National 'winner' gets second 5 day ban for whip abuse

[IngridBergman]

Jason Maguire has been given a 5 day ban for misusing the whip on Saturday.

He's done it before about 6 weeks ago, on Cool Mission. He got a ban then too.

I can't help but feel they should look at taking away his 'win' on the basis of this.

How is it fair when the second place horse could have won had he been hit that little bit harder...not to mention the fact it's tantamount to cheating.

And it clearly won't have any impact at all on how he treats his horses in the future. After all, it's all glossed over because he won the National. 5 day ban? So what.

[Saggyoldclothcatpuss]

OOH, can I jump in? Im a horse person through and through, I used to be a hunt servant, worked with heavy horses, worked on a welsh A stud, have my own ponies, have been living and breathing horses since I was small.
I dont like racing. I feel like I should, but I just cant bring myself to. Its not about the welfare of the race horses, racers seem like any other horses. They give their all to please people. Racers are well fed, well looked after, and as in any equine sport, people and horses die. What gets me, is visiting an abbatoir, and seeing lorries full of young healthy horses, who didnt make the grade, sent for destruction. Its wrong. I know it goes on all over the horse world, Ive heard of A studs in Wales that do similar, but its the weight of numbers. There is no sport in it. They are wonderful animals. They deserve better.

[IngridBergman]

Thankyou Cavemum. I can find little to respect in relation to the GN and the dangerous side of horse riding/racing but I can see that the advances in medicine and so on are a good thing to come out of the investment in equine sport.

I just want the National to be made safe, for starters and after that well it's anyone's guess what can and should be done about the other less desirable aspects of the industry.

Hopefully the negative publicity this year's race has brought will do some good for future runners...It is so sad that some lovely creatures were sacrificed to that effect.

[CaveMum]

We're never going to see eye to eye incubus subject Ingrid, but I respect your opinion. For what it is worth I am not defending the Grand National per se, but the whole racing industry of which the GN is a very small part.

The Thoroughbred is a man-made breed, created over 300 years ago so there really is no going back on that front.

I agree that not every racehorse would be destroyed if racing were banned, but the vast majority would. There are tens of thousands of TBs in the UK and Ireland alone, never mind the rest of the world. It just would not be possible to rehome/retrain all of them.

Racing is far from perfect, but it is the most heavily regulated horse sport in the world and, as has been said upthread, has been responsible for many advancements in treating equine diseases/injuries due to the investment made.

[IngridBergman]

I also don't buy the argument that loads of horses would have to be killed if this type of racing were banned...there are all sorts of other racing events, jumping, eventing and so on, I don't see the harm in those things as long as they are not predictably going to kill horses as often and as horribly as the national does.

And you can't really say 'well it would be so cruel, to have to kill all these horses!' when you've created the horses yourself in the first place knowing that they're unfeasible without the money that comes in from events like the national. It's like saying 'Oh I made all these sandwiches which no one wants, though I didn't ask them if they wanted them before I made them, now they're going to be wasted'. It's silly.

[coccyx]

The Grand Slaughter, just about sums it up

[IngridBergman]

Thanks for your equanimity, Mitchy. It's good of you to say you have a problem with some aspects of selective breeding, though like you I don't know enough about it to make a good case either way.

Low, I was arguing about it as Cavemum brought it to the table as a 'good thing', that thoroughbreds are really beautiful, though totally man-made, and what would the world be like without them. I took it up as something that didn't really fill me with enthusiasm nor does it justify horse racing when the races we are discussing on this thread are lethal to horses.

The argument got diverted, but I still think the Grand National is totally wrong. I don't care so much about the less risky equine sports, some people have asked if I would like all of them banned and the answer is I'm not that bothered if the risk is low.

But where the risk is clearly huge ie the Grand National, yes I think it wants banning or alternatively modifying massively to make it safer for the horses.

I hope that's clear enough.

[LowRegNumber]

Yes I do see Ingrid.

The thing is you are arguing against things that are done and gone. It would be nice if selective breeding was done for the good of the animal and not any other reason however this is the situation we are now in. The only "solution" would be to destroy all selectivly breed animals that have health issues as a result of breeding but that is not going to happen!

The fact is that the effects of selective breeding on horses have not had the effects and downsides that it has in dogs or cats because they still need to be able to function, even the ones breed for "toys" rather than riding are still just small horses with no/few additional health implications over other horses.

TBs in general are not bad horses, they can have thin/weak feet but rarely to the point of a problem, just requiring additional caution when shoeing and it is a problem that can affect many other breeds. I really don't see how your points about selective breeding apply here, unless I have missed something?

[MitchiestInge]

I don't know but I think generally, and definitely with TBs, breeding is much more carefully regulated and controlled than for companion type animals like dogs and cats. There isn't, to my knowledge, an equid equivalent of the ridgeback for example - health problems deliberately bred in for aesthetic purposes with the healthy youngsters being destroyed.

