Dead horse at Aintree today

Ambers Echo said:
All the stories today stem from a 2018 tweet by Zack criticising the national. It’s just trying to shift attention from what he’s actually focused on like rent controls, water renationalisation, taxing extreme wealth and green energy. Those policies were attacked as lunacy but are very popular so they are just dragging up anything they hope scares people off the Greens. JC all over again…

Green Party policy is currently to ban whips not to ban all racing.
Click to expand...

Just to add to this - Zack is also on record from historical tweets as condemning use of horses in sport, and at the Olympics. As a vegan that is not a surprising stance for an individual to have. But there is a massive difference between what his personal values might be and what Green Party Policy is. Not just for Zack but for any politician. Politicians know that they need to create manifestos that people will support. Tim Farron led a party that was extremely progressive on LGBT issues despite his own conservative Christian beliefs. The press hounded him for that but surely the ability to recognise that private conviction and party policy are not always going to aligned. Or Sadiq Khan would be banning drinking in London! Zack has frequently said he does not drink, fly, or drive. His own moral position on lots of things is pretty extreme compared to the public. That does not mean the manifesto will be extreme.
 
LadyGascoyne said:
I agree it's quite plausible that the jockey did not know how badly injured the horse was. But I do think that after a horse made such a bad mistake, the jockey is likely to have been aware that the horse wasn't feeling quite the same as it had been.

I know that if one of my horses were to stumble or slip, I would have neurotic, fully imagined lameness for the rest of the ride even if they are absolutely fine. I think the natural, non-competitive instinct is to be hyper vigilant if the horse has done something odd.

But we all do make a decision based on personal thresholds as to how we end rides where the horse has slipped or tripped, even if it's just schooling at home or hacking out. Some people will jump off immediately and call it a day, some might elect to get get back on if the horse seems ok and finish on a good note, some won't get off and will check lameness from the saddle.

For me, I think the severity of this injury is what gets it into the press but it's not actually that relevant. If the injury was a minor tendon injury so perfectly survivable, or even a major one where it might have been survivable if stopped immediately, how does that change the way we view the jockey's decision not to pull up a horse which must have, even for two strides after the fence which the jockey attributed to pulling himself together, not felt quite right after a slip?

At some point, some variation of the following logic must have been at play 'Oh no, that was a bad slip. This doesn't feel right. Ok, it doesn't seem as bad as I thought. I'm keeping going."

And for me, it's a question of why a bad slip and a few strides of not feeling right didn't trigger the jockey to pull up immediately regardless.

Lots of things could have come into it but I suspect it's a combination of wanting to win, expectations of owners and trainers, being on the wrong side of opinion if he'd got off and the horse was absolutely fine and he'd lost the race for punters for 'no reason', and quite probably, that many horses cross the line not quite as right as they started so the norm for condition at the finish is probably not where leisure horse norms are.

I think that generally (accepting one does get bad eggs) jockeys are largely victims of the system too. I don't think crucifying the jockey will achieve much or lays the blame at the right door.

A regulatory overhaul of horse racing (and other horse sports) should be a priority if the sport wants to remain defensible.
Click to expand...
Agree
 
little_critter said:
How would a broken back be diagnosed by a vet?
I assume in those moments after the race the horse wasn’t x rayed etc.
So to determine it’s a broken back so quickly the injury must have been pretty obvious….not an is it - isn’t it symptom.
Click to expand...
It was stated that the horse became wobbly and collapsed behind the screens. I would think once stationery the horse could not stand due to the injury and failing co-ordination due to spinal impingement.

There is an answer to the question mentioned earlier 'would it make any difference if the horse was pts 10 seconds before it was'

No, it would not have made any difference to the horse but it would have made a huge difference to the financial situation for connections. The winner takes £67,700. The owner, O'Leary, the yard Closutton and the jockey all earned percentages of varying levels.

At the top end of the industry everything is about money and ego's. Look at the sales returns, huge prices being paid for geldings by a very small number of multi millionaires who dominate the sport. The big players want a return on their money. The only person emotionally involved with the loss of the horse yesterday is the lad/lass who is caring for it on a daily basis. The vast majority of us on the forum will look at the incident as horse lovers, as welfare advocates, with emotion perhaps thinking of our own horses. In reality most racehorses are commodities, the thoroughbred industry is big business with little compassion attached to it. I like to see small yards, owner/breeders do well, they are far more hands on and involved with the horses. O'Leary gave a statement about the horse, I wonder if he has ever given it a pat or a carrot, I doubt it.

