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

What size is the Gold Cup field? I'm sure it is substantially less than the GN.

It does look as though According To Pete's owner has learned his lesson as he's said he'd never put a horse through the Grand National again. I agree that he never should have risked it in the first place if the horse really did mean anything to him and his family.

There are generally between 10 and 15 runners in the Cheltenham Gold Cup. The Velka Pardubicka in the Czech Republic is a far stiffer test of horse and rider than any race we have in the UK, with obstacles including banks and ditches, stone walls, a ploughed field, and the infamous Taxis jump - a fence similar to Becher's Brook, but bigger and wider in every dimension. About 20 runners set off in this race, and it was expected that only a third of the field would succeed in progressing past the Taxis, at fence 4. A massive shake up of the race in 1993 means that about three quarters of the field are expected to complete the race, a considerable improvement athough it is still considered the most fearsome of races.

But back to the National. While one of the great attractions of the spectacle is undoubtedly the huge number of horses who set off at the start of the race, I am sure we would not miss many of the 100-1 shots who go down to the start line. 100-1 shots just do not win, the notable exception being the year Foinavon cantered gently past the winning post while the rest of the field piled up at the fence later named after him. A very good race was ridden by the jockeys in the top 3 places this year, especially by the jockey of the winner who finished the race with considerably more spark about him than the 2nd and 3rd placed horses - a credit to him to have steered the horse through the melee and still had such running in him. The winners ran a good race, and would have continued to run a good race, I am sure, even if they started from a field of, say 25.

I agree that the fields could be smaller. I was unsure as to whether they would allow AP McCoy to continue after he was unseated though. Technically there is nothing wrong with falling off in the run-up to a race. The fences do not need to be smaller or easier - there are several 'one-off' competitions in various equestrian disciplines where the fences are unusually bigger and course is significantly longer, situations that are a challenge to horse and rider in a way they are not used to being challenged. These events - the Hickstead Derby, Eventer's Challenge and the 4* three day events at Badminton and Burghley spring to mind - draw competitors and audiences precisely because they are an abnormal challenge. The ground is as good as you can expect it to be. Other than smaller fields, I am not sure what more could be done.

One thing that has not leapt out at me from the thread, so apologies if I have missed it, is the absolute farce at the start. This is not the first time it has happened, although last time the race was declared void. It made Aintree the laughing stock of the racing world. And yet nothing seems to have improved there. I don't believe there is any need for a starting tape in a race with so many runners. It causes accidents (Synchronised ducked as he went under it on his run-up, and that caused AP to fall.) The starter should have got the runners much further back from the line as the tried to reattach it. The state of mind that arises from such faffing around is not the best one to start the race in, and this should definitely be reviewed and action taken.

Ok. It has been stated on this thread, that
A/ 5000 or so race horses are born every year.
B/. They start training as young as two.
C/ they can still be racing at 10.
D/ there are 17000 horses in training At any one time.
So this gives us an 8 year working window. And 8 multiplied by 5000 = 40000. So where are the other 23000 horses?

Saggy,

Some won't make the grade as racehorses and will go on to do other things such as hunting, team chasing, eventing, pleasure horses.

Others will go to race in countries where there are no breeding industries such as the UAE, Hong Kong, Macau, Korea etc.

Of course some horses will be put down but in most instances owners will try to find them future homes - for both economic as well as humane reasons.

A/ The numbers of registered Thoroughbred foals have decreased in recent years - affected by the recession, like everything else. It's inaccurate to talk about 'racehorses' being born every year - the figures recorded are for registered Thoroughbred foals. Although the majority are, not every Thoroughbred foal born and registered is destined to be a racehorse - a lot of three-day-eventers choose to ride Thoroughbreds too.
B/ Flat horses start training at two, National Hunt horses don't usually start until 4-6yo on average.
c/ Jump horses will race on to 10-12yo, very occasionally (a handful) a year or two older. The oldest horse in Saturday's field was Hello Bud, aged 14, but this is unusual. The top Flat horses will retire at 4-5yo on average, some will go on longer but unusual to get many Flat horses older than 10yo.
D/ This figure does not include point-to-point horses, just horses with a licensed trainer (point-to-pointers are trained by permit holders).

