To wonder why people still bet on the grand national

[Springtime336]

-2 horses have already died at ladies day

• approx 200-250 horses die every year in the uk in horse racing

Really sad

The majority of greyhound racing tracks have closed in recent years though.

That’s good . The greyhounds seem to be used as cash machines and then simply disposed of in some cases

I've just watched the footage of Up For Review. A few things struck me

1. some of the horses jogging and bouncing around, ears pricked - in anticipation. I think a lot of horses thrive on adrenaline, and racing to be first in the herd creates that adrenaline. All of them looked like healthy and alert horses.
2. when shown the first fence, it came up to the horses chests. I know it's soft brush that they can go through, but they will attempt to go high enough to clear. I think it's too high.
3. With that many horses it must have been impossible for horse or jockey to see a stride in safely.
4. Up for Review looked like he was trying to get into a position to stand, and couldn't. He looked like a cast horse (got themselves into a dip or against a wall and stuck when lying down or rolling) looks when trying to get up.

It wasn't pleasant viewing. I'm a little confused as to if it's being reviewed though. I've read two articles, one saying the officials will investigate and one saying the BHA will not review.
I think the height of the fences and the amount of horses needs to be reviewed, I'm absolutely no expert but to me that's what seems to have caused the horse to be brought down.
Thankfully a vet was in attendance and the horse was PTS quickly.
Despite this, I still think that there are far worse things that happen in the equestrian world every day, that lead to ongoing suffering. This incident was on national TV, it's bound to lead to a public outcry, if that leads to racing becoming safer, then that's a good thing. But in perspective of a human - horse relationship, I still am thinking of all the other horses that will have died on Saturday, through ignorance, neglect and lack of care and wish there were as much publicity for those too.

This subject is discussed every year and I have nothing new to add but there is one particular point I would like to make:
TheTit's post is correct. That vigorous leg kicking was due to involuntary spasms of the muscles as they were no longer receiving "instructions" from the central nervous system, due in his case most likely to a neck fracture. You often see the same effect when a bullock is stunned (correctly) in the abattoir and I sometimes see a much milder form when anaethetising dogs with propofol as they lose consciousness (though that's a much more gentle swimming action as they are presedated, calm and lying down when you start slowly giving the stuff so their muscles aren't revved up if that makes sense). It looked hideous but the fracture probably rendered him incapable of feeling anything from the neck down, and the trainer said he was dead by the time the vet reached him.

I looked at some of the tabloid stories and there are other inaccuracies so take the "broken leg" and "writhing in agony" with a fistful of salt.

Sir Erec did break a leg- and it looked hideous too- but on the other hand these injuries on the racecourse, though so public and horrible looking, have- due to the proximity of the on course vets- probably the shortest period of suffering before euthanasia (or treatment if less severe) of any accidental injury of any domestic animal.

I'd say a dog busting a cruciate (their most common orthopedic injury) running about in the park on a Saturday afternoon has likely undergone more pain by the time it reaches my syringefuls of painkillers half an hour later- or the next day, if the owner waits before presenting it- than these horses who are either dead or full of painkillers with a stabilised limb before their adrenaline wears off.

@holly873 that’s true that vegans are mocked but we have also made a massive difference. When I went vegan 9 years ago most people didn’t know what a vegan was. you could barely find soya milk in the supermarkets. The dairy free milk section is now massive.

All flora except pro active is now vegan.

Vegan ready meals are now available in M&S, Tesco, Asda, sainsburys. Vegan pizzas now in every major supermarket.

Vegan sausage rolls in Greggs.

Massive amounts of vegan “meats”, constantly expanding range.

Many supermarkets implementing vegan labelling.

New vegan cafes and restaurants popping up all of the time and most of them doing well. Mainstream restaurants adding vegan options and vegan menus.

100s of new people joining online vegan communities every week.

Worldwide Demand for meat-free food increased by 987% in 2017 and going vegan was predicted to be the biggest food trend in 2018.

Vegan trend quadrupled in the 5 years between 2012 and 2017, according to Google search. It now gets almost 3 times more interest than vegetarian and gluten free searches.

Waterstones have 2,058 book titles with the word ‘vegan’ in them available for sale (as of January 2019), compared to 994 in August 2018.

The number of vegans in Great Britain quadrupled between 2014 and 2018. There were 600,000 vegans in Great Britain in 2018, or 1.16% of the population; 276,000 (0.46%) in 2016; and 150,000 (0.25%) in 2014.

Veganuary sign ups grow massively year on year.

Veganism, which has been around since the 40s, has been growing quickly for the past decade and in the last few years at an exponential rate.

They may mock us but we’re not going away- the opposite. Piers Morgan has actually probably done more for veganism than a lot of people by publicising it and being a widely hated person.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. Gandhi probably didn’t say that but it tends to be true of most social justice movements like women’s suffrage and civil rights and I think it will be true of veganism as well.

Horse racing is evidently non vegan so will be included in the vegan movement.