It was a bleak day for racing yesterday. I hope today does not see more dead and I hope today sees a small yard/owner doing well.
 
AdorableAlice said:
It was stated that the horse became wobbly and collapsed behind the screens. I would think once stationery the horse could not stand due to the injury and failing co-ordination due to spinal impingement.

There is an answer to the question mentioned earlier 'would it make any difference if the horse was pts 10 seconds before it was'

No, it would not have made any difference to the horse but it would have made a huge difference to the financial situation for connections. The winner takes £67,700. The owner, O'Leary, the yard Closutton and the jockey all earned percentages of varying levels.

At the top end of the industry everything is about money and ego's. Look at the sales returns, huge prices being paid for geldings by a very small number of multi millionaires who dominate the sport. The big players want a return on their money. The only person emotionally involved with the loss of the horse yesterday is the lad/lass who is caring for it on a daily basis. The vast majority of us on the forum will look at the incident as horse lovers, as welfare advocates, with emotion perhaps thinking of our own horses. In reality most racehorses are commodities, the thoroughbred industry is big business with little compassion attached to it. I like to see small yards, owner/breeders do well, they are far more hands on and involved with the horses. O'Leary gave a statement about the horse, I wonder if he has ever given it a pat or a carrot, I doubt it.

It was a bleak day for racing yesterday. I hope today does not see more dead and I hope today sees a small yard/owner doing well.
Click to expand...
Do not forget the support of our dear Royal Family.
 
Clodagh said:
So really doubt the poor horse was feeling pain. That is the only positive from the whole thing, to me.
Click to expand...
from the pic of the incident in post 22 I have never seen a happier looking horse. Certainly didn't look to be in any pain or distress. :mad::mad::mad:

If someone wants to go hunting and break their hand no problem at all with that. Your choice. The horse didn't have one. It simply lost it's life because it was a commodity that people wanted to make money on. I just find it amazing that apparent horse lovers can even think of supporting an activity where we know without any doubt that some horses will be killed ie at that particular race meeting and the next one and the next.
 
palo1 said:
Jockeys are paid to make those split second decisions, that is exactly their skill set. If they cannot do that to protect the horse, they are incompetent.
Click to expand...

Indeed. I watched my beautiful TB trot across the field to me looking good. Tacked up, got on, walked 4 steps and got off. He'd had a fall in the field and had sore back muscles. He looked sound, but the second he moved I felt it. If I can feel it a professional jockey bloody well should be able to.

Ive lost track of the times Ive gotten off because something feels slighly off as I'm sure any horse owner/regular rider has.
 
honetpot said:
Racing is now seen even more as just a jolly day out, a chance to dress up and in my experience get drunk, and the participants have no interest in the racing. I was brought up near a racecourse and over the years its has evolved in to just another experience of the day out and not about the horses.
Click to expand...
This is a good point. If racing was about the horses, it probably wouldn’t exist. Of course the vast majority of people who work in the racing industry love their horses but maybe it’s the racing itself
3OldPonies said:
Rather than being defended he should be losing his licence and warned off all racecourses. I can barely believe that a 'top' jockey can even begin to think he did the right thing. Surely there's a case for bringing the sport into disrepute at the very least given how many people saw this incident and were disgusted by it? I mean it's hardly the best publicity for a sport that keeps trying to tell us the welfare of the horses is paramount.
Click to expand...
unfortunately they had an inquiry at Aintree after the race and decided the jockey did no wrong.
Absolute whitewash
 
Ambers Echo said:
Yes - it's systems not people that are the problem. People live within systems. If systems reward animal abuse and punish welfare then nothing well ever improve for horses. In higher level dressage, stress and conflict behaviours have been shown to be rewarded in marking. In racing, jockeys would be villified for pulling up if it turned out horses was just a bit jarred up. I think what bothers me so much is the excuses now. The refusal to say this is wrong. Perhaps horses need to pass a vetting at the end as well as before hand for prize money or bets to pay out in all horse disciplines.
Click to expand...
The people choose to operate within the system though.
And many many more choose to support it.

Systems are not an organic phenomenon. They are created, developed, perpetuated and protected by people.

The only participants who truly have no choice in the matter are the horses.
 
DabDab said:
The people choose to operate within the system though.
And many many more choose to support it.

Systems are not an organic phenomenon. They are created, developed, perpetuated and protected by people.

The only participants who truly have no choice in the matter are the horses.
Click to expand...
That's true but humans gonna human. Welfare agencies can and should protect horses so much better than they do.