The majority of the remainder is made up of breeding stock (mares and stallions, of which there are thousands); point-to-point horses; horses sold abroad to run in other countries; Thoroughbreds who have gone on to other careers (e.g. eventing as mentioned above) and, inevitably, some horses who don't make it to the racetrack. Not every foal survives into adulthood; not every horse who goes into training has the ability, soundness or temperament to make a racehorse, just as not every horse bought for showjumping will necessarily make a showjumper or every pony bought for a riding school will prove to be safe enough for beginners and children to ride. Of these horses some will be put down due to injury (as horses are in every walk of life), some will be sold for slaughter because their temperament makes them unsuitable for retraining and the majority will be retrained and become riding horses, show horses, eventers, etc etc.

Have any jockeys ever died during the GN? I wonder what the response would be if a jockey were, for example, trampled to death after falling off? I don't intend to sound ludicrous or to ignite anything. I just wonder what would happen. Would the race be stopped? Would further safety measure be put in place? Or would it be seen as 'one of those unfortunate things' as when a horse dies or has to be 'destroyed'?

Watching those old geezers trying to attach a bit of webbing around a metal hook for five minutes was, I agree, farcical.

It's struck me how a couple of owners have explained in detail how their horses were successfully treated for leg breaks, and yet, all the pro GN people can offer in respect of that is the fact that it's not usually financially worthwhile to do it.

Because the horse cannot be raced, or sometimes even ridden, again - so its life is therefore useless and disposable?

I really feel that this puts a lot of the issues into context, in short, we were right. It is all about money. and the horses are not loved, they are a vehicle for the love of racing and making money.

Which owners have explained how they were treated for leg breaks? As explained in the Barbaro link above this is highly unusual and would often cause more pain/discomfort to the horse.

Even colts which are worth millions as potential stallions would be put down if they break their legs in a race (I've see this happen) so money doesn't come into it.

One thing that I don't think has been discussed is the difference between leg breaks - which usually mean euthansia - and injuries to the tendons in the leg which are much more common and are usually referred to as breaking down.

Tendon injuries are often reparable given time and box rest - often 6 to 12 months. Many owners (including myself) have given horses box rest to recover from tendon injuries even though I knew they would not be able to compete again.

Also many people have mentioned horses going for meat. If you put a horse down by lethal injection they cannot go into the meat chain and will be cremated. When I had my old horse put down last year (aged 26) it was by lethal injection. The cost of the vet and cremation people coming out was 375 pounds. Many people get the local hunt to put horses down (a free service) as they shoot them and then their bodies can be fed to the hounds.

No thoroughbred-only horse sales sell for less than 500 pounds - way more than then the carcass value for meat.

Fortyplus and Carabos.

but flightty owners have to make these decisions all the time, about all animals, weigh up the cost and likelihood of recovery against the possibility that it is more humane and practical to euthanise

I wouldn't, for example, put my horse (who is no spring chicken) through colic surgery even if the vet felt the chances were reasonably good but I would definitely consider it for the younger pony. That's a different issue obviously but it's just an illustration of how things like temperament and age also inform the decision making process. And if my horse broke his back leg whilst playing out in the field I would want him put down immediately, not left to suffer until I could get there. This actually happened to a TB at our yard last week, and it's not a lengthy process making that decision.

Both Fortyplus and Carabos accurately describe how difficult it is to save horses with leg injuries.

Pastern injuries would be easier to treat that cannon bones.

It's struck me how a couple of owners have explained in detail how their horses were successfully treated for leg breaks, and yet, all the pro GN people can offer in respect of that is the fact that it's not usually financially worthwhile to do it.

Flightty I'm sorry but that's utter bollocks. Go back and read my post on the subject again. I give detailed veterinary reasons which do not mention ANY financial considerations because finances are NOT the main concern. They may be A concern but the welfare of and prognosis for the horse is paramount.

Something else to bear in mind is that most pleasure riders find their injured horse in the paddock or in its stable - standing still. If a racehorse falls and gallops on even for a few strides (as most do) the extra pressure of those strides can make the difference between a fixable injury and an irreperable one. It's basic horse physiology.

