Horses getting killed in grand national your views ( poll )

How do You feel about horse racing now

Still for it
158
81%
Against it
11
6%
Feel abit uneasy about it now
25
13%
 
Total votes: 194
scuzzlebutt
Group 2 Class
Tips
Posts: 132
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 11:00 pm

Postby scuzzlebutt » Sun Apr 15, 2012 9:28 pm

If racing was banned tomorrow the glue factories would be queued out the door with horses waiting to get melted down because they have no purpose any more. Anyone who thinks horse racing should be banned should consider this.
It's not just the jumps, more horses die on the flat either breaking down or suffering heart failure due to the unrelenting speed aspect of flat racing.
It is unfortunate and tragic but is something that cannot be avoided.

Imaginarium
Triple Crown Winner
Tips
Posts: 1474
Joined: Sat May 07, 2011 11:00 pm

Postby Imaginarium » Mon Apr 16, 2012 5:42 am

It has become a habit to put down the horses immediately without thinking of any alternate options to reduce the pain and then carry on further treatment :x

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

Postby boodah » Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:27 am

imaginarium, it may appear hasty but as Richard Pitman explained on the BBC after the race, if the horse can be saved it is, unfortunately the treatment for some injuries to heal would need the horse to be immobilised for a long period and it it this that causes pneumonia which kills the horse. So the quick despatch comes while the horse is full of painkilling adrenalin and before pain comes on if possible. It is the vets decision on the spot I believe and so it is not a sentimental or commercial decision but an animal welfare one and no doubt is one area the RSPCA is very much involved in.

jmstocka
Stallion
Tips
Posts: 5140
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:00 am

Postby jmstocka » Mon Apr 16, 2012 8:44 am

Very sad as it was that we lost another two horses in the Grand National, maybe because of their prominence in the public eye, the BHA will be forced to act to further increase the safety for both horse and rider, not just at Aintree but at all racecourses.

Iv'e heard so much crap from from people you would think would know better, both on the TV and in the press, with comments from so called experts, which a lot of people take as gosple and then think well that must be right then.

Richard Pitman stated on the TV that you can't put a horse who has broken a leg into plaster as it will get pneumonia, he must never of heard of MILL REEF who did just that on the gallops as a 4yo but was put into a plaster and sling, had his leg pinned and survived, Mill Reef was saved because of his breeding potential, now I'm not saying that ALL horse can be treated this way, because not all are worth what Mill Reef was worth and he would have been given expert treatment that wouldn't be afforded to your everyday racehorse who gets injured but don't hide behind the fact that they CANT be saved, be more truthfull and just say its not commercially viable to try and save all the injured racehorses.

Paul Nicholls quote from the RP
People have their opinions, and though some of them are over the top there have obviously got to be changes. I don't know what to suggest, and it's not my job to tell them what to do, but we shouldn't rush, we should have a sensible discussion when the dust has settled.
It is your job as a trainer to make sure that racecourses are as safe as possible, so it is your job to tell the BHA what you want to see changed or at the very least have some input :no:

Donald McCain from the same RP article
He said: "I don't think there needs to be changes. From what I saw of it I don't think either horse got hurt because of falls they had. I honestly think it's just unfortunate.
Again the its just unfortunate quote and According to Pete didn't fall he was brought down by another faller.

Straight after the event a BHA spokesman was on TV quoting that only the best horses now compete in the National due to the changes made, yet the faller at the very first fence in this years National was a 7yo who had had only had 5 previous runs over fences.

Then we have the statements made about making the fences smaller will increase the risk of injuries due to speed

This quote is from the BHA website
Jumpers get injured more frequently than their Flat counterparts,
discouraging owners from participating in Jumping and resulting
in fewer horses, fewer runners and smaller field sizes.
They also state on the website the figures for Average Incedence of Fractures, which states that over hurdles its 1 in 297 and over fences its 1 in 198, so you don't need to be a maths expert to see that the quotes about smaller fences increase the danger, as if that were the case then surely we would see more fracture injuries occur over hurdles.

The tragic deaths of Synchronised and According to Pete, will hopefully force the BHA to be more pro-active on horse & rider safety and be more honest and open.

