Horses getting killed in grand national your views ( poll )

How do You feel about horse racing now

Still for it
Against it
Feel abit uneasy about it now
Total votes: 194
Warren Hill
Triple Crown Winner
Posts: 1799
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 11:00 pm
Location: Newmarket

Postby Warren Hill » Sun Apr 15, 2012 2:56 pm

I think that ANY horse that gets loose going down or at the start should be TAKEN OUT...

Maybe Sycronised's fall at Beechers brook had nothing to do with him getting loose but maybe the fall FIVE fences later did...?

Any horse that bolts or deposits a jockey befor the race is NOT in the right state of mind to take part...

If this had happened anywhere else but Aintree and maybe Cheltenham i think they would have pulled it out... :yes:

Remember the horse nearly died at the Welsh Grand National a couple of years ago when it collapsed..

Im not against the national all im against is some of the rules they have in place... :yes:
Always Trying.....

Posts: 10597
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 11:00 pm

Postby blueboy68 » Sun Apr 15, 2012 3:14 pm

I am so much into racing I have dreams :lol: I have been betting for 30 years
and in my younger days the National was a novelty and I liked it,

Now though I don't, I expect carnage and even deaths each time its run,
yes it looks good to watch if they are safe,
But no way should these horse be made to run such a death trap,

As for letting Synchronised run, well that was very poor mistake,

Triple Crown Winner
Posts: 2393
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 12:00 am

Postby brewster39 » Sun Apr 15, 2012 4:00 pm

I'm with Warren here. It's not about whether Synchronised was physically fit to run the race, but psychologically he clearly wasn't in the right frame of mind to be running any race, let alone a 4m4f race over 30 fences.

It's good that people are taking it a bit more seriously now, but as they say actions speak louder than words. As many have said so far, limit the field to realistic winners, cutting the field to 30 would be a start. They could even limit it to horses that have won or even raced over a certain distance. I also think reducing the number of fences they jump would have a positive impact.

Either way, I'm not going to vote on this thread - I have felt like this for years.

Posts: 10597
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 11:00 pm

Postby blueboy68 » Sun Apr 15, 2012 4:11 pm

This sounds silly and you might well say sure whatever,
but on my kids lives (which I wouldn't say if I was lying) when Mccoy took
his horse to the first fence for a look at them the horse had a look then a
little twitch and another look,
Right then in my mind my thought was the horse is thinking "I dont fancy this"
And thats on my kids, may be a coincidence but thats what went through my mind.
Never happened to me before but there was something about the way he
looked at the fence :?

Group 1 Class
Posts: 253
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 12:00 am

Postby boodah » Sun Apr 15, 2012 5:17 pm

who will decide who has a chance of winning? this is a handicap race and all horses are theoretically weighted to dead heat therefore they all have the same theoretical chance of winning. look at the finishers who could have predicted them, could anyone predict Synchronised the winner of the ultimate prize in NH racing would fall twice on the same day? poor horses dont get in the race. Always Waining missed out last year because of the weights and yet he has won 3 times over the same fences. we must trust trainers to enter in good faith, the weights sort out the ability. I say slow the race down- fewer runners is the most likely improvement as most casualties are early in race where there is no chance to avoid fallers as the horses are so closely grouped. maybe put the start nearer first fence or much further away. To appease the public something will have to be done but for the test it provides I dont really see you can make it safe enough to please everyone.

User avatar
Betting Blog Tips
Posts: 7879
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 12:00 am
Location: Newcastle

Postby Micko70 » Sun Apr 15, 2012 5:36 pm

It's ok saying this and that about Synchronised but the FACT of the matter is, he fell at Becher's Brook on the first circuit, then got up and continued to jump until he made the fatal jump.