No, I've read all the posts that say a horse will most likely fail at rehab if it breaks a leg, and all the reasons why this is so. Yet we have two examples just on this thread of horses that went on to recover from such injury and several other posts saying that it's basically not worth paying out for insurance for a horse because it'll not run again in races or be worth the cost.

What am I missing? They're either worth salvaging or they're not. If they're not, that makes them disposable as far as I can see. You shouldn't have a pet that you can't reasonably afford to either insure or treat.

So boll*cks right back at you.

I am sorry. Scratch my final comment. It was meant to have a after it but I have just got off a motorbike after a 30- mile ride and can barely move my fingers.

Epic fail. You have been very polite. I am not so good at this.

Flightty - if you like motorbikes, you'd love a thoroughbred!

Being very explicit now.

Here is Barbaro's story. Do not read further if easily distressed or are squeamish. Also only click on the links if you are prepared to see a horse with a broken leg and the aftermath. Barbaro was a very successful American racehorse, he won the Kentucky Derby, a huge race. A fortnight later he broke his hind leg on the track. Picture here. He was somehow bundled into the horse ambulance, God knows how since you can't persuade a horse to hop along on 3 legs even when one of his feet is clearly hanging off. As he was a valuable animal and a colt whose semen would be in demand (and because a lot of people loved him ) they decided to put him in a sling and operate on his broken leg. He endured 6 rounds of surgery - the risks each time a horse undergoes a general anaesthetic are immense. He initially seemed to cope well with the first operation, but within a week had developed abcesses and a fever. He next developed laminitis, a condition where the bones in the foot rotate - in his case as a result of keeping his weight off the broken leg. To treat the laminitis, 80% of his hoof in the non-injured leg was removed, a drastic procedure. He now had 2 legs in casts. By 6 months after his leg break, his broken leg was essentially mended but the other leg which had borne the weight was still problematic. Further surgery was prescribed, and shortly after this he developed laminitis in both front legs too. At this point he had not even one leg left to stand on. Barbaro lived the final 6 months of his life in a veterinary hospital, in extreme pain, undergoing experimental procedures. He was considered worth saving because of the value of his sperm, but the more sentimental horse lovers applauded the vets' attempts to save him, as it showed it was possible to save a horse with a broken leg. More pragmatic horse lovers agreed the kinder thing for the horse was to put him out of his misery than to prolong it. here is a picture of him in his sling.

Conversely, Mill Reef and Dubai Millenium are examples of racehorses who have broken legs and been successfully treated. Both were valuable colts who went to stud and made a lot of money. The fact remains that these horses were put through long, painful and arduous recoveries because it was worth keeping them. Outside of racing it would have been likely that the horse would have been put to sleep, even if it was a much loved pet.

Any horse, racehorse or dobbin, is a flight creature. To keep them lame and in pain is not fair on them, whatever their worth. Most horse lovers, whether they be racing fans or not, understand this principle, hence most horses are put to sleep quickly once a diagnosis of broken leg is made. To keep a horse happy and sensible when it cannot be worked is very difficult, and is often asking for trouble. My friend's horse is currently 3 months into a year long rehabilitation for a leg injury, and she is having to sedate the horse just to be able to take it out into a small field, as the horse is very tense after months in a stable and could exacerbate the injury if it ran around in delight at being free again.

Healing a broken leg is not easy in a horse, full stop.

Flightty it often isn't worth insuring horses for loss of use / death. It's very expensive and they don't pay out. It is worth insuring them for vets bilss and I think you will find most owners do. Mine are insured, but not for death or loss of use as this pushes the premiums up to a level it where it just isn't viable.

Now, what this means is, if my horse breaks its leg and I decide to try and have him treated, I am covered for the vets bills. If I decide not to have him treated and have him destroyed, he's not covered and I get nothing. I am left with no horse and no money.

In most cases I would opt to have my horse destroyed despite the fact that this has the worse possible financial outcome for me and would devastate me. I would not put my horses through the sort of experience backinthebox describes. If it was an incomplete fracture that had a really good chance of healing, then yes I would give it a go, but these are rare and in most cases the prognosis would be bleak and I would opt for having him destroyed. I don't care about the money (and bearing in mind one of mine would fetch upwards of £25k if I sold him today its not an insignificant amount).

