So, you didnt see the loose horses refuse Beaches first time around? No, thought not
That's not much of a counter argument when every year many loose horses complete the course jumping over fences and obstructing other horses.
So, you didnt see the loose horses refuse Beaches first time around? No, thought not
You can of course provide conclusive proof that any horse really enjoys running the Grand national Disgrace?...![]()
Presumably followed by your conclusive proof that they don't ????
So, you didnt see the loose horses refuse Beaches first time around? No, thought not.![]()
![]()
Mr. W.
I've found the stat now - it is just taking into account the Grand National meeting (all three days, not just the one race) at Aintree since (and including) the 2000 meeting and in that time 33 horses died. Over the three days this year, 317 horses ran, assuming that is common of every year, 3804 horses have run at the Grand National meeting since 2000 so that works out at 0.86% of the horses that have run. Higher than originally calculated, but still very low.
But why do you think that is 'very low'?...imagine the outcry at the human casualty rate of the 10,000m hurdles based on those figures..
So it's ok to keep our kids from knowing the truth then?...That's how barbaric practices are allowed to continue!The grand national is raced in the middle of the afternoon and its almost certain that a lot of children were watching. I think that any adult watching wouldn't have needed the commentator to point out that the horses had died and that children watching would be better left in ignorant bliss.
Actually it's Because they would probably be forced into a dehydrated, exhausted and potentially cardiac arrest situation, due to being pushed beyond the limit....When a person races, he/she knows when they hit 'the wall' and then decides to take the risk - a horse is bullied beyond it unknowingly, only because of the money at stake!I think 'emergency oxygen' is a bit sensationalist too, the race organisers said at 8.30am that all horses would be given oxygen and water as a precaution straight after all the races due to the (relatively) high temperatures expected. This was pre-planned and given 'just-in-case' rather than because the horses specifically needed it. For the first time the jockey demounted the horse immediately after the race so the saddle could be removed and the horses doused with water to cool them.
Other horse racing nations and states in other 'civilised countries' have (as a first move hopefully) banned jumps because they have realised the cruelty of it.
If you could point out whether there have ever been any decision taking, motorbike riding/lorry driving equines, then I'd have to agree with you....Nope, i'm sure they wont, but that doesn't stop it being true! A couple of weeks ago a woman was killed near here after coming off a motorbike and ending up under the wheels of a lorry. That lorry driver could be the safest driver in the world but there was nothing he could have done differently to prevent that from happening, and i'm sure he's been seriously affected mentally by the accident. There are a great many things in life that we as humans do that are dangerous, we do lots of things to make these things as safe as possible, but no matter what precautions you take, accidents will still happen in all aspects of life from time to time.![]()
We are not talking about showing the gory details here, just relating the truth that the horses had died! And where do you think that most kids get a lot of their ideas from? Better to tell them the truth than believing a lie!Yes, I think it is right to keep children from knowing the truth. Whether their parents should let them watch the race, knowing what may happen is another issue, but having been allowed to watch it by their parents, I don't think anyone would benefit from the children learning the truth that way.
Do you understand the difference between saying something is 'probable', rather than saying it's a 'precaution'? - The latter is the same as saying something is possible which is completely different!So you're agreeing with me then? - they didn't neccesarily NEED the oxygen, it was given as a precaution...
They are conditioned to continue because of training methods which often bully them to jump, and in all likelihood they are reacting in a way to avoid a 'punishment' for not doing so....If there is no bullying in a race, why do riders have whips? And why are there many many cases of fines/bans for excessive use of said whips?In almost every race where a horse unseats its rider, the loose horse continues to run and jump the fences, who exactly is 'bullying' these horses to carry on?
One notable example for you is most of Australia, but there are many more (including the nation with about a fifth of the worlds population!)...Which nations and states have banned jump racing then? I don't follow overseas horse racing so i've no idea?
That is all well and good if you apply that theory to an animal that understands the nature of the risk, or that there may be a risk at all. So do you really believe a horse actually understands that by jumping a fence it can end up breaking it's neck?But only top quality horses are allowed to race and everything possible is done to make it safe, but no matter how carefully things are done, and how safe things are made, you can't completely remove risk in anything in life.
and in all likelihood
Why should that be funny or surprising?Funny how there's more sympathy for the jockey in hospital (the only animal that understands risk) than the horses killed...![]()
Yep - that's the words of someone who weighs things up 'in the balance', rather than spout absolutes which I believe the proponents of the Grand National Disgrace have done here...and in all likelihood
Yep....this is the conclusive proof that ellal demanded earlier in the thread....
![]()
Why should that be funny or surprising?Funny how there's more sympathy for the jockey in hospital (the only animal that understands risk) than the horses killed...![]()