And perhaps cultural attitudes might shift if change came from the top. I am sure child labour law reforms were seen as ludicrous woke pandering at the time.
 
If a jockey eases up on or pulls up a horse that is not travelling well in a race they are often themselves hauled up before the stewards to explain why they didn’t ride out for the win.

Racing is all about the money and the betting, it has never been about horse welfare despite all the PR guff that is put out to try and placate true horse lovers.

Make no mistake, plenty of punters who bet on Gold Dancer will have no issue with him being whipped to the line rather than pulled up, just so that they could get their pay out which is all they care about.
 
I think that generally (accepting one does get bad eggs) jockeys are largely victims of the system too. I don't think crucifying the jockey will achieve much or lays the blame at the right door.


[/QUOTE]


Thing is he is a very good jockey, riding high profile horses in important races, it will be his sense of judgement that is questioned, if the top jocks dont get it right it exposes all horses to the possibility of a fatal incident

In the way that dujardin of gold medal fame using a whip calls into question what those beneath her do to their horses, as well as those at the top are failing to see they are bringing the house down for the industry by providing the evidence against their own sports moral issues

Greyhound racing was another one, the wastage, no hate that word, deaths, serious injuries, and destruction of healthy dogs and failure to address what everyone knew going on stopped a lot of that.
 
equinerebel said:
So, what is a jockeys job? To win the race, or to look after the horse they’re working?

It cannot always be both.
Click to expand...
To look after the horse first of course. Then assuming this is accomplished, to win the race. But never the second at the expense of the first.

Having looked at the footage posted here, not the whole race, I believe that the horse did slow considerably after that slip. I’d be surprised if the jockey didn’t notice at least the change in speed, if not in the horse’s action.

To those claiming that the horse was running on adrenaline and probably unaware - I hope you are right, but not because it makes it ok for the jockey to continue.
 
I thought if a horse broke its back it couldnt stand?

but sacro may continue till movement in the injury depending on the location,made it impossible
 
Abacus said:
To look after the horse first of course. Then assuming this is accomplished, to win the race. But never the second at the expense of the first.
Click to expand...

But that's the thing, really - it can't be their job. They are only employed to do the job of riding races with the aim to win. Jockeys who routinely question the soundness, fitness or welfare interests of horses would find themselves out of a job very quickly, and it's an already brutal industry. If they were looking after the horse first, there would be an inherent conflict with for those trainers, owners and punters who don't really mind sacrificing a few horses for sport. And there are definitely many of those, as there are many of those that feel the opposite.

Then the trainer works for the owner, not the horse. They can advise on longer term strategic soundness and sense in running the horse but, ultimately, their interest is whilst the horse runs and their 'boss' is the owner.

And the owners may not even know anything about horses or have any relationship with the horse beyond money.

So no one there is truly advocating for the horse.

Regulators and track officials have a primary duty to protect the sport - which is also not always the same as the wellbeing of the horse in front of you. So that is why I feel that the regulatory shift has to happen to tie the welfare of the horse directly to the survival of the sport. If that is the permissive element, then regulators will be, by design, on the horses' side.

I'm drawing parallels in my mind to clinical trials. Pharma companies trial new drugs (often a great thing, sometimes not a great thing) on patients. Consent is the basis, but consent in this space is complex because often patients are desperate and will make desperate choices. In my mind, this feels a bit like... whilst we could say that racehorses who don't want to race absolutely won't, but generally we know that the horse taking part in the race is also not doing that of their own free will, it's just the choice they've opted for in a limited set of less than ideal circumstances.

In trials, we know that pharma does have a lot of pressure on it to put the patient first, and there are a lot of really wonderful people striving for new cures working in pharma. But we also know that, corporately, everyone working in pharma does have the primary incentive of getting their drug to market. So they are inherently conflicted.

The regulators don't rely solely on pharma's version of events when approving trials to be run. There are patient advocacy groups, independent study steering committees, and independent clinical opinions which form part of oversight to ensure that even if patients have consented, the trial is being run in their best interests and in a manner which is ethically sound.

I think the problem we face with horse racing is that a lot of the potential advocacy groups just want horse racing banned. We wouldn't be able to routinely run patient and public involvement and engagement in clin trials if the answer was always "don't run trials".

I think until there can be a less extreme dialogue about racing (and all horse sports) then it's going to be harder for horses to have proper representation for their welfare.
 