The debate about the saftey needs to be also based purely on facts and not from off the cuff statements, like the ones above, or as champion trainer Paul Nicholls was quoted in the RP as saying
He added: "It's awfully sad and nobody likes to see it, but horses are at higher risk when they are turned out at grass, as they kick each other and get into all sorts of trouble.
Quotes like these, from people who should know better are not at all helpful and just muddy the waters :no:

The risks involved in horse racing are always going to be there but the emphasis must be on increased safety at all times and all racecourses should be under intense scrutiny at all times, as for the National itself

This is a test of stamina and jumping ability not encountered by most of the runners in the race, so there should be minimum entry level requirements to even be allowed to compete, I'd suggest some of the following, the reasoning being, that this race is tough enough on the competitiors taking part as it is, we don't want poor horses competing for the fun of it.


Minimum & maximum age range 8yo to 13yo
Maximum field size 30 runners
Set handicap level so no horse can run outside the handicap mark ( if their not good enough, they shouldn't be in it )
Must have won at least 1 handicap chase of 3 miles + within the last 3 years
Must have finished 1st, 2nd, 3rd in handicap chase of 3 miles + within the last 2 years
Must have completed a handicap chase of 3 miles + within the last year

For the National to continue and then for the aftermath to be talking about the winners exploits and not have all the press around yet more deaths in the National, we need to ensure that the field sizes are reduced and that only those horses that have proved themselves good enough to compete are lining up at the start, while this approach won't be a guarantee that no more horses will be badly injured, it should hopefully reduce what we have seen over the past two runnings.

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

Postby boodah » Mon Apr 16, 2012 9:24 am

jmstocka,
an excellently argued case and well supported.
with regard to your proposals, how many of the latest field would not have been eligible to compete? and as the best chaser in the country was one that fell how can there be any criteria that will make the race safer?
the lower fences and hurdles comparison i think is quite spurious as clearly hurdles and fences are jumped differently.
they will level out beecher landing, reduce the numbers and maybe consider creating soft ground for the race so that stamina is more important than speed and it slows the horses but no amount of tinkering will eliminate all the risks.
Mill Reef was saved for breeding but from a welfare standpoint would that now be allowed by the RSPCA as no doubt their policies will have changed in the last 30 years?

jmstocka
Stallion
Tips
Posts: 5140
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:00 am

Postby jmstocka » Mon Apr 16, 2012 10:22 am

Boodah

In my opinion I wouldn't have even run Synchronised in the National, although its upto to the connections, as they pay the money but to me his jumping wasn't the best around Park tracks and I wouldn't have risked such a good horse round Aintree.

I do think they should do away with the drop on Bechers Brook.

The criteria for reducing numbers running, might eliminate all the loose horses running round the track, which only goes to create more hazards.

As for the hurdle/chase comparison, again too many people use arguements not substantiated with facts, the BHA should have a record of all the deaths caused in racing, and use that info available, I don't know the exact numbers, there is an online site that records all the deaths of horses on the racecourse since The Chetenham Festival of 2007, which records 816 deaths in 1862 days which hardly gets any press coverage.

I haven't checked the figures in detail but I would say that there will be more over jumps in that list than on the flat and most likely be more over fences than over hurdles but the BHA should be keeping an exact list so that spurious agruements can either be dispelled or proven.

As for Mill Reef, I was using this as an example of the truth not being told to people, in that horses can't be saved, if they are valuable enough, every attempt to save them will be done, unfortunately in most case this isn't the case and too be honest I would rather see an injured horse put to sleep than suffer further misery but don't mislead the public about it.

Too many times the public are shielded from the truth, I doubt many racegoers would be keen to attend another race meeting if they saw these injured horses getting euthanised and taken off the track, without the covers going up around them.

I just hope that these two tragic deaths will make a difference to the future of the sport, which will never be without risk but the numbers of injuries and deaths can hopefully continued to be reduced.

Micko70
Stallion
User avatar
Betting Blog Tips
Posts: 7652
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 12:00 am
Location: Newcastle

Postby Micko70 » Mon Apr 16, 2012 10:31 am

Mike

I commented earlier about that site

There have been more race horse deaths @ Sedgefield than @ Aintree and even 6 horses have died @ Ascot on the flat due to injuries received.

I am all for change but unfortunately race horse deaths are never ever going to stop, all they can do is try to make everything as safe as possible.

How many good horses do we hear about suffering an injury on the gallops, never mind the mediocre class 5 & 6 horses that we never hear about.

About a week before Aintree a Facebook friend of mine posted on facebook asking everybody not to bet on the Grand National due to the amount of deaths at the course the previous year.

I replied to him and told him that more horses had died at Sedgefield than at Aintree since 2007 and he didn't know that.

I said that's because they never ever get mentioned and it's only because Aintree is in the public eye.

