (and horses) out of work if NH racing was banned.” Is that an argument for doing nothing? People’s livelihoods used to depend on sending children up chimneys or exploiting manual workers in dangerous working conditions. Neither of those, quite rightly so, would be tolerated in this day and age.
Attitudes change and it is possible the attitude of society may well change so that one day in the future racing, especially, national hunt racing, is banned because the cost to the equine contenders is considered too high.
I have asked many questions in this post – I am not pretending I know all or indeed any of the answers.
I do know I love horse racing, I love NH racing, it does not mean that I do not seriously have to examine my conscience on occasion.
I can seewhy many consider it cruel and when you see some of the events of the past few weeks it is nigh on impossible to morally justify the sport. The deaths of high profile horses like Wichita Lineman of Exotic Dancer bring the fatalities more into the headlines, but the death of some 60 rated novice chaser is no less tragic.
I also realise there may well be a time when the sport is considered too cruel and it becomes impossible to justify it on moral grounds and the fact its banning would result in thousands being put out of work would hold now sway whatsoever. Such an argument did not work whee the ban on hunting was being put through Parliament. It would not work if there was a proposal to ban NH racing
Racing is not exempt from the court of public opinion and we must not assume our sport is in some way a sacred institution – no matter how much we may love it.
Just because an activity is deemed acceptable now does not mean it will be acceptable in five, ten, fifty,one hundred years time. Public opinion changes.
I would say to Ghost there is nothing wrong with having a conscience or doubts – you are not the only one.
Condolenscenes to all.
Sad indeed, especially seeing WL collapse. Awful viewing.
As regards the debate with NH racing, my point, or question if you like, is what happens to the thousands of flat 2 and 3 year olds who are not deemed to be very good?
That is the part for the conscience to consider imho, more so that the accidents in the NH sphere.
Whilst understanding all the arguments put forward by those, including myself, who sincerely lament the number of fatalities suffered by racehorses in the course of their working lives, I also think it’s worth bearing in mind the hundreds of horses per year who have never seen a racecourse and are ridden purely for pleasure but suffer fatal accidents or illnesses.
I imagine, though I might be wrong, the ratio of deaths amongst everyday ‘pet’ horses is higher than racehorses simply because the former do not have the constant care and veterinary access coupled with a greater focus on stable safety issues that the latter have. Additionally, is the fact that because of the safeguards and inspections in place only rarely do we hear of trainers neglecting the welfare of the horses in their care. Whereas amongst the general horse population I am sure there are many cases of horses not being properly looked after unlike their racing counterparts who lead something of a pampered existence in comparison.
If NH racing was banned and all those horses were dispersed to private ownership, I doubt the number of premature deaths would reduce significantly.A fine post, Paul. Two points in particular grabbed me;
The deaths of high profile horses like Wichita Lineman of Exotic Dancer bring the fatalities more into the headlines, but the death of some 60 rated novice chaser is no less tragic.
Definitely agree. Many of us forge emotional attachments with horses over time (particularly over the jumps, simply due to the comparative longevity of the protagonists’ careers), and these are not always with the best ones. I have been saddened by this week’s events, of course, but I’ve never been more upset by a loss than when dear old Xaipete was killed in action at Sedgefield.
I also realise there may well be a time when the sport is considered too cruel and it becomes impossible to justify it on moral grounds and the fact its banning would result in thousands being put out of work would hold now sway whatsoever. Such an argument did not work whee the ban on hunting was being put through Parliament. It would not work if there was a proposal to ban NH racing
Quite possibly not. At the moment we have the luxury, if you want to put it in such terms, of knowing that the most persistently vocal opponents of racing are also the most deranged and unelectable (we know who they are).
However, it would only take a well-enough
crafted
proposal (I’ll leave it open as to whether it would actually be factually accurate or spurious) for a ban from within one of the mainstream parties to gather sustained momentum over time to put the future of the sport we love in a far more parlous position.
It’s nothing I’d like to see happen in my lifetime, but there has to be the danger we might.
gc
Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
As regards the debate with NH racing, my point, or question if you like, is what happens to the thousands of flat 2 and 3 year olds who are not deemed to be very good?
That is the part for the conscience to consider imho, more so that the accidents in the NH sphere.
Seconded.
gc
Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
It’s nothing I’d like to see happen in my lifetime, but there has to be the danger we might.gc
Let us all hope we don’t and you are a lot younger than me so have more time.
Thinking of that Foxhunters VT – even now I struggle to think how I would or even could respond in defence of our sport when presented with such a shocking image.
Paul,
I do agree with what you say, I’m just highlighting that for many the end of NH racing would be costly.
This is probably the worst subject matter, horse racing wise, anyone can write about. It is horrific…and I am just an outsider looking in.
I think Ghost makes a very valid and pertinent point and the question of conscience is one that all followers of our sport should consider.
There’s nothing really to "consider" in my book, Paul. You either stop betting on racing, and stop supporting racing through the various means, or you don’t.
Come on Marb life is not that black and white – if only it were that simple,
Just because one has a conscience it doesn’t mean one slavishly follows it all the time.
