Thanks for taking the time to respond threestepsforeward. I guess the difference between our views is that, as stated earlier, I don't consider a quick painless death in the midst of doing a job that it has been bred and trained for as being the worst thing that can happen to a horse. I try to think of racing - all interactions with animals, in fact - from the horse's perception not the human's.
I think there is a fundamental question of whether any human interaction with or to a horse is justified, given that as soon as humans get involved, any concept of "natural" goes out of the window, and every interaction introduces the risk of horses being put in "danger", as you put it. I'm interested to know where people draw the line. If a single horse death is unacceptable, then the only logical solution is to ban anyone from keeping a horse. That might sound extreme but it is the only way the risk of a horse dying because of a human's actions can be completely removed. If anyone agrees with this, then while I personally don't I can at least respect the logic of their thought process. If anyone doesn't, then what is acceptable in your view? Given that every single horse that dies of anything other than "old age" has done so because of the direct or indirect consequences of being used for human "enjoyment" of one form or another?
I know three people who have lost their leisure horses in the field this year. Two were kicked by other horses in the fields and sustained broken legs; the third was struck by lightning. Ultimately, logically, all those horses died because their owners put them in that position. They put them in those particular fields with those other particular horses or in those particular weather conditions. Would you (anyone) ban people from keeping horses to hack around the block now and again? You might say I'm being ridiculous, it's completely different circumstances, they were accidents, etc etc. Fact is, three horses are still dead at a young age because of human interference. Is that more or less unacceptable than today's deaths?
Racing works continually to mitigate the risks for all involved, horses and jockeys. (I actually think some of the modifications to the GN course have been counter-productive, but that's my opinion.) The intention at the start of every race is for the horses to come back safe and sound. The risk is that some may not. So long as the authorities continue to work to minimise the risks, I will continue to support racing. But these are living creatures with all the frailties and fallibilities that entails. The risk will NEVER be entirely removed. When a horse can die in its paddock from taking a wrong step (which happens), when it can die in its stable from lying down the wrong way (which happens), when it can have an undetected heart condition or tendon weakness that could not be predicted (which happens), even if every other risk were removed and horses were trotting round on tracks of candy floss ridden by six-year-old girls - there would still be deaths.
More horses are killed through kindness - laminitis or the effects of obesity from over-feeding, colic from being fed unsuitable food or from the stress of being kept in a stable because the owner thought they'd be "too cold" outside, or worst of all dying a slow undignified painful death because the owner "loves it too much to lose it" - than ever die on the racetrack. At the risk of being guilty of anthropomorphising myself for a moment: I honestly believe if a horse could choose between the quick painless death at the racecourse with immediate veterinary attention and the adrenaline pumping or one of the scenarios above (and that's not even going through the options where there is actual cruelty or neglect involved) then it would choose the former.