I bet a few horses have died running in the Pardubicka Chase in the Czech Republic but as we don't know about it they never get mentioned

jmstocka
Stallion
Tips
Posts: 5140
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:00 am

Postby jmstocka » Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:25 am

Mick

Totally agree with you, most people never hear about the other deaths and injuries

I think thats where the BHA have to be more pro-active and if there are certain racecourses that are producing more fatalities than others, they should be put under intense scrutiny to find out why ( I'm hoping they already do this ).

Micko70
Stallion
User avatar
Betting Blog Tips
Posts: 7652
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 12:00 am
Location: Newcastle

Postby Micko70 » Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:59 am

I actually live not too far away from Sedgefield racecourse and i know a couple of years ago they moved a fence to another part of the racecourse.

Since 2007 there have been a total of 37 deaths @ Sedgefield, of those 37, 19 were due to falls, which leaves 18 other deaths.

The website doesn't say whether they were due to falls, 10 of those were when a horse was pulled up injured.

That leaves 8 other deaths.

Some people seem to think that a horses's death is always to do with a fall, which isn't the case.

Of the 26 deaths that have occured at Aintree, 6 of those deaths were not due to a fall.

So, it doesn't matter what they do to make a race as safe as possible, Race Horses will sadly always lose their lives during the running of a race.

In Contrast to those nasty fences that get in the way, looking at Ascot, we can see that since 2007 there have been a total of 8 deaths whilst running in a NH race & 6 whilst running on the flat, plus 1 for Royal Ascot.

If we look at another track, Carlisle, since 2007 there have been only 3 deaths of a race horse during a race, and 2 of those were whilst running on the flat.

Maybe it's time to ban flat racing @ Carlisle as it's safer for your horse to run over jumps

The rabbit
Triple Crown Winner
User avatar
Betting Blog Tips
Posts: 2171
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 11:00 pm
Location: South Devon

Postby The rabbit » Mon Apr 16, 2012 1:01 pm

Hi Micko - Aintree only has 8 race day meetings a year whilst Sedgefield has about 19 so the average fatality rate per race is much worse at Aintree than at Sedgefield.

Going by your past figures of 26 deaths since 2007 ( 8 fixtures per annum ) then if Aintree had 19 fixtures per annum since 2007 then the number of deaths there would be about 60 :shock:

Micko70
Stallion
User avatar
Betting Blog Tips
Posts: 7652
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 12:00 am
Location: Newcastle

Postby Micko70 » Mon Apr 16, 2012 1:41 pm

Rabbit

Fair enough but look at the size of the fields at Aintree compared to Sedgefield, The national has 40 runners and the other 2 at the meeting over the national fences have over 20 runners each, that's 80 runners in just 3 races.

Sedgefield often attract less than 80 runners for a whole meeting

So for every year of the 6 that these 3 races take place, you can count 6 of Sedgefield's fixtures.

Sedgefield had a meeting on Friday 3rd April, as did Aintree.

Sedgefield had 64 runners for their total card of 7 runners, yet Aintree had 111 runners for their 7 race card & 113 on Saturday (excluding the first race), they also had 95 runners on Thursday

I was just emphasizing how many horses die at certain racecourses, yet everybody jumps on the bandwagon after Aintree

mazzer1
At Stud
Tips
Posts: 4927
Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2011 12:00 am

Postby mazzer1 » Mon Apr 16, 2012 1:48 pm

i have to agree with a earlier coment that horses now running in this race dont compaire to the olden days all horses now seem to be bred for speed silly comment i know so have spindle legs light bones were as the red rums ,rubstic party politics and the likes were like brick sh* t houses and also years ago i remember when they came to the last fence there was bugger all left just some gause on the ground most of the other fences had great big holes in them if a horse hit a fence it took half with it they were softer horse landed on the top and stayed there yes there were tradagys but them days were fun . i like all was exited before the race but after the parade and down at the start it all changed ap dropped and then you could see all the jocks wanting to go off at a miilion miles and the fiasco of a start (like all week) even when they looked at the first a few horse i could smell the fear and my stomach churned ive watched this race all my life and i new this was not going to be nice. i was on ballybriggs and the ones that finished were imo old chasing type so im with go back to the softer fence, sort out who can run this will bring down the number of runners, i feel for connections of the 2 horse as i said saturday sync should not have been in the race memorys of alverton came flooding back ridden by jonjo how ironic is that but the race will go on its big money and memorys will fade and well do it all again in 12 months time

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users