In the majority of cases it really isn't the money that's the issue when a horse breaks a leg.

Thankyou both for explaining. Catgirl I understand that and I can get the point much better now.

It does seem to beg the question though. If it really is so hard to treat this sort of injury in a horse then why, WHY are they allowed to race in conditions that make these injuries so likely?

The drops on the fences in the National are huge. I think I'd break my leg trying to get over one of those at speed.

Using a tough animal to race a course like that might be slightly more acceptable but to do it to a fragile one who you KNOW cannot survive a break is just unspeakably stupid.

Also - why did Barbaro keep running after his leg was so badly broken? Does this not appear to discredit those saying horses are just carrying on for the fun of it?

Sorry to appear to create a lose-lose response to what you are saying. But it does strike me that if people are fully aware of these facts, they ought to be a damned lot more careful about what they make their horses do and to me it makes the National look even more greedy and insane.

Carabos, I prefer something low down that I can actually steer though it did spring to mind what it might be like on a hoss, when I was going along in a headwind with my face frozen and my boobs on the tank. and my eyes shut

Flightty I totally agree the GN should be made safer (IMO by having less runners).

For my own part I allow my horses to take part in activities with a risk involved because I know that there is so much risk in just riding them, or turning them out in the field. They are always at risk and they seem to hurt themselves more often doing something seemingly safe, that they might as well do what they enjoy and were bred for. I don't know if that makes any sense. FWIW, I would not run a horse I owned in the National in its current form, but I would in any other NH race and the eventing they do is far from risk free. That's down purely to the number of riders and the fact it is way too much of a melee IMO.

I don't want it banned and I don't think its cruel, but I do think it needs changing.

Agree with everything backinthebox and catgirl say. We made the decision to treat my horse's broken leg because a) our vet is an internationally recognised horse specialist b) we were insured c) his temperament is excellent so he could stand being "in prison" for 9 months d) we are a professional horse home so were able to manage his rehab, which would have been difficult for amateur owners. Finally, and most importantly, our veterinary team was confident that the repair would be successful. Why were they confident? Because he had had a fracture that is typically seen in racehorses and as a result of the knowledge that has been acquired from treating those injuries, we were able to benefit.

The same week that our horse had his operation, a GN horse had his pin removed and went on to run in that year's race without a problem.

It does make a sort of sense to me, yes Catgirl. I can see that you care for your horses as best anyone can care for a creature that is prone to injury.

I hope that something is done though. I really, really do.

I think that the overriding feeling on this thread and probably elsewhere is that horses MUST be prevented from sustaining these injuries but at varying degrees of cost...many of us would say at all costs, others would say only at small cost to the current status of the race. And that won't do much good, probably.

Flightty, in response to your question "If it really is so hard to treat this sort of injury in a horse then why, WHY are they allowed to race in conditions that make these injuries so likely?" Other posters have already said that horses are inherently fragile creatures - even tougher ones. They are perfectly capable of doing themselves fatal injury out in their fields. My old horse managed to slice half an inch off the back of his hoof off whilst playing. Many broken legs occur in the field while the horse is supposedly doing nothing.

I allow my horses to take part in risk activities because I know them well, and know what they enjoy. I sold my old horse because all he wanted to do was hunt. I was more interested in showing him, but he really didn't like it. And he especially hated showjumping. I sold him to a hunting home where he would be out hunting every week with all the risks that entails. I sold him to that home because I knew he would like it and because I loved him. My current horse is a fearless numpty who is happy to throw himself over hedges he can't even see over. He likes it, although he can't land those jumps for toffee, and would be at risk of injury if I let him do as he wanted to. I prefer to jump smaller things, it is safer for both of us.

Catgirl explains the paradox of insurance very well. In January this year I was also offered the opportunity to continue paid treatment of a pony or to put it to sleep and be left with nothing. I chose to put her to sleep, as it was kinder for her, she was in pain. Money isn't always the issue when it comes to treating or destroying a horse.