I do have problems with some of this though, sometimes I think some show ponies don't look fit for a more original purpose but I don't know enough to get very worked up about it.

[IngridBergman]

I can see how you misunderstood, Low. Sorry.

[IngridBergman]

Low, I was actually talking about cats when I made that statement - or pugs, indeed.

Not thoroughbreds. If you reread my post you might see that.

Mitchy, it would be nice if people had focussed on the things that would be beneficial to horses when they decided to breed them to order.

[MitchiestInge]

No, no horse can. I don't understand why you are singling out TBs, look at pedigree dogs for example - far more serious issues there.

[LowRegNumber]

"vulnerability to disease, weakness of constitution and difficulty in eating etc"

they are TBs not pugs! If they were weak in constitution they would be no good for racing at all would they! Where on earth do you evidence the above statement from?

I am very wobbly on racing, it is terrible in some ways but if it wasn't for racing then a lot of the treatments we use for our every day riding horses would never have been developed, lots of the research into feeding, natural behaviours etc would never have been done. In the same way that formula one influences and advances road cars perhaps.

I have read this thread with interest but I am afraid you are moving from someone who is passionate about a subject into someone who is just spitting out stuff to try and justify your anger. You don't need to, your points are interesting and valid without saying such silly things as the statement above.

[IngridBergman]

Can thoroughbreds vomit then? Brilliant!

[MitchiestInge]

"It's like trying to manufacture an animal just for the pleasure of humans."

Well yeah. That's how we have more than seven breeds of dog, for example. Pretty much every animal we live, work with or eat has been selectively bred over a long period of time hasn't it? Don't see what your point is. Horses are a rubbish design in lots of ways, but even if you stripped them back to a few native ponies (and I suppose that would just be the Exmoor here in UK) they will still have serious flaws making them vulnerable to various dangers. Like not being able to vomit if they ingest something poisonous.

[IngridBergman]

I already read that statement Cavemum, and you said that the horses didn't need to be given water but it was the protocol on the day. That's not true; the winner did need to be given water, the jockey said he felt him wobble during the finishing stages (or so Careergirl said on a different thread) and he was severely dehydrated.

I don't really feel the need for thoroughbred horses in the world, no. It makes no difference to me.Maybe they please some people like those strange pure bred cats please others, despite their vulnerability to disease, weakness of constitution and difficulty in eating etc. It's not my thing. Hopefully pure bred horses tend to be healthier than the weirdy cats though.

Moodykat, I didn't read it as an attack, don't worry - I'm talking about the description of Thoroughbred horses which Cavemum used:

'a Thoroughbred (a man made breed bred for the pure and simple purpose of racing)'

If that's a fair description then it's clearly not natural for a horse to race in that manner. People should have left them alone. It's like trying to manufacture an animal just for the pleasure of humans.

It revolts me, it really does. I don't mind if horses are exposed to relatively low risk activities - yes there will be a small risk with any riding, of course there will but to deliberately race them in dangerous conditions where horses die regularly DUE to these conditions is just stupid, isn't it?

[Moodykat]

Ingrid, please don't take this as a personal attack as it is far from it, but I just wondered what the natural things that horses would do are?
As far as my knowledge goes (and i'm not claiming to know everything) but horses tend to enjoy doing things such as racing and eventing but these activities are dangerous - there's no doubt about that. And no, maybe we shouldn't make the decision for the horses whether to do it or not - but then the whole equestrian world would be completely different. Should they not even be ridden?

[CaveMum]

When I said "need" I was referring to the fact that it was not a spur of the moment decision, it was something that had been planned in advance of the race. If you read the BHA statement that was put out yesterday you will see that it says they had a team of people ready and waiting to apply water and all the jockeys had been briefed BEFORE the race that they were to dismount asap and allow the horses to be given water.

From the statement:

"The Grand National is a difficult race and was run this year on an unseasonably warm day. Because of that, all the jockeys had been instructed prior to the race to dismount from their horses as soon as the race was over in order to allow the team of handlers and vets to get water to the horses so as to prevent over-heating (which is a main cause of collapse), as it is when people run and race over long distances. This preventative action happened to all the horses, not just the winner, and shows welfare improvements in action. No horse collapsed."

BHA Statement in full here

I'm not attempting to convert you to a racing fan, but I hope that you can appreciate the difference between Flat and Jump racing and the fact that none of these horses would have even been born if it weren't for racing. A world with no Red Rum, Desert Orchid, Seabiscuit, Eclipse, Phar Lap, Northern Dancer? No thanks

[IngridBergman]

Here you go

[IngridBergman]

'The horses did not "need" to be drenched in water, the Stewards took the decision on the day that as it was unseasonably warm they would take evasive action to avoid any collapses due to dehydration and EVERY horse that crossed the finish line was soaked with buckets of water. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, the BBC did not show this or talk about it.'