If he didn't want to jump the fences he would have simply got up and just trotted to the next fence or bypassed them like so many horses do

Posts: 10597
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 11:00 pm

Postby blueboy68 » Sun Apr 15, 2012 5:43 pm

Would he have jumped them if he was the only horse on the circuit,
I'm not sure, I don't think he would of, he probably carried on jumping to
run with the pack,

User avatar
Betting Blog Tips
Posts: 7879
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 12:00 am
Location: Newcastle

Postby Micko70 » Sun Apr 15, 2012 5:50 pm

Probably Blueboy

User avatar
Betting Blog Tips
Posts: 5648
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 11:00 pm

Postby DAVIDADAN » Sun Apr 15, 2012 6:10 pm

I,m of the old school brigade of the best horses,the best races.Of course we all love the horses who race for our pleasure,though they do enjoy a quality of life at a cost our pensioners would love to have spent on them :shock:
Racing employs many tens of thousands,directly and indirectly,..andi myself baulk at a £5 pint at some tracks (though carry a hip flask) and have a pint or 2 maybe,but it,s all about the racing! Racehorse welfare has many supporters,but the vets have much more knowledge than the rest of us followers.Mark Johnston is a VET & Top Trainer,i,d like to hear his opinions rather than some rag paper :?

User avatar
Betting Blog Tips
Posts: 5295
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 11:00 pm
Location: Cornwall

Postby jimmywomble » Sun Apr 15, 2012 7:55 pm

It's such a awkward subject, and when I ran the sweepstake in the office two women didn't take part for this very reason, so I know they are going to argue that it should be banned etc etc. Obviously because the whole country follows the race the exposure to such issues are raised, no-one outside of racing really bothers about the horses killed on a wet wednesday at Redcar. So surely if you have to ban the National you would have to ban all racing?

Firstly I'm with the band that say Synchronised's exploits at the start had no effect on his latter fall, watching the BBC coverage several horses were spooked by the white line at the start, the problem is McCoy was caught out by the sudden movement & fell off and so the horse was loose and able to go for a run. Presumably the jockeys following McCoy were a little more alert to make sure they didn't end up on the deck.

My next point is how many horses died in the 50's, 60's, 70's before the number of horses was reduced & the fences adjusted to make things safer? Is it just now the case that the fewer horses and lower fences mean they try to take them faster and therefore increase the risk the a bad fall?

Surely more should be done to try & find a way for the horse to be treated when they have such a fall. I appreciate what Richard Pitmann said that you can't immobilise a horse and putting it in a sling risks pneumonia, but if we can build replacement limbs that enable guys to run as fast without legs as someone with, then something can be built to allow a horse to move with a broken leg.

As sad as it was for Synchronised's connections I have more sympathy for the owners of According to Pete. The BBC did a piece on him before the race and he's been owned since a foal by the same family who reared him until sending him off for training. For them it really will be like losing a family member. Tragic as well as he was brought down rather than falling, so difficult to blame the fences or anything then.

Just a few of my thoughts on an issue that has taken over the spotlight when we should be talking about the closest ever finish in the race.


PS Noel Fehily broke his leg in the race as well, if he was put down would that even the score a bit for those calling for the race to be stopped? :P

Group 3 Class
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 12:00 am

Postby redman2 » Sun Apr 15, 2012 8:01 pm

Racing needs to attract people to it and at the end of the day when those with only an occasional interest see 40 horses charging towards fences with carnage the inevitable result, it is only going to turn people off.

I think the fallout will be a reduction in field size at the very least.

Triple Crown Winner
Posts: 1693
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 12:00 am
Location: Portsmouth

Postby chimaira » Sun Apr 15, 2012 9:07 pm

Turf completly off the point, and labelling people is not really on. Just because your young, you cant assume (from what i see you posted, is that you are assuming) is that all young people who enjoys a pint/skin full at a day at the races will "urrinate everywhere" and show no consideration for others, I just dont get how you plucked that reply out in response to this thread, Some bitterness is there for whatever reason??

At big meetings, ie the national, once a year it brings out the people who dont follow horse racing at all to come and put a bet on, so therefore may have attracted that crowd this week. But ive never seen unsociable behaviour at any small mid week meetings.

To clear this up, not direct response to the thread its self, but i just found your post very odd turf in response to the thread and had to comment.
Last edited by chimaira on Mon Apr 16, 2012 6:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users