End to the National

RideOnTime

So for the 2012 Grand National more controversy than ever.
2 horses dead on the course, one of which was the favourite and had it won would have allegedly put some of the big bookies out of pocket.

I got the winner, although we're just talking £1/£1 e/w because my 4 year old saw his name in the paper 'Jacob' (the jockey) and picked him out. Well done son, could he be a lucky pundit!!!

daviesee

Any particular point other than raising another thread about someone/something who/that has died?

Pross

It won't end the race but they'll reduce the fence heights again until the point it is no different from many other steeplechases.

bearfraser

How many horses die at your average race/steeple chase , if it's more than the average it must be cruelty to horses
and must stop . One of the horses that was "Executed" was definatly spooked before the race and surely should have been withdrawn . Or is it as suspected all down to money that the bookies/owners can make .

nathancom

The animals only exist to run in these races and horses unfortunately die at other courses, plenty at Cheltenham. The racehorse industry has the welfare of horses very high up the agenda as can be seen from the recent whip rules.

Cyclists die too but we don't talk about ending cycling.

Its strange we can sit and complain about a couple of horses dying in the National but are happy to turn a blind eye to humans being exploited so that we can have nice gadgets and cheap clothes.

estampida

Part of the problem is the race

owners know they can score big time if they get a top 5 finish

they either put animals into race that cannot compete (maybe for insurance) or they jockey does not have the ability to ride the chosen horse (again both jockey and owner will have some sort of insurance), but the money drives them not the chance to take the horse out but to win

either it completes the race ( money and kudos....) or it dies (money and kudos...) even if it finishes in a low place it will be sent for breeding as it has completed the race and must have some form

or the jockey held it back so it has better odds in the next race, but the national is probably the only regular race that is not fixed (the rest probably are hence less injury due to not pushing the animals as far)

and the animal right in this country have done enough damage as it is,with or without protest the national is adjusted every year by experts in horse racing, not spraying red paint on a boots or somthing...

amaferanga

bearfraser wrote:

How many horses die at your average race/steeple chase , if it's more than the average it must be cruelty to horses
and must stop . One of the horses that was "Executed" was definatly spooked before the race and surely should have been withdrawn . Or is it as suspected all down to money that the bookies/owners can make .

Really? Why MUST it be cruelty to horses? I'd have thought that race horses are probably the best looked after horses in existence (up until the point that the horse brakes it's leg and is subsequently put down obviously). Have you seen just how poorly looked after some (non-racing) horses are even in this country and even more so around the world in countries where people don't believe animals should be afforded the same rights as humans?

Once again people are getting all worked up about not very much. Of course the grand national is more dangerous than most other races, but its hardly a massacre. If only one horse had died would people be making as much of a fuss? Ludicrous to suggest that the owners don't give a stuff about the welfare of their horses and only care about the money.

ShutUpLegs

Thought I'd logged on to the Daily Mail website for a minute there

manglier

I think that it's the sheer number of participants in the race that causes the problem. The congestion over each fence, especially the early ones is just a recipe for carnage.
Lowering the fences won't help either, that will just make the riders go faster, leading to even more dangerous jumps.
Reduce the runners by half for one year and see if that makes a difference to the number of fallers.

ddraver

Surprised it took this long for someone to start a thread...

This was the first year I watched it for a long while and during the actual race I really enjoyed it. My first uneasy feelings started when they were diverted around the ominous black screens. I noted that the BBC commentators studiously avoided even mentioning those, let alone talking about what that actually meant! Naievely, I did nt think horses died in the National any more...

When I found out (via my cousins on FB, who are very good at the 3 day eventing type horsing) that 2 horses had died (and what the black screens had actually meant), i felt pretty sick.

What gets me is that the Jocky's, owners, bookies, gamblers etc have nothing to loose and everything to gain, whereas the horse has everything to loose and nothing to gain (the horse does nt know it's won). There are plenty of races which are hard for the sake of being hard, R.V.V and Paris-Roubaix was the weekends beforehand for example, bit in no race that I can think of does an innocent party have so much to lose. Look at how may people run themselves into the ground at the Marathon des Sables. Ok, so some bikes might break (which I'm sure is teribly sad for all of us on here but which, let's be honest, is not the same as a horse dying), and the riders might break - but the riders are fully aware of the risks of the race or even the route choice they take and can make their own informed decisions - Lars Boom won't try and cut up the inside of Boonen anytime soon again!