No, that's actually totally incorrect. From Betfair:

'It was in fact Davy Russell, the jockey who fell at the second fence on BecauseIcouldntsee, who rushed to unsaddle the tired winner, while the horse's groom and stable lads poured water over the ten-year-old. He was also given oxygen.

"Ballabriggs is totally dehydrated," said his groom, who was close to tears at the stable's success. "We've had to give him so much water, he was completely spent.'

So what are you talking about?



'If you do nothing else this weekend, tune in to Channel 4 Racing on Saturday afternoon and watch the Greenham Stakes from Newbury at 3.10pm. There you will witness probably the most anticipated return to a racecourse in many a year when the Champion Two Year Old of last year FRANKEL makes his seasonal debut.'


Are you having a laugh? I'm not interested in becoming a convert to horse racing. I don't like the fact that these horses were bred specially to do things that humans wanted them to do, rather than the natural things a horse would do.
It sounds worse than I thought.

[CaveMum]

We race horses to find out which is the best: which is the fastest, which is the best sprinter, which is the best miler, which is the best middle distance horse, which is the best stayer, etc etc.

Everything we do with horses is to find out which is the best: dressage to test the discipline, cross country to test bravery and stamina, showjumping to test skill, etc.

The horses did not "need" to be drenched in water, the Stewards took the decision on the day that as it was unseasonably warm they would take evasive action to avoid any collapses due to dehydration and EVERY horse that crossed the finish line was soaked with buckets of water. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, the BBC did not show this or talk about it.

Horses do die taking part in cross country events - I am not aware that anyone compiles statistics so cannot quote figures. But you also need to take into account the sheer number of races that take place in this country every year - thousands and thousands. In fact there are only 2 or 3 days a year when a race meeting does not take place, the same cannot be said for other equine disciplines.

The reason people, myself included, enjoy racing is because to see a Thoroughbred (a man made breed bred for the pure and simple purpose of racing) in full flight is a magnificent sight. To see a horse and rider in perfect harmony is to see poetry in motion. You only need to watch the races of horses like Sea The Stars, Dubai Millennium, Secretariat, Istabraq and Kauto Star to see utter equine perfection.

If you do nothing else this weekend, tune in to Channel 4 Racing on Saturday afternoon and watch the Greenham Stakes from Newbury at 3.10pm. There you will witness probably the most anticipated return to a racecourse in many a year when the Champion Two Year Old of last year FRANKEL makes his seasonal debut.

[MitchiestInge]

"How many horses die in cross country, Mitchy? How many are severely injured?"

Would be interesting to find out, there have been a couple of deaths (horse and or rider) already this year - also there was that team chasing death, people get severely injured every day just doing their everyday things with horses. Simple things make a difference though don't they, like that awful impaling incident at Burghley (or Badminton?) and now the flags are on bendy plastic things instead.

Someone might know how to find out but if I had to guess I'd go for more horse/rider deaths in eventing as a whole, than in the national, easily.

[IngridBergman]

The whole point of the race is that it is a stamina test?

Really? So how far do you take that? Whose stamina - the horse or the rider? If it's the horse then I say it is cruel.

Especially if to fake that 'stamina' you deliberately hurt your horse more frequently than you're allowed to, run him till he needs oxygen and drenching with water by several people immediately, and risk his life on the sort of jumps where a horse can be thrown vertically down to the ground, landing on its head.

Honestly how CAN anyone seek to justify this? This is the whole point - you seem to think it's worth the risk to the horses, I don't. How many horses die in cross country, Mitchy? How many are severely injured? Not that many I imagine.

and what's the point of stamina anyway if it just gets a load of horses ill or dead? It really does make me sick that people enjoy this. If a circus act risked the animals' lives or health it would be banned. But this spectacle of suffering is still allowed for some nefarious reason, and I don't hesitate to call that reason money. Or maybe it's just sheer selfishness.

[CaveMum]

Ginger McCain, and other trainers, have said that lowering the fences encourages them to be jumped at speed.

Many things have been done to improve the safety of the race: the quality of the horses has been raised (horses must meet a minimum standard to qualify to run), jockeys must have a minimum number of wins under their belt, the recent introduction of the runout areas, etc.
I agree more can be done: I wouldn't have a problem in a drop in the maximum field size from 40 to, say 30, and I also wouldn't have a problem with the drop at Beechers being modified. I'd go so far as to say I don't have an issue with the distance being dropped to 4m, though it must be remembered that the whole point of the race is that it is a stamina test.

To say that any race is cruel is to grossly underestimate what cruelty is: the deliberate causing of suffering. No one sets out to injure or kill a horse and to suggest as such is offensive in the extreme.

[MitchiestInge]

I don't know if Ginger is right or if he is that it was foreseeable that reducing the drop would increase speed?

[MitchiestInge]

I just wondered if you were like my 'cross country is cruel' friend, I mean there are things about advanced dressage that could be described as cruel. And of course horses have died going round Badminton etc

The National is awful to watch isn't it, I just sort of accept that it's a risky event and that sometimes horses and people die.