@kikisparks
Veganism is only growing in popularity because people think they'll lose weight. When it's stopped being fashionable, people will flock back to meat eating. Also the ingredients in most meat supplements are so dubious.

What better regulation would people who have mentioned that like to see? Racing has a national regulatory body. That’s how there are rules which punish jockeys (with bans and fines) if they use the whip excessively or fail to pull up a tired horse who is making no progress quickly enough. They automatically review every fatality at a fence and if particular trends are identified then a full review lasting months is launched, as was the case after Aintree 2012, which led to lots of modifications and was the reason that Up For Review was the first horse to die in the National for six years. They are advised by charities (WHW & the RSPCA) on welfare aspects. They inspect all trainers’ premises and all racehorses before granting a licence. Horses are inspected on arrival at every racecourse by a vet, and there is a vet positioned at the start of every race who has the authority to pull out any horse s/he doesn’t think is fit to race.

The number of horses who die in a race is well under 1% of runners. Short of banning racing (which I appreciate is some people’s stance, fair enough) you will never get the number to 0 because accidents happen, speed compounds certain injuries and equine physiology means horses can’t be treated for the vast majority of leg fractures. (The first and last is true of all equestrian pursuits, not just racing...life contains risk.) So what better regulation would people like to see?

My syntax got mixed up there...that sentence should read “or fail to pull up quickly enough a tired horse who is making no progress”.

The body is not independent though
There was a petition last year to set up an independent regulatory body - which hasn’t been done as yet

Sorry, first horse in seven years (my maths is equally rubbish this morning).

Independent of what? Racing? How can it be? It needs to be staffed with people who understand the sport.

It’s certainly not staffed with trainers and owners - otherwise the BHA wouldn’t periodically end up at loggerheads with the NTF or the ROA (the bodies which represent both of those parties) over proposed rule changes.

The purpose of an independent body would be to reduce the number of deaths
You can google about the petition and debate that took place last year
There are too many deaths at the moment

@challengeyourreality well that’s not true but believe it if it makes you feel better

Yes, and I’m asking you HOW your independent body would reduce the number of deaths? What would it do over and above what the BHA have already done and continue to do? Were you even aware that such checks and balances already exist? Can you honestly say you knew that since 2012 the National fences have been lowered, the race shortened, the conditions for entry tightened up so inexperienced jockeys or horses with very poor form can’t run, the ditch filled in at Bechers, briefings on safety and welfare given to jockeys before they leave the weighing room?

250 death starts approx per year is still too many
Don’t know how it can be justified that that is ok
If you want to find out the above points you are asking , you can look up the debate which will explain what an independent body will do
So many deaths is not good

I’m asking YOU Springtime, as you brought it up.

And can you answer my other questions please? Did you know that the BHA has implemented all those changes to help make the race safer? Did you know what it does day in, day out to make racing as a whole safer? Or did you assume that because there are deaths, albeit a tiny percentage of runners, that the regulatory body mustn’t care at all about horse welfare?

Here’s another question for you: if racing is inherently cruel, how come hundreds of vets willingly work in the sport? They can’t all be corrupt and it certainly can’t be the money - they’d get more working a day in private practice than the stipend for covering race days once in a blue moon. Why aren’t they up in arms about it and refusing en masse to provide raceday cover?

All the points are in the debate
Going to work now
Bottom line is that how can it be viewed as safe with 250 deaths per year
It seems clear that the people defending racing will never change their view though

Thank you, I’ll take your refusal to answer my questions as an admission that you did not know those things and were making ill-founded assumptions.

More horses die on the roads than in horse racing.

No , again bottom line is that it’s clear people with my view are never going to change your view
If you think 250 deaths per year is alright then that’s totally at odds with my opinion

I used to but realised how barbaric it was so I don’t know and my husband doesn’t either

@Springtime336

Will you stop saying 250 deaths a year. I've corrected you at least once. In 2018 there were 201 deaths and that was a 6 year high. So for at least 6 years, there have been less than 200 deaths.

But you've ignored me when I've said that because it makes it less dramatic. And that's why people aren't going to listen to you... altering the facts to make them sound worse isn't going to fill your argument with credibility. Its also been years since any other horse died in the grand national. Where are your threads about the everyday racing that actually kills horses?

You've ignored everything everyone with knowledge of the industry has said and just keep repeating the same stuff about them being badly treated and no safety measures which is a untrue, and you've continue to throw around a made up figure. Its impossible to debate with someone who does that.

It’s an approx figure
201 deaths or nearly 200 deaths is not ok either
Our views are obviously never going to meet

Well of course our views are never going to meet. Most of us defending racing are backing up our points with facts, evidence, accurate statistics. An actual vet has posted to back up the point that Up For Review’s death will have been virtually painless. You are basing your point on emotion, incorrect assumptions and conflated inaccurate figures. So why, in the face of actual evidence, are you not considering changing your view? Why does emotion trump fact?

Why does emotion trump fact?

Because it makes animal lovers feel morally superior. It’s not about the welfare of animals at all really. It’s about the self-righteousness of animal lovers and the satisfaction they get from condemning people and telling them what they can and can’t do.