As I said in my main post I do follow racing, I love racing – but that does not mean I do not question my support sometimes.
Most of us face moral dilemas all the time and we then decide which course of action to take and sometimes that does involve not doing what ones conscience suggests is right.
Good grief if I could have £5 for every time I have ignored my conscience I would easily be a millionaire by now.
But if I had slavishly followed my conscience I would have missed out on very many pleasurable and enjoyablen times and, would probably be a less rounded person as a result.
I trust I was not suggesting people should slavishly follow their conscience – all I was trying to suggest is that occasional navel gazing does no harm. I would never dream of telling anyone else what decision to make.
I see where you are coming from Marb.
With the amount of racing I go to I probably seeing more accidents on the track than most and that does not make them any more acceptable. I freely admit I have, more than once, shed a tear.
If I close my eyes I can still see Conny Noble, a beautiful grey, lowly rated, collapsing in front of me at Chepstow a few weeks ago.
Do I walk away from the sport because of that – if I thought, for one moment it would improve things of course I would – without hesitation. ButI know it would make no difference at all.
From what I have gathered reading your posts you are a relative youngster, whereas I am getting long in the tooth. What is the relevance of that comment?
Well I have seen countless changes over the years which have really improved the safety of our sport.
It is almost impossible to believe now that when I first stated following racing the running rails were made of wood and the posts concrete. They claimed numerous lives both human and equine.
Fences were much more unforgiving and dangerous. Fences are now by-passed if there are stricken horses or riders on the other side. Anyone who remembers racing before fence by-passing will have a story of the field charging over a fence and some ambulance man doing his best to protect a stricken jockey.
The safety of racing has improved beyond recognition over the years – why? Because of people who had consciences questioning what was wrong having concerns and doing something about it.
Had they decided to walk away from the sport would we still have a sport today?
We will never eliminate the risks and dangers that are inherant in the sport, however I believe it is incumbent upon everyone who follows teh sport to still look at ways of making it safer.
Yes Beechers Brook was spectacular in the 1960’s but it claimed too many victims. It has been made less dangerous but it is still, nevertheless, spectacular.
As a species we do not like change – sometimes change is necessary. When they first apperaed I hated the fixed brush hurdles with a vengeance – because they are different – having seen them I am coming round to believe they are safer.
Everything in life carries risk. Do we not get into a car because so many die needlessly in car accidents? Do we avoid having an operation because some people don’t recover from an anaesthetic?
Of course not.
Do we expect the authorities to make things safer to reduce teh risk?
Of course we do and racing should be no different.
Right, I am probably boring people stupid on this one so I will shut up on the subject now – have a big decision to make anyway – do I go to Newmarket or Cheltenham tomorrow
Wish i hadnt put my post uo now…sorry guys!!!!!!!
Someone said ”what would happen to all the 2 and 3 year olds not good enough for the flat???”
Well thats a whole new show,to me that is over breeding and the attitude of”oh well if its not good enough for the flat it might win a wee selling hurdle up north”
There really is no Black or white just a massive gret area on this subject!!!
An interesting post, Paul.
Over the last 10 years or so, I too had to do some soul-searching about the number of equine deaths in NH racing, even though the sport is safer now than it’s ever been.
50 years ago, in grainy black-and-white with murky pictures transmitted from prehistoric TV cameras, it was easier not to notice these things, unless a horse happened to be killed at the final obstacle. It’s so much more in your face these days.
No moehat, that didn’t happen. Drumconvis struggled to his feet just as the field by-passed the last fence but sadly it was only too obvious that he had sustained a fracture. A grim renewal of the Irish National which not many racing folk will look back on with any pleasure. But congratulations must go to Bob Buckler, a much under-rated trainer.
According to the race report on RP website (which could be incorrect, I grant you) Davy Russell’s mount DID jump the last when he should have gone round the fence. Thus listed as Ran Out (jumping final fence) as did not follow prescribed course.
I did not see what actually happened but I sincerely hope this is very carefully enquired into, for obvious reasons – not many horses at the end of a long race will drag the jockey (attempting to steer elsewhere) over a fence rather than follow other runners arond it – was the jockey riding as well as should be expected? Anyone actually see the incident.
Thankfully I only saw the end of the race so did not see the fate that befell Wichita but the image of the fallen horse scrambling to it’s feet from behind the screens, with apparent injury could not be avoided, nor the sight of the riderless bay (was that Emma Jane?) pulling up very lame close to eventual winner.
That’s exactly what I saw; how close the horse jumping the fence was to the injured horse it’s difficult to say, as I only saw it once on a small screen; all I could think at the time was, thank goodness the horse has got to his feet, not knowing that the poor thing was so badly injured. I also read somewhere else that there was a quote from the winning jockey saying that the fences were particularly stiff and tightly packed. However, I’m not here to judge anyone; I just think that several aspects of the race need to be looked at by the authorities. I can’t imagine a life without my jump racing to look forward to every winter, but, like most people here I do feel a sense of responsibility towards the horses and jockeys involved.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.