I guess the really big question here is - is it ok in this supposedly enlightened age to still find it acceptable that animals are being bred specifically for monetary gain through entertainment and that's it is also acceptable for them to be injured or die for our pleasure?

If we're not learning from the 'error of judgement' in this case then nothing will progress and the sport cannot evolve and will remain stuck in it's ways until it gets banned. Take a look at what happened with dog racing if you don't believe me.

As others have said on here too many people go racing without giving a 💩 about the horses, it's become a family day out with fairgrounds and boozers. If race courses can't survive without that then they've obviously got a problem and need to take a really good hard look at whether racing actually does have a sustainable future.
 
jhoward said:
I actually think he looked wrong before the last fence. Watching his back legs sever times.
Who knows it could of been a problem already there that broke the horse on the day.

Should the jockey be banned no I don't think so.

Should the sport be banned no I don't think so.

Whipping. For all of those saying whipping the jockeys are allowed to make contact a very minimal amount of times with a shock absorbing specially designed whip.

Can any one imagine the huge impact it would have if equine sports stopped?

Further more the UK is one of the strictest counties in the world, regarding equine welfare go abroad and see how horses are treated. Ours honestly have the better lifes.
Click to expand...
No, the UK isn't the country with the strictest rules.....

Switzerland has banned the whip in flat racing, racing didn't stop and people are still enjoying watching it.

There is a way forward without abusing horses.

It's possible to do better and the UK isn't the best, the mistake is to believe than the UK is the best and because it's been like this forever it's ok to carry on
without asking questions...
 
I still can't quote (never got the hang of it !) , but the person who asked how the spinal injury was diagnosed, the vets on course have a handheld ultrasound scanner, similar to those used to do pregnancy checks on horses/cows/sheep etc - the scan showed the spinal damage. The nerves were affected hence the weird gait and snatchy type back leg movement and the wobbling seen at the end of the clip when the jockey got off (after being told by another jockey the horse was "wrong behind" ). I am not an expert, but I could see the horse wasn't moving soundly (as did the commentator) but hoped that the sploot had simply left bruising, and that some pain relief and rest would see the horse shown on next weeks morning line being hand grazed at home, none the worse for the error. The outcome was not at all what I thought would happen. Did the jockey know ? I hope he didn't, as if he did - god help him live with his choice. Should he have known ? I doubt anyone but him will know that either. Have other horses done the same type of thing and been fine - yes. Should he have stopped - hindsight is a lovely thing. Would it have changed anything for the horse - perhaps. Many horses have been fine after back/pelvic fractures given time and rest. Did galloping another 150y make a difference - maybe. Was it that the horse was made to finish the race before he was even checked over - yes. There is a reason that remounting after a fall was banned.
 
I've never been into racing, but have watched nearly every National over the last 45 years, as it was a family tradition when I was a kid, and it kind of stuck with me.

Over the last few years I have begun to question my morals, and increasingly, racing (flat and jump) has been sitting less and less well with me. This poor horse yesterday is the final nail. After seeing the clip and photos of GD earlier on this thread, which are heartbreaking, I can't watch anymore, so last year's National is the last race I'll ever see.
 
I used to love racing jump and flat. The Grand National was an annual event as a child and then with my own children gathered round the TV, sweepstake at work and within the family etc.
Then at a small race meeting in Sussex with a group of my husband's clients on a corporate day out it changed. I watched the parade in the paddock, picked my horse and placed my bet. It was a flat race, he was beautiful, a big bay full of himself. He pulled up one third of the way round with an obvious hind fracture.

What devastated me was was I was the only distressed person who "embarassed" them by quietly crying in the group. They were angry that the race was stopped and screens put up and racing delayed. I've not been since, nor watched a race. I knew horses died but didnt realise how few people cared.
 
Janique said:
No, the UK isn't the country with the strictest rules.....

Switzerland has banned the whip in flat racing, racing didn't stop and people are still enjoying watching it.

There is a way forward without abusing horses.

It's possible to do better and the UK isn't the best, the mistake is to believe than the UK is the best and because it's been like this forever it's ok to carry on
without asking questions...
Click to expand...
I said one of not the.

I think banning of the whip would make. A lot of people happy. And personally don't see it would effect the sport.
 
I expect many of us will know stories about horses running on when they are catastrophically injured. I've got one, about a horse that was hit by a car. The difference between the one in my story, and what happened yesterday, is that the one in my story was not whipped to go faster, to win money.
Even if the jockey thought the horse was merely tired, I don't think it was justified to use the whip.
I used to love racing, seeing this just sickens me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top