The grand national is cruel to horses

[McHappyPants2012]

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

Derpette, far more likely that he was objecting to having been taken down to the first fence on his own. His previous experiences will have taught him that the routine is - canter down in a group, stop in group, look at first fence in a group, walk round in a group, line up, set off together. As has been acknowledged by both sides upthread, horses are herd animals and he was asked to leave the rest of the "herd" at a point when he wouldn't usually.

If he was as genuinely spooked by the thought of jumping the fence as some people would like to believe he could have refused (as another horse, Vic Venturi, did later in the race. No jockey can force half a ton of horse over a fence if it doesn't want to jump.

A horse's anatomy means it cannot lie down for the length of time recovery would take and to immobilise it upright by eg cross-tying puts strain on the remaining limbs and feet. This often leads to an excruciatingly painful condition called laminitis, whereby the tissues inside the hoof swells and the pedal bone rotates and punctures down through the sole of the foot.

Also, coming round from the anaesthetic to pin or plate the leg is extremely tricky and risky - horses need all four legs to stand themselves up and the effort needed to rise puts additional pressure on the newly-repaired bone, often causing it to shatter in the attempt at standing.

Finally, to immobilise a flight animal is extremely stressful and can lead to stress-related colic (painful and often fatal stomach ache - horses can't vomit so they have no way of relieving this naturally).

If horses are this fragile and, according to other posts, easily sustain life ending injuries if they're just walking about in a paddock then it doesn't seem right that people ride them at all

another
Horses aren't inherently fragile. They aren't the only animal which would be very hard to rehabilitate from a broken leg.

Metal shoes contribute greatly to increased injury as well. It's the human element that increases the risk of injury to equines. They get along just fine in the wild.

I have only skimmed this since the first 200 or so posts so apologies for any repetition. This is another time that MN has changed my views about something. I wasn't really bothered before but after reading some of the opinions I decided to research and make up my own mind. I am not against all horse racing but it seems that the GN is a particularly dangerous course and the fact that is generally accepted that several horses will die in public like this is hideous. I don't care about it being a "rich sport" and think that this is a whole other argument but I can say that having looked at the pictures I will not support the GN again. More of a threat in utterance as I never really have but my sentiment is there.

Theo - most people (I think pretty much everyone) on this thread want to see the GN made safer.

Geriartric tried to explain this several times down the thread

Thoroughbreds are a combination of extremely strong [see James May info in my post of Sat 14 18:14:07]

AND extremely fragile owing to their confirmation (lots of weight on small circumference of bone of one leg - cannot mend said broken leg) at the same time.

It's therefore not black and white. Call it a design flaw if you like. I hope that is clear.

Everyone else:

In summary: I think everyone can agree that it's horrible that two horses died. I think reducing the field would be a sensible step to take. And the possible elimination or reduction of 'drops' on the far sides of fences.

I'm leaving this thread now as I've done my best to post arguments/info fully and politely but this discussion is going around in circles and getting personal.

Just as the above 'horse design' issue is not black and white, nor are the issues surrounding the racing industry. Some people involved in it are shysters (as in every industry) and only interested in profit. But there are many, many others (some of whom I know personally) who are genuine horse lovers who bend over backwards to provide their charges with the best care possible (sometimes at great cost to themselves).

So, as with everything else in this life - the issues are not black and white - they are piebald!!

Great post sanguine - sums it up

Sanguine, I am sorry to hear that, you don't sound unreasonable to me but I know what you mean.

. I think I will hide this thread now.

sanguine, great post.

?The thoroughbreds forced to take part in the Grand National are accidents waiting to happen. What sort of person, upon reflection, can find it amusing or ethical to bet on exhausted animals, knowing that some will crash face-first into the ground and career into one another on the deliberately punishing and hazardous course??

This quote sums it all up for me .

I havent got time to read the whole thread but i got as far as cavemum and I agree with everything you have said.

