Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

The grand national is cruel to horses

999 replies

McHappyPants2012 · 12/04/2012 15:20

Alot of the horses will be injured and whipped into going faster, it's also a long race course.

I can't believe people would bet on this event

OP posts:
threestepsforward · 14/04/2012 23:20

I think the press is an awful lot worse for dog racing though Excited? Am I right?

I wonder if it is a worse press for dogs, and if it is, if it's really warranted. After all, how many dog races end with 2 or 3 dogs being put down?
I remember the reports of the old guy dispatching racers and chucking them in a skip, but no dogs dying due to races.

Am musing really. Have been upset by the national news today. Knew it was inevitable and was listening to the news cringing because of that Sad

FeedingTheBirds · 14/04/2012 23:21

(i dont own a panda either but still....)

threestepsforward · 14/04/2012 23:23

think you have probably hit the nail on the head birdsgottafly, even a 500-1 horse has a chance

Birdsgottafly · 14/04/2012 23:24

I wonder if it is a worse press for dogs, and if it is, if it's really warranted. After all, how many dog races end with 2 or 3 dogs being put down

Most litters have 2 or 3 (at least) abandoned, though and/or usually killed, because the dog will not fulfil it's role, that is across racing and hunting.

threestepsforward · 14/04/2012 23:29

My mum has a rescue greyhound, found tied to a tree, no food or water, a bag of bones.... They took pics and I couldnt' believe it was the same dog.

I have a rescue staffie.

Apparently Battersea is now chock full of pretty much greyhounds or staffies.

Gawd, what is it with people? Why not take the dog to a shelter instead of tie it to a tree?

Animal welfare stuff gets me so upset Sad

ilovesooty · 14/04/2012 23:32

The idea that the Grand National is pure luck is a fallacy. Generally it's won by reasonably fancied horses with proven lines of form.

Shenanagins · 14/04/2012 23:36

Can one of the horsey people on here tonight explain why a horse that had already bolted and looking quite skittish be allowed to run today?

I'm not saying that that was why the poor thing ended up being put down but just curious as it would appear that it wasn't up for it.

threestepsforward · 14/04/2012 23:36

Like Synchronised? Yes, he did really well...

If you're meaning they all start the race with some sort of form, well, mmm, even the least experienced of us can work that out!

ExcitedElectrons · 14/04/2012 23:38

I have seen many litters being born, them being raised, raced and rehomed.

I can count on my fingers how many dogs have been put down as a result of a race from our kennels.

Yes there it is a worse press, I suppose people think dogs should be cute little lap dogs (which some of them righteously are no doubt). However some dogs need to work and greyhounds have a natural instinct to chase as soon as they are born.

If a pup does not choose to chase, it does not get put down and I know this is true for many other kennels. Most kennels are linked to an RGT charity and they are all rehomed. Many people opt for greyhound pups who don't chase as they get on fine with cats etc (:o).

I am aware many many kennels abuse their dogs and that the dogs don't get the right treatment, however many of you need to be aware that this is rare (although, yes it does happen).

ilovesooty · 14/04/2012 23:39

No, I'm saying that you can generally discount a lot of the field when trying to pick a winner. Some simply don't fit the general criteria that throws up winners. Even some of the longer priced winners often have class form even if it isn't recent.

ExcitedElectrons · 14/04/2012 23:40

My last point didn't make much sense, I contradicted myself :o I was meant to say yes there are kennels that abuse their dogs and it is awful. I would rehome every dog if I could, but people need to be aware that most kennels do treat their dogs nicely, whilst in the kennels and racing.

ilovesooty · 14/04/2012 23:42

And of the last four 100/1 winners only one has won without significant interference happening - the other unexpected winners were a long time ago when the race was much more challenging than it is now.

threestepsforward · 14/04/2012 23:46

significant interference - what's that? The fact that the fences are stupidly difficult, or the interference of a felled horse on the track?

Excited, understood, what you meant that is! Your kennels sound like a good'un Smile

LineRunner · 14/04/2012 23:48

ilovesooty, In some ways that's not really such a great advert for what should be an elite race, with clear lines of sight for the horses and riders.

ilovesooty · 14/04/2012 23:55

When Foinavon won at 100/1 in the 60s the interference was caused by a loose horse running across a fence (one of the smallest fences) causing almost the entire field to fall. Foinavon was the only horse not to be caught up in the mess and even the horse that finished second was remounted. It simply couldn't happen now, as remounted horses aren't allowed, there are places where loose horses can run out, and a horse completely lacking in form like Foinavon wouldn't be allowed to compete at all.

LineRunner · 15/04/2012 00:02

Each year the public hears that stuff couldn't happen now; and yet this year two horses died. It just isn't sounding credible, to be honest.

careergirl · 15/04/2012 00:06

Synchronised did not bolt, he jinked at the starting gantry jockey unseated. He cantered down course was caught examined by vet who checked horse ok and not distressed before being allowed to line up

McFluffster · 15/04/2012 00:08

Two horses will not be returning to their stables tonight. But as long as everyone enjoyed themselves, eh?