I'm aware from my cousins that horse are more than capable of injuring themselves - Synchronised was riderless when he broke his leg - but that is not an excuse to run them over a course, with so many other runners, that is designed to make horses fall. - In that repect, it is a very cruel race. One suspects that if the screens were not placed around the horses, and "shelly - the receptionist from Swindon" who organised the office sweepstake or put a jolly fiver on the horse with the funny name could see what was going on that it would not be the popular spectacle it is.

If there must be horse racing (personally, I would nt miss it, but then not many people watch cycling either.) It should be made safer for the horses. If the lack of potential death takes away from the spectacle, then so be it. that is not the point of any sport! I, for one, wont be watching next year...

capt_slog

It's a shame that they can't fit a sort of "dead man's handle" arrangement to horses, something that would make them pull-up once they have lost their rider.

No, I have no idea how it could be done either, but considering that most of the problems are caused by loose horses running along the fences instead of over them it would certainly make things easier.

On a side note, it would be a great invention for road use too. I've never understood how anyone (just anyone) can be allowed to take a self-propelled vehicle on the roads that will run for miles on it's own once it's chucked it's rider.

ShutUpLegs

Capt Slog wrote:

It's a shame that they can't fit a sort of "dead man's handle" arrangement to horses, something that would make them pull-up once they have lost their rider.

No, I have no idea how it could be done either, but considering that most of the problems are caused by loose horses running along the fences instead of over them it would certainly make things easier.

On a side note, it would be a great invention for road use too. I've never understood how anyone (just anyone) can be allowed to take a self-propelled vehicle on the roads that will run for miles on it's own once it's chucked it's rider.

Taser?

Pross

It's a bit of a myth that a horse is automatically shot if it breaks a leg. They will often take a view on the quality of life the horse would have with the injury. Some hard nosed owners will take account of the cost of looking after the horse that will no longer be able to race but that is more of an issue in flat racing where horses cost a lot more, there's not much money to be made in jump racing as an owner and the horses themselves are generally not that valuable. I was offered an ex hurdler free of charge by someone I knew when it could no longer race (I couldn't afford the livery costs for another unfortunately). He could have easily had it put down but wouldn't as it was sound for anything other than racing.

RichN95.

ddraver wrote:

This was the first year I watched it for a long while and during the actual race I really enjoyed it. My first uneasy feelings started when they were diverted around the ominous black screens. I noted that the BBC commentators studiously avoided even mentioning those, let alone talking about what that actually meant! Naievely, I did nt think horses died in the National any more...

When I found out (via my cousins on FB, who are very good at the 3 day eventing type horsing) that 2 horses had died (and what the black screens had actually meant), i felt pretty sick.

As it happened, the screens you saw were actually for a jockey (Noel Fehily) who had broken his leg. The screens, while they hide things fro the public, also provide the role of stopping horses, ridden or loose, from running through that area.

ddraver

oh, well there you go...

MaxwellBygraves

ddraver wrote:

Surprised it took this long for someone to start a thread...

This was the first year I watched it for a long while and during the actual race I really enjoyed it. My first uneasy feelings started when they were diverted around the ominous black screens. I noted that the BBC commentators studiously avoided even mentioning those, let alone talking about what that actually meant! Naievely, I did nt think horses died in the National any more...

When I found out (via my cousins on FB, who are very good at the 3 day eventing type horsing) that 2 horses had died (and what the black screens had actually meant), i felt pretty sick.

What gets me is that the Jocky's, owners, bookies, gamblers etc have nothing to loose and everything to gain, whereas the horse has everything to loose and nothing to gain (the horse does nt know it's won). There are plenty of races which are hard for the sake of being hard, R.V.V and Paris-Roubaix was the weekends beforehand for example, bit in no race that I can think of does an innocent party have so much to lose. Look at how may people run themselves into the ground at the Marathon des Sables. Ok, so some bikes might break (which I'm sure is teribly sad for all of us on here but which, let's be honest, is not the same as a horse dying), and the riders might break - but the riders are fully aware of the risks of the race or even the route choice they take and can make their own informed decisions - Lars Boom won't try and cut up the inside of Boonen anytime soon again!

I'm aware from my cousins that horse are more than capable of injuring themselves - Synchronised was riderless when he broke his leg - but that is not an excuse to run them over a course, with so many other runners, that is designed to make horses fall. - In that repect, it is a very cruel race. One suspects that if the screens were not placed around the horses, and "shelly - the receptionist from Swindon" who organised the office sweepstake or put a jolly fiver on the horse with the funny name could see what was going on that it would not be the popular spectacle it is.