Skimmed through the thread, lots of interesting points. The GN has been part of my life since I was little, it is a race loved by people of all walks of life is a race which celebrates the horse!

I know there is always something worse happening in any situation and that is not a reason for not doing something the fact that 2 horses are dead is very sad but they are now not in pain and distress unlike the thousands of horses and other animals which are kept and transported in vile conditions around the world (incl Europe) - that to me is something to be really worrying about.

www.ciwf.org.uk/donate/pages/horse_transport_investigation.aspx?appealcode=WA015

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/how-indias-sacred-cows-are-beaten-abused-and-poisoned-to-make-leather-for-high-street-shops-724696.html

Thanks to everyone who explained the problem with horses and long bone fractures. I like to learn.

BobbyJo , another national winner, broke his leg in a race and was shot soon after his win. So that means 3 winners of the race in the last 28 years, including Hallo Dandy and Seagram, more than 10% of the total, were either neglected or met an unnecessarily premature end. There may be more very recent winners who met a sad end.
The racing industry may not be able to trace what happens to every horse, but the national is its biggest and, sadly, most popular race. Surely the BHA could oversee the fate of its 1 star horse each year and make sure that it is looked after properly.
Interestingly, the comments on the Racing Post website are overwhelmingly critical of the decision to run Synchronised in the national, the fact that there were 2 dead horses and of the sheer number of horses in the race. These people are regular gamblers, racegoers and supporters of racing in general, but they are vociferously unhappy with yesterday's national. You'd expect them to make excuses and to justify the deaths, but they don't.

No one is happy with yesterdays national.

Everyone would be much happier if no horses died.

Can someone explain something to me. I don't know much about horse racing but watched some on the news earlier. Why do they make those hedges so high?? Surely the fact most of it is knocked over by horses suggests its way too ugh and likely to make horses fall?
Also why have so many racing? Those poor horses and their riders seriously risk being trampled on! I saw one man laying on floor not moving
I'm guessing the speed of it all is the reason so many break their legs, is that right?

The fences are lower than they used to be, and I think that's contributed to the problems as the pace is faster. The tops of the fences are often made of soft twigs that the horses brush through, and the foliage gets knocked off.

I agree lisad123, there are too many horses in the race. The harder the ground the faster they race, the lower the jumps the faster they race. With 40 horses in a race if one falls it will often take out several others. Yesterdays race was one of the worst i have seen for falls . The jockeys know the risks, many get injured and they know to lay still when they fall to save themself from being trampled.

The harder the ground the faster they race, the lower the jumps the faster they race

Absolutely. And I'd certainly be in favour of reducing the size of the field.

In response to 'The lower the jumps the faster the race'; most of the horses fell on the first hurdles which seems to me that it was the height of them that played the danger factor not how fast they were going.

On the point of whether horses can recover from a broken leg, the answer is "it depends". My horse broke a foreleg eventing as a six year old. He had a typical full stretch, full gallop fracture which was difficult to see at X-ray. His leg was pinned and set, he was confined to his stable for nine months and off work for a year. He hasn't taken a lame step since and is now 14.

Most fractures can't be repaired and in the case of National Hunt horses, with no breeding future, it would be uneconomic and pointless to attempt it, which is why they get the bullet.

The decision to euthanase is taken in the horse's best interests, but isn't taken lightly and is very distressing for all concerned.

The GN is a unique race and public opinion is turning against it, but the danger in "banning" things is where does that end?

It's a general truism. Flat races are run in a faster time than hurdle races of the same length. Hurdle races are run in a faster time than steeplechases of the same distance. Lowering a fence encourages a horse to use a hurdle technique (jump flat and low) rather than a proper jumping technique (rounded, up-and-over). The latter is what is needed in a steeplechase like the National.

Reduce the field to zero that would be the safest and most animal freindly way of making this 'race' (evil animal killing spectacle) more horse freindly. I'd watch it then.