Fireandashes · 15/04/2012 00:10

I'll start by saying that I'm extremely saddened at the deaths of Synchronised and According To Pete, and I do think a reduction in field size (ie number of runners) should be considered.

However, I don't agree that the Grand National or racing in general is "cruel". Cruelty would be sending a horse out to run with the intention of it being killed or injured. Everyone involved with today's runners will have wanted, hoped and prayed that their horse came back safe and sound. There is a risk, however, as there is in any activity that involves a sentient animal.

There is a lot of anthropomorphism in this thread. It should be remembered that horses have no concept of the future, of impending death or of "what might have been". Synchronised didn't "know" or "sense" anything beforehand; he simply jinked at a white line and his jockey came off. Horses don't canter down to the first fence and think "shit, I could break my neck here.". They're not running in blind terror or panic - anyone who has seen a horse bolt will recognise the difference.

There are far, far worse fates for a horse - or any animal - than a relatively pampered but short life and a quick, relatively painless death. As a society, most of us are so divorced from and scared of death that we imagine it as the worst of all possible fates.

For those who are feeling guilty about having had a bet - if you placed your bet in a betting shop, then a percentage of the bookmaker's profits go to the Levy Board, who direct hundreds of thousands of pounds every year into equine health & welfare research and into saving rare breeds on the critical list. So your bet will, in a small way, have had a positive impact on the lives of hundreds of horses and ponies.

We are a very urban society nowadays and the concept of working animals is becoming increasingly alien. Racehorses are not pets, they have a job to do and in the main enjoy that job. That doesn't preclude those involved in their care and training from forming bonds of affection and attachment to them. These people are not monsters, however convenient it might be to pigeonhole them as such. (Yes, there are a few bad apples just as there are in any walk of life, and when the authorities have sufficient evidence to deal with them, they are banned from continuing in the sport.)

There are welfare issues in racing - there are still improvements to be made in the areas of over-production and life after racing for those not successful enough or not equipped to go to stud - but what happens on the track is NOT one of those issues.

Finally - years ago I worked with a girl active in one of the more militant animal rights organisations. After the 2001 GN (run in a bog; only four finishers as most pulled up) I naively said "you must be pleased no horses were killed, anyway?". I will never, ever, forget her response. "Oh no," she said, "we like it when a horse dies, it's more ammunition and we'll get it banned quicker." Every true racing fan, every person I know who works in racing is genuinely saddened when a horse dies on the racecourse. She - a supposed animal lover - is the only person I've ever met who actually took satisfaction from it. That, to me, is more sickening than anything that could ever happen in the race.

70isaLimitNotaTarget · 15/04/2012 00:12

I didn't watch any of the race today, but BBC2 is showing the "G.N.Highlights" at 12.15.

I wonder if they'll be a mention of the dead horses.

I googled Dark Ivy. Wished I hadn't Sad

threestepsforward · 15/04/2012 00:19

I'm off shortly, but Fireanddashes... In sport, boxers, for example, are aware of the inherent risk in their sport. Horses are not. To state that they are not aware of their impending death in my view does not make it any better, it makes it far worse.

And to cite the animal rights activist at the end of your post is a little insulting. I assume you are directing the substance of that point at the people against the race on this thread? I'm certain that no one posting here who is against the GN would have been willing a horse to die...

If we take the GN as the seminal race that may lead to a review of all racing, then we now at least have 12 months to hopefully make positive changes...god I hope so...

McFluffster · 15/04/2012 00:22

Yeah needless death is awesome and that encounter with the activist actually happened, I'm sure.

ilovesooty · 15/04/2012 00:24

I think some of the problems happen because they go much faster than they used to, and as someone said, the lowering of the fences has actually contributed to that. There was only one fatality between 1959 and 1973, and the fences were much tougher then, and the fields sometimes larger than they are today.

seeker · 15/04/2012 00:27

Fireandashes- I call you. You're lying.

Fireandashes · 15/04/2012 00:35

Threestepsforeward why does it make it worse? Genuinely interested in your reasoning? Given all the views expressed up thread about "fear" and "panic" it reads to me that some posters are using those concepts to justify the charge of cruelty. But where a horse doesn't feel fear or panic or any prospect of risk or possible disaster... surely that is a good thing? Or do you WANT a horse to feel those negative emotions? For a horse to feel those things in that situation WOULD cause "suffering"...but they don't feel them. I'm sensing anthropomorphism creeping in again.

McFluffster, thanks for the accusation of being a liar. I'll be sure ti treat your experiences and opinions with the same respect if our paths cross in future Believe me, I wish it never had happened.

Swipe left for the next trending thread