If there must be horse racing (personally, I would nt miss it, but then not many people watch cycling either.) It should be made safer for the horses. If the lack of potential death takes away from the spectacle, then so be it. that is not the point of any sport! I, for one, wont be watching next year...

Excellent post, well said.

Frank the tank

MaxwellBygraves wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Surprised it took this long for someone to start a thread...

This was the first year I watched it for a long while and during the actual race I really enjoyed it. My first uneasy feelings started when they were diverted around the ominous black screens. I noted that the BBC commentators studiously avoided even mentioning those, let alone talking about what that actually meant! Naievely, I did nt think horses died in the National any more...

When I found out (via my cousins on FB, who are very good at the 3 day eventing type horsing) that 2 horses had died (and what the black screens had actually meant), i felt pretty sick.

What gets me is that the Jocky's, owners, bookies, gamblers etc have nothing to loose and everything to gain, whereas the horse has everything to loose and nothing to gain (the horse does nt know it's won). There are plenty of races which are hard for the sake of being hard, R.V.V and Paris-Roubaix was the weekends beforehand for example, bit in no race that I can think of does an innocent party have so much to lose. Look at how may people run themselves into the ground at the Marathon des Sables. Ok, so some bikes might break (which I'm sure is teribly sad for all of us on here but which, let's be honest, is not the same as a horse dying), and the riders might break - but the riders are fully aware of the risks of the race or even the route choice they take and can make their own informed decisions - Lars Boom won't try and cut up the inside of Boonen anytime soon again!

I'm aware from my cousins that horse are more than capable of injuring themselves - Synchronised was riderless when he broke his leg - but that is not an excuse to run them over a course, with so many other runners, that is designed to make horses fall. - In that repect, it is a very cruel race. One suspects that if the screens were not placed around the horses, and "shelly - the receptionist from Swindon" who organised the office sweepstake or put a jolly fiver on the horse with the funny name could see what was going on that it would not be the popular spectacle it is.

If there must be horse racing (personally, I would nt miss it, but then not many people watch cycling either.) It should be made safer for the horses. If the lack of potential death takes away from the spectacle, then so be it. that is not the point of any sport! I, for one, wont be watching next year...

Excellent post, well said.

I won't argue with you're POV it's well made and a viable one.

I don't agree with it though . What makes the "national" what it is, is the fact it is so almost uniquily dangerous given the size of the fences, the field and the distance run. It is a test of endurance and horsemanship. The fences have been made safer over the years but whenever you have 1/4 ton of horse jumping invariably there is an element of danger.

How many hoses over the course of a year are "put down" through three day eventing, show jumping, fox hunting, gymkanas etc but the General public never hear because they're not high profile mass appeal events like the national.

At the end of the day, if we start banning sports purely on the grounds of someone or an animal my get hurt/killed we're on shakey ground. Because when they've banned steeplechasing whats next on the list? There has already been calls for the banning of TTing on "A" roads where does it end?

Leave the "national" alone it's been watered down enough, just my opinion of course not saying it's right.

ddraver

Well how many horses are injured...That horses will die doing other types of racing, I agree is something tragically inevitable, but the national is an event, as you say, specifically designed to "break" horses. However the horse has nothing to gain, but everything to lose. That's where I'd draw the line...

Someone TTing on an A-road, extreme skiing or skydiving can make their own decision...the horse cant. The owner of one of the destroyed horses was mourning how tragic a loss it was, the pain of driving an empty horse box home,how he was never entering a horse in the GN again. Well sorry buddy, but you knew all the risks beforehand! I can sympathise with your horse, but I'm struggling to with you!

Cleat Eastwood

you could argue for a banning of football - one had a heart attack and survived, one sadly died.

Someone was saying yesterday that the problem is that the fences have been shortened so the horses attack them at high speed, if they were higher the horses approach with caution and are less likely to bunch up and hit each other.

I'm totally against the ending of it for selfish 'Claire Balding" spotting reasons.

ddraver

Cleat - the footballers were fully aware of the risks and have to suffer the pain of loosing and the joy of winning - The horse cannot make the decision to enter the race, and only gets the pain of loosing it's leg/life

Sorry guys, but there is a clear and obvious difference between the two...

I'm not suggesting how the course is modified - I'm not an expert - Clearly it is nt JUST the fence height or horses would frequently die on 3 day eventing XC courses, but there is a balance that can be struck somewhere

verylonglegs

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

I'm totally against the ending of it for selfish 'Claire Balding" spotting reasons.

It's on Channel4 for the next four years at least so you could be out of luck there.

Wonder which companies will get involved with advertising around it and risk the wrath of the militant